Design and practices of experts' work in the Russian Age Rating System
The article deals with experts' contribution to the Russian Age Rating System. It aims to understand the real functions of this new type of experts' work created in 2012: Does it provide conflict resolution in this system, work as a barrier for unwelcome content, or help to appropriate implementation of the law on the media safety of children? For this purpose, the author analyzed the institutional design of this experts' work and its place in the system of children's information security, drew the generalized portrait of experts and expert organizations, and studied the practices of initiating examinations, as well as interactions between experts and their clients. The research is based on biographical and other data from the registers of accredited experts and expert organizations, the results of all expert examinations from the start of the system to the end of 2021, laws and regulations, and semi-structured interviews with experts themselves. The author found that experts' work, which had been introduced into the Russian Age Rating System as a means of resolving disputes and doubts or as independent arbitration, never formed a significant institution for almost ten years of its existence. The contradictions of design due to optionality, the market method to engage experts, and the weak regulation of procedures cause its weakness. The rules of experts' activity arise spontaneously, they are implicit and local, and the expert body's composition is heterogeneous. However, the design problems have a dual impact. On the one hand, they do not contribute to the development of expert activity and do not ensure demand for it. On the other hand, they create opportunities for modeling the results of expert examinations in accordance with clients' interests through the selection of a suitable expert and informal communications prior to the conclusion of the contract with an expert, and it is not necessarily corruption. So, expert knowledge is used very selectively. Demand for it does not correlate with the proportions of classification's violations in different media. Rather, it reflects the activity of individuals among stakeholders who pay attention to this expert institution for ideological reasons or considerations of a moment.
Keywords
expert examination,
children media safety,
age classification system,
age ratings,
expertsAuthors
| Krasheninnikova Yulia A. | National Research University Higher School of Economics | jkrasheninnikova@hse.ru |
Всего: 1
References
Weingart P. Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics // Science and public policy. 1999. Т. 26, № 3. P. 151-161.
Salter L., Leiss W., Levy E. Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Public Policy. Vol. 1: Springer Science & Business Media, 1988.
Jasanoff Sh. The Fifth Branch. Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard University Press, 1990.
Jasanoff Sh. Quality control and peer review in advisory science // The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for quality assurance / ed. by J. Lentsch, P. Weingart. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Р. 19-35.
Boswell C. The political functions of expert knowledge: Knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy // Journal of European Public Policy. 2008. Т. 15, № 4. Р. 471-488.
Krick E. The epistemic quality of expertise: contextualized criteria for the multi-source, negotiated policy advice of stakeholder for a // Critical Policy Studies. 2016. Т. 12, № 2. Р. 209-226.
Zarkin М. Knowledge utilization in the regulatory state: an empirical examination of Schrefler's typology // Policy Studies. 2021. Т. 42, № 1. Р. 24-41.
Прудникова О. А. Защита детей в информационной сфере: эффективность нововведений // Вестник Башкирского университета. 2013. Т. 18, № 4. С. 1349-1351.
Полянина А. К. Понятие информационной продукции как ключевой категории системы правового обеспечения информационной безопасности детей // Lex russica. 2015. № 11. С. 75-82.
Майоров В. И., Дорогова Е. В. Проблемы обеспечения безопасности в информационной сфере // Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. 2015. № 13. С. 48-55.
Смирнов К. Б. Особенности оценки рейтинга аудиовизуальной продукции по возрастной классификации в Российской Федерации как важного элемента механизма государственного регулирования // Петербургский экономический журнал. 2016. № 3. С. 49-55.
Гольтяпина И. Ю. Законодательство России в области обеспечения информационной безопасности детей // Эпоха науки. 2017. № 12. С. 17-25.
Грудзинский А. О., Полянина А. К. Экспертные оценки продуктов медиаиндустрии: информационная безопасность детей // Социологические исследования. 2021. № 7. С. 83-89.
Крашенинникова Ю. Дети и страхи в массмедиа // Отечественные записки. 2013. № 2. С. 191-200.
Jordan A.B. Children's media policy // The future of children. 2008. Т. 18, № 1. Р. 235-253.
Gentile D.A. et al. Parents' evaluation of media ratings a decade after the television ratings were introduced // Pediatrics. 2011. Т. 128, № 1. Р. 36-44.
Gosselt J., van Hoof J., de Jong M. Media rating systems: Do they work? Shop floor compliance with age restrictions in the Netherlands // Mass communication and society. 2012. Т. 15, № 3. Р. 335-359.
Kaye B.K., Sapolsky B.S. Offensive language in prime-time television: Four years after television age and content ratings // Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 2004. Т. 48, № 4. Р. 554-569.
Bushman B.J., Cantor J. Media ratings for violence and sex: Implications for policymakers and parents // American Psychologist. 2003. Т. 58, № 2. Р. 130-142.
Leenders M.A.A.M., Eliashberg J. The antecedents and consequences of restrictive age-based ratings in the global motion picture industry // International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2011. Т. 28, № 4. Р. 367-377.
Signorielli N. Age-based ratings, content designations, and television content: Is there a problem? // Mass Communication & Society. 2005. Т. 8, № 4. Р. 277-298.
Benson D., Jordan A. What have we learned from policy transfer research? Dolowitz and Marsh revisited // Political studies review. 2011. Т. 9, № 3. Р. 366-378.
Стенограммы обсуждения законопроекта № 155209-5 «О защите детей от информации, причиняющей вред их здоровью и развитию», заседания № 101 от 24.06.2009 и № 201 от 21.12.2010 // Официальный сайт Государственной Думы РФ. URL: http://api.duma.gov.ru/api/transcript/155209-5 (дата обращения: 14.03.2022).
Gustafsson K.M., Lidskog R. Organizing international experts: IPBES's efforts to gain epistemic authority // Environmental Sociology. 2018. Т. 4, № 4. Р. 445-456.
Борисова Е. И. Информационная безопасность детства: дискуссии продолжаются // Вестник Кемеровского государственного университета культуры и искусств. 2014. № 29-1. С. 123-128.
Шариков А.В., Проскурнова Е.Л., Кандакжи Л. Проблемы возрастной маркировки на российских телеканалах // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Литературоведение, журналистика. 2018. Т. 23, № 4. С. 428-440.
Архипова А.С. и др. Группы смерти: от игры к моральной панике. Исследовательская группа «Мониторинг актуального фольклора». 2017.
Проект закона Санкт-Петербурга «О порядке заключения договоров на проведение экспертизы информационной продукции» // Официальный сайт Законодательного Собрания Санкт-Петербурга. URL: www.assembly.spb.ru/ndoc/doc/0/777304993 (дата обращения: 14.03.2022).
Коробкин А.Н. Проблемы осуществления независимой антикоррупционной экспертизы // Журнал российского права. 2012. № 9 (189). С. 60-65.
