Lise Moawad and Sebastian Ludwicki-Ziegler
This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Social studies, technology assessment and the pandemic: a comparative analysis of social studies-based policy advice in PTA institutions in France, Germany and the UK during the COVID-19 crisis’.
Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 pandemic has raised public awareness of the use of science by political decision-makers. Policymakers favouring plug-and-play solutions offered by ostensibly neutral ‘hard science’ is arguably not new, and the impression is somewhat reinforced by STEM-leaning structures dedicated to the assessment of science and technology. The underlying predisposition towards social sciences, arts and humanities of being somewhat biased or not neutral is still a commonplace critique. However, there has been a notable change in the role of social studies (encompassing humanities, arts and social sciences) for science and technology assessment in the last few years. Social studies were arguably at the forefront of debates examining the impact of COVID-19 on education and rule compliance. Taking advantage of their insights and methods has not just been welcomed by policymakers but has become an unavoidable necessity.
Our research evaluated the integration of social studies in parliamentary structures dedicated to the assessment of science and technology (PTA structures) in France (Office parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques [OPECST]), Germany (Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag [TAB]) and the United Kingdom (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology [POST]) during the COVID-19 pandemic (3/2020 to 2/2022). To assess the role of social studies in these PTA structures, we utilised Hanna Pitkin’s concept of representation and used a multi-method approach (document analysis and prosopography). While our results give grounds for some optimism that social studies has potential for providing valuable insights, its analytical capacities and evidence – albeit to varying degrees – remain underutilised.
Our findings manifest in two ways: While we found that social studies were increasingly referred to in the communication output by all three PTA structures during the pandemic, often references were complementary only – at times more like an afterthought. They usually focused on insights provided by STEM and their ready-to-use methods and approaches. Only when ethical questions were raised, were social studies at the centre stage of attention. Consequently, topics and practices where social studies played a central role can be narrowed down to a relatively short list of predefined issues. This sobering result was also mirrored when looking at the educational background of PTA members.
We observed that OPECST and POST formally represent social studies, since knowledge provided by social studies is made accountable to designated policymakers for the evidence they produce (formalistic representation). The French and British structures are also symbolically representative, as their officeholders somehow ‘stand for’ social studies. However, only TAB shows a descriptive representation, as it is the only PTA structure where officeholders resemble social studies scholars. As for the substantive representation, in which officeholders serve the ‘best interests’ of social studies, this is the most blurred in our three PTA institutions.
This uneven disciplinary representation directly impacts the democratic legitimacy of PTA institutions. PTA structures must recognise the political nature of their existence and support all forms of science to increase complexity and solutions that consider multiple perspectives, especially in times of a severe global health crisis. Social studies need more opportunities to contribute during, before and after times of crisis. While TAB already shows a high degree of integration of social studies, its focus on a few long-term projects is not necessarily conducive to contributing to a larger variety of debates. In comparison, OPECST barely has any social studies scholars and generally makes very little use of them. Moreover while POST shows higher degrees of integration, STEM subjects still dominate.
To address the identified issues, we recommend TAB and OPECST emulate POST’s fellowship programme to encourage PhD students with interdisciplinary backgrounds to become part of the policy process.
Image credit: Photo by Matt Seymour on Unsplash
Lise Moawad, Humboldt University, Berlin.
Sebastian Ludwicki-Ziegler, University of Stirling.
Read the original research in Evidence & Policy:
Moawad, L. & Ludwicki-Ziegler, S. (2025). Social studies, technology assessment and the pandemic: a comparative analysis of social studies-based policy advice in PTA institutions in France, Germany and the UK during the COVID-19 crisis. Evidence & Policy, DOI: 10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000043. OPEN ACCESS
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading:
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Evidence & Policy Blog 