Imageries of the social world in epistemic governance

Abstract

To explain why neoinstitutionalist theories have been so successful in explaining global isomorphism and to discuss how they can be extended to describe otherwise inexplicable similarities in the world, the article approaches policy-making from an epistemic governance perspective. Utilizing a constructionist view on language, the article argues that popular and political rhetoric are inextricably bound to social scientific conceptions of reality through the use of root metaphors that are, in turn, woven into convincing imageries of social reality. In addition to the well-known culturally constructed imagery of social change as driven by functional requirements of modernization, two other imageries are identified: society as a hierarchy and the social world as comprising competing blocs. These three imageries are then discussed as key discursive ingredients for both social scientific and political actors seeking to understand and change the world. Finally, the implications of the article for future research are discussed.

The mental map of national hierarchy in Europe

“…In these schemas, desirable attributes include open and democratic governance, capitalist economic institutions, science and technology, a modern demographic regime, personal freedoms, human rights protections and gender equality, to name a few (Meyer et al 1997). Scientists, policymakers, civil society organisations and governments have broadly disseminated ideas about the attributes of the "ideal" nation and prescriptions for how countries labelled as "less developed" can progress toward "modernity" (Alasuutari and Qadir 2016;Towns and Rumelili 2017).…”

“…Such perceptions of national hierarchy constitute a set of status beliefs or assumptions that associate more or less esteem and competence to some social groups and less to others (Ridgeway et al 2009). They shape how individuals, organisations and nationstates imagine themselves and others (Alasuutari and Qadir 2016;Buchanan and Cantril 1953). Even when perceptions of national hierarchy match some observable differences in material indicators, such as gross domestic product per capita, they are nevertheless powerful and influential in their own right.…”

Framing Power: Tracing Key Discourses in Open Science Policies

“…In this way, public policies are instruments of what has been dubbed "epistemic governance": the notion that knowledge-related paradigms underlie social systems, and therefore, sustain governance models. Epistemic governance posits that global governance is in large part built on processes of knowledge production and transfer negotiated by stakeholders who belong to and represent a set of interests, relationships and institutional demands (Alasuutari &Qadir, 2010, Buduru andPal 2010). Under this notion, policies are not neutral, but speak to and evoke these actors' deep-seated values, beliefs and paradigmatic assumptions (Alasuutari & Qadir, 2010;Alasuutari, 2010).…”

Authority as epistemic capital

“…One feature of the common concept of authority appears to be that we presuppose an organizational hierarchy in which authority comprises power possessed by those residing 'high up' in society, able to dictate what those placed lower can or must do. Consequently, actors utilize the assumption of hierarchy as one of the cultural imageries of the social world (Alasuutari and Qadir 2016). For instance, actors who want to influence national policies often attempt to create and utilize the impression that international governmental organizations such as the UNICEF have sanctioning power over government policies .…”