Soft Steering Research Articles

“It Forces You to Publish Some Shit”: Toward a Taxonomy of De-Democratizing Journalistic Practices

Several studies argue that journalism can facilitate and shape democratic backsliding when news organizations are captured by business and political elites. Under these conditions, journalists will likely fail to hold political actors to account and provide information essential for public deliberation. Gradually, news outlets devolve to provide unfair representations based on private interests instead of news coverage guided by public interest. However, research still lacks a systematic and detailed analysis of practices in news production that could be capable of damaging democracy. Not only is evidence very scarce, but it is also limited to the content analysis of news outputs and editorials. Using forty semistructured interviews and three case studies, this research investigates how journalists from the most influential outlets in Brazil covered key political events within a period of constant decline in the quality of democracy (2016–2021). Then, I build on the results to propose a new typology of de-democratizing journalistic practices: soft steering (recommendations pretending concern with standards, including partisan interpretations of balance), hard steering (direct orders, including internal censorship or entirely pre-defined stories), and anticipatory steering (reporters and editors act on their own based on perceptions and previous instructions). Moreover, this research offers evidence that de-democratizing journalistic practices can be internalized by news practitioners and, over time, replace democratic norms. Finally, it suggests a dynamic relationship between censorship and self-censorship in which control not only inhibits actions but also compels journalists to perform in specific ways.

Design and Superior Performance of a New Endotracheal Tube to Avoid the Asphyxiation of Premature Infants.

Background Neonatal endotracheal intubation attempts often fail, with failures typically attributable to unintended esophageal intubation, with asphyxia, brief or prolonged, as the consequence. Standard-of-care neonatal endotracheal tubes have changed little over recent decades, even as the gestational age of neonates thought eligible for resuscitation and intensive care has decreased. Methods A new neonatal endotracheal tube waspatterned after the soft steering mechanism of a two-string fishing line trocar.The new tuberemains patent throughout the intubation for air movement and CO2 detection and allows for a finger on the intubator's hand to stiffen, curve, and elevate the tip of the tube over the epiglottis and into the trachea without occluding the vision through a laryngoscope. Thistube's engineering principles were studied prospectively in a controlled open-label pilot studyin premature infants. Infantswereobserved during 12 intubationsin a one-to-one comparison with standard practice. Results The new design in comparison to a conventional neonatal endotracheal tube(CNETT) was found to be superior. The average intubation time (mean 36.6 sec, median 30 sec) was shorter (mean 44.6 sec, median 45 sec) in the new design. Intubation attempts were fewer (0 vs. 3), and unintended esophageal intubations were also fewer (0 vs. 4). Conclusion Tracheal intubation of premature infants with the new soft-steering mechanism endotracheal tube was associated with less asphyxia, fewer intubation attempts, and fewer esophageal intubations.

Who Fills the Global Governance Gap? Rethinking the Roles of Business and Government in Global Governance

Political CSR has made great strides towards a better appreciation of the political involvement of corporations in global governance. However, its portrayal of the shifting balance between business and government in the globalized economy rests on a central, yet largely uncontested, assumption: that of a zero-sum constellation of substitution in which firms take on public responsibilities to fill governance gaps left by governments. This conceptual paper expands the political CSR perspective and makes three contributions to the debate on the political role of business and the role of government in global governance. First, it deconstructs the problematic assumptions underlying the zero-sum notion of governance gaps filled by corporations. Second, it offers a variable-sum mapping of how private and public authority interact in global governance where substitution is only one of four constellations. The mapping identifies ‘soft steering’ as a prominent mode of governments governing business conduct. Third, the paper theorizes ‘orchestration’, a ‘soft steering’ tool discussed in the global governance literature, from an organizational, corporate perspective. It identifies the mechanisms through which orchestration may address the barriers to corporate engagement with the public good and applies these mechanisms to the case of the Global Reporting Initiative.

Development of a soft steering mechanism for thoracoscopic surgery

Development of a soft steering mechanism for thoracoscopic surgery

Public Accountability through Soft Steering

This article argues that present-day procedures on public accountability miss the essence of being accountable. We suggest that alternatives are available in social psychology theory and network theory, which point to the decisive role of peers or experienced organization members. In this view, it is not leadership but middle management that is crucial in the socialization of newcomers in an organization to internalize values and to create a situation in which employers and employees develop mutual expectations about what is expected from one another and create multiplex networks in order to maintain such values.

Governing local partnerships: does external steering help local agencies address wicked problems?

Partnerships have played an increasingly prominent role in local governance and there has been considerable debate about the impact which self-organising capacity and government intervention have on their effectiveness. This paper examines what kinds of self-steering local public service partnerships require in order to address intractable public policy problems, and whether external steering by government helps or hinders them. It concludes that ‘soft steering’ by government can be instrumental in establishing and mobilising partnerships. The type of self-steering they deploy depends on the context in which they operate and the kinds of collaborative activities they attempt.

Global Governance and Communicative Action

AbstractThis article discusses arguing and communicative action as a significant tool for non-hierarchical steering modes in global governance. Arguing is based on a logic of action that differs significantly from both the rational choice-based ‘logic of consequentialism’, and from the ‘logic of appropriateness’ theorized by sociological institutionalism. Arguing constitutes a learning mechanism by which actors acquire new information, evaluate their interests in light of new empirical and moral knowledge, and – most importantly – can reflexively and collectively assess the validity claims of norms and standards of appropriate behaviour. As a result, arguing and persuasion constitute tools of ‘soft steering’ that might improve both the legitimacy problems of global governance by providing voice opportunities to various stakeholders and the problem-solving capacity of governance institutions through deliberation.