Экспертные сообщества и власть. А. Ю. Сунгуров

London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The Republic of Science, Its Political and Economic Theory // Minerva. № 1. Р. 54–73; Fleck L. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago, 1979 (translated from the 1935 edition printed in German); Holzner B., Marx John H. Knowledge Application: The Knowledge System in Society. Boston, 1979.

      8

      Heclo H. Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance. New Haven, 1974. P. 305

      9

      Hall P.A. Conclusion: The political power of economic ideas // P.A. Hall, ed. The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism Across Nations. Princeton, 1989. P. 361–392; Etheredge Lloyd S. Government learning: An overview // S.L. Long, ed. The Handbook of Political Behavior. Vol. 2. New York, 1981; Richard R. What is lesson-drawing // Journal of Public Policy. 1991. 11. P. 3–30; May P.J. Policy Learning and Failure // Journal of Public Policy. Vol. 12. № 4. Oct. – Dec., 1992. P. 331–354.

      10

      Сунгуров А.Ю. Как возникают политические инновации: «фабрики мысли» и другие институты-медиаторы. М., 2015. Гл. 3.

      11

      Dunlop Claire A., Radaelli C.M. Systematising Policy Learning: From Monolith to Dimensions // Political Studies. 2013. Vol. 61. P. 599–619.

      12

      Sabatier P., Jenkins-Smith H. (eds). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1993; Sabatier P., Jenkins-Smith H. The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment // Sabatier P. (ed.). Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, CO, 1997; Sabatier P.A. The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe // Journal of European Public Policy. 1998. Vol. 5. № 1. Р. 98–130.

      13

      Peter M. Haas. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination // International Organization Vol. 46. № 1; Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination. Winter, 1992. P. 1–35; Davis Cross М.К. Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later // Review of International Studies Vol. 39. № 1. January 2013. Р. 137–160.

      14

      Knorr-Cetina K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; Dunlop C.A. Epistemic Communities and Two Goals of Delegation: Hormone Growth Promoters in the European Union // Science and Public Policy 2010. № 37 (3). Р. 205–17; Makarychev А. PONARS as a transnational epistemic community: An Insider’s View // Problems of Post-Communism. Vol. 59. № 2. March/April 2012. P. 4350; Loblova О. When Epistemic Communities Fail: Exploring the Mechanism of Policy Influence // The Policy Studies Journal Vol. 46. № 1. 2018. P. 160–189. doi: 10.1111/psj.12213.

      15

      «Scientists should be on tap not on top». Цит. по: Rogers M.D. The European Commission and the collection and use of science and technology advice // The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance / еd. by J. Lentsch and P. Weingart. Cambridge, 2011. P. 115.

      16

      Сунгуров, 2015; Балаян А.А., Сунгуров А.Ю. Фабрики мысли и экспертные сообщества. СПб., 2016.

      17

      Sarewitz D. Looking for quality in the wrong places, or: the technological origin of quality in scientific policy advice // The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance / еd. by J. Lentsch and P. Weingart. Cambridge, 2011. P. 54–70; Sarewitz D. How science makes environmental problems controversies worse // Environmental Science and Policy. 2004. № 7. Р. 385–403.

      18

      Oreskes N. Reconciling representation with reality: unitization as example for science and public policy // The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance / еd. by J. Lentsch and P. Weingart. Cambridge, 2011. P. 36–53.

      19

      Кун Т. Структура научных революций. М., 1986.

      20

      Oreskes N. Science and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it? // Environmental Science & Policy. 2004. № 7. Р. 369–383.

      21

      Gieryn T.F. Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists //American Sociological Review. 1983. Vol. 48. № 6. P. 781–795.

      22

      Sabatier P.A. The Acquisition and Utilization of Technical Information by Administrative Agencies // Administrative Science Quarterly. 1978. № 23. Р. 396–417; Weiss C.H. Research and Policy-Making: A Limited Partnership // F. Heller (ed.). The Use and Abuse of Social Science. Sage: London, 1986. P. 214235; Radaelli C.M. The Role of Knowledge in the Policy Process // Journal of European Public Policy. 1995. Vol. 2. № 2. Р. 159–183.

      23

      Feldman M.S. and March J.G. Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol // Administrative Science Quarterly. 1981. № 26. Р. 171–86; March J.G. Decisions and Organizations. Oxford, 1988.

      24

      Boswell C. The political functions of expert knowledge: Knowledge and legitimation in European Union Immigration Policy // Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 15. № 4. May 2008. P. 4721–4788; idem. The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research, 2009.

      25

      Brunsson N. The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations. Copenhagen, 2002.

      26

      Hunter A., Boswell C. Comparing the Political Functions of Independent Commissions: the Case of UK Migrant Integration Policy // Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 2015. Vol. 17. № 1. Р. 10–25.

      27

      Jasanoff Sh. The Fifth Branch: science Advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990; idem. States of Knowledge: The Coproduction of Science and Social Order. London, UK: Routledge, 2004; idem. Designs of Nature, 2005.

      28

      Idem. Science at the bar: law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England, 1997. P. XV.

      29

      Jasanoff Sh. Quality control and peer review in advisory science // The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance / еd. by J. Lentsch and P. Weingart. Cambridge, 2011. P. 19–35.

      30

      Guston D.H. Stabilizing the boundary between U.S. politics and science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science. 1999. Vol. 29. № 1. Р. 87–112; Guston D.H. Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction // Science, Technology, & Human Values Vol. 26. № 4. Special Issue: Boundary Organizations in Environmental