Suchergebnisse

Existing research on depoliticisation emphasises how blame is shifted away from governments due to tactics employed by politicians. The argument of this article is that the analytical utility of this approach can be significantly enhanced by also examining the conduct of non-state actors, and broader contextual factors. Using a detailed case study of record flooding in the UK in 2007, the article shows how, despite significant failures in flood preparation, the agenda-setting and preference-shaping actions of politicians and the media, and the 'path-shaping' effects of a benign political context and volatile and unstable policy area, the government was largely absolved of blame in the eyes of the public. In particular, the article highlights a paradox of drivers that appear simultaneously politicising and depoliticising, but lead ultimately to depoliticisation. It is argued that these 'paradoxical' factors can be conceptualized usefully through a distinctive model of depoliticisation and securitisation.

The concepts of 'politicisation' and 'depoliticisation' have become increasingly used by political scientists over the last decade, in light of the presumed 'triumph' of neoliberal ideology in the 1990s, and its subsequent challenge ('re-politicisation') by the 2008 financial crisis. Debate has emerged in the literature, however, over what conceptual strategy is best for critically analysing depoliticisation – 'broad' or 'narrow'. This article argues for attempting to find common ground among 'competing' definitions, by viewing politicisation and depoliticisation as 'multilevel' concepts, with theoretical, analytical and empirical purchase. The uniting theme, it is argued, is a critical analysis of the dynamics of neoliberalism as a paradigm of political thought, and how that paradigm allegedly leads to the rise of 'anti-politics'. Thinking about (de)politicisation in this way helps avoid facile conceptual reinvention and stimulates a coherent yet pluralistic research agenda focused on translating insights and criticism across macro, meso and micro levels.

Recent debates and controversies have highlighted several issues surrounding sociological research, which relate to the general conditions under which it is undertaken and how this is changing. There is a pressing need to respond to these issues as a whole, in particular by examining what they tell us about research practices. This article argues that a consideration of themes raised by the American television drama The Wire is useful for facilitating such a response, since it may be read as a discussion of working conditions within neoliberal societies. The following themes are pertinent here: the need to reflect upon the terms by which research is framed by funders, to take adequate time to conduct and complete research, and to encourage critical debate within research. Whilst these relate to influential epistemological discussions by Pierre Bourdieu and Michael Burawoy, this reading of The Wire is particularly helpful for highlighting the practical and inter-relational situations in which sociological research is carried out but which tend not to receive the systematic attention they deserve.

Research Highlights and Abstract This article: Covers new empirical terrain in the study of depoliticisation, with an in-depth case study of health technology regulation; Analyses depoliticisation from a novel analytical perspective, examining how depoliticised institutions are resilient to external pressure for politicisation; Posits a distinctive framework for analysing resilience, drawing on cognate literatures on policy networks and agencification; Raises interesting and distinctive questions about the nature of depoliticisation in advanced liberal democracies, arguing it is more contested than commonly acknowledged. Depoliticisation as a concept offers distinctive insights into how governments attempt to relieve political pressures in liberal democracies. Analysis has examined the effects of depoliticisation tactics on the public, but not how those tactics are sustained during moments of political tension. Drawing on policy networks and agencification literatures, this article examines how these tactics are resilient against pressure for politicisation. Using an in-depth case study of the controversial appraisal of cancer drug Herceptin in 2005/6 by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the article examines how 'resilient' NICE was to external politicisation. It is argued that NICE was resilient because it was effectively 'insulated' by formal procedures and informal norms of deference to scientific expertise. This mechanism is termed 'institutional double glazing'. The conclusion suggests developments to the conceptual and methodological framework of depoliticisation, and highlights theoretical insights into the nature of 'anti-politics' in contemporary democracies.

This article argues that scholars overestimate the ability of a methodologically 'pluralistic' political science to gain impact in policymaking, which in Britain is increasingly 'positivist', privileging quantitative evidence. This 'relevance gap' between pluralistic political science and positivistic policymaking means that political scientists are disadvantaged in achieving 'impact' compared to disciplines like behavioural economics. The article proposes two solutions to bridge this 'gap': improving the 'accessibility' of research and stimulating 'interaction' between researchers and policymakers through methodological workshops. Adapted from the source document.

This article argues that scholars overestimate the ability of a methodologically 'pluralistic' political science to gain impact in policymaking, which in Britain is increasingly 'positivist', privileging quantitative evidence. This 'relevance gap' between pluralistic political science and positivistic policymaking means that political scientists are disadvantaged in achieving 'impact' compared to disciplines like behavioural economics. The article proposes two solutions to bridge this 'gap': improving the 'accessibility' of research and stimulating 'interaction' between researchers and policymakers through methodological workshops.