Correction to: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01261-x, published online 16 July 2022.

This paper included a number of errors introduced during typesetting relating to the TDP taxonomy listed in the paper.

On p. 4 the following was included in the original:

(A) The technocratic model aims to rationalize society by subverting it to the “objective knowledge of the expert” (Habermas, 1970, p. 63). This includes both the determination of means (technologies, strategies) and ends (practical goals). Science determines means and ends in a value-free manner (Kowarsch, 2016, p. 88). The SSIM hence suggests that “technical considerations are not just necessary but also sufficient for policy decision-making” (Millstone, 2005, p. 14).

(B) The decisionist model aims “to separate strictly the functions of the expert from those of the politician [and the decision-maker more general]” (Habermas, 1970, p. 63). However, this only holds for societal ends, which the SSIM assumes to be value-laden. But once the goals are set by societal actors, the means can and should be determined objectively by science. The SSIM’s main features are thus the value-freedom of the research process and a neutral role for science in societal debates (Millstone, 2005; Kowarsch, 2016).

(C) The pragmatist model envisions an iterative process, where science “is governed by a horizon of […] value systems” (Habermas, 1970, p. 67), and where social values are “being tested with regard to the technical possibilities [as identified by science]” (Habermas, 1970). While science actively shapes societal goals, it has no unquestionable authority. Rather, fact-finding and norm-setting are interdependent (Edenhofer and Kowarsch, 2015). The SSIM thus rejects both value-free research and the neutrality of science in public debates. The pragmatist model, or versions of it, represents the dominant trend in the current science–society literature (Kowarsch, 2016, p. 91).

This has now been amended to:

(T) The technocratic model aims to rationalize society by subverting it to the “objective knowledge of the expert” (Habermas, 1970, p. 63). This includes both the determination of means (technologies, strategies) and ends (practical goals). Science determines means and ends in a value-free manner (Kowarsch, 2016, p. 88). The SSIM hence suggests that “technical considerations are not just necessary but also sufficient for policy decision-making” (Millstone, 2005, p. 14).

(D) The decisionist model aims “to separate strictly the functions of the expert from those of the politician [and the decision-maker more general]” (Habermas, 1970, p. 63). However, this only holds for societal ends, which the SSIM assumes to be value-laden. But once the goals are set by societal actors, the means can and should be determined objectively by science. The SSIM’s main features are thus the value-freedom of the research process and a neutral role for science in societal debates (Millstone, 2005; Kowarsch, 2016).

(P) The pragmatist model envisions an iterative process, where science “is governed by a horizon of […] value systems” (Habermas, 1970, p. 67), and where social values are “being tested with regard to the technical possibilities [as identified by science]” (Habermas, 1970). While science actively shapes societal goals, it has no unquestionable authority. Rather, fact-finding and norm-setting are interdependent (Edenhofer and Kowarsch, 2015). The SSIM thus rejects both value-free research and the neutrality of science in public debates. The pragmatist model, or versions of it, represents the dominant trend in the current science–society literature (Kowarsch, 2016, p. 91).

In addition, the original on p. 4 included:

(A) Scientists should have decision authority, as they possess objectively correct solutions to societal problems.

(B) Scientists should remain neutral, as societal goals are normative and inaccessible to objective scientific analysis.

(C) Scientists should neither have decision authority nor can they remain objective and neutral, as their expertise is deeply value-laden.

This is now amended to:

(T) Scientists should have decision authority, as they possess objectively correct solutions to societal problems.

(D) Scientists should remain neutral, as societal goals are normative and inaccessible to objective scientific analysis.

(P) Scientists should neither have decision authority nor can they remain objective and neutral, as their expertise is deeply value-laden.

The same error was included on p. 9. The original included:

(A) The expert-centered SSIM modifies Habermas’ technocratic model. In the dimension of epistemic standards, the SSIM holds that science is and should be value-free. This includes the research process itself, but also the determination of research agendas and the preparation of practical applications. Scientific quality is assured by peer review, which reliably filters out subjectivity and extra-scientific (e.g. financial) interests…

(B) The decision-centered SSIM is adapted from Habermas’ decisionist model. In the dimension of epistemic standards, the SSIM holds that value-freedom may not always be achieved, but that scientists can and should minimize value ladenness effectively. Peer review helps to reduce values and extra-scientific (e.g. economic) influences. Societal stakeholders are not included in science. In the dimension of epistemic scope, the SSIM is confident that science can approximate truth, although some residual uncertainties might remain…

(C) The stakeholder-centered SSIM modifies Habermas’ pragmatist model. In the dimension of epistemic standards, the SSIM holds that value-freedom is both impossible and undesirable. Societal actors are included in all stages of science…

This has been amended to:

(T') The expert-centered SSIM modifies Habermas’ technocratic model. In the dimension of epistemic standards, the SSIM holds that science is and should be value-free. This includes the research process itself, but also the determination of research agendas and the preparation of practical applications. Scientific quality is assured by peer review, which reliably filters out subjectivity and extra-scientific (e.g. financial) interests…

(D') The decision-centered SSIM is adapted from Habermas’ decisionist model. In the dimension of epistemic standards, the SSIM holds that value-freedom may not always be achieved, but that scientists can and should minimize value ladenness effectively. Peer review helps to reduce values and extra-scientific (e.g. economic) influences. Societal stakeholders are not included in science. In the dimension of epistemic scope, the SSIM is confident that science can approximate truth, although some residual uncertainties might remain…

(P') The stakeholder-centered SSIM modifies Habermas’ pragmatist model. In the dimension of epistemic standards, the SSIM holds that value-freedom is both impossible and undesirable. Societal actors are included in all stages of science…

Several references included in the original paper have been updated to include page numbers that were inadvertently left off the original.

On p. 3, these references were corrected:

Rittel and Webber (1973)

Einsiedel (2000)

Lincoln and Guba (2000)

Nowotny et al. (2003)

Millstone (2005)

These now read:

Rittel and Webber (1973, p. 167)

Einsiedel (2000, p. 205)

Lincoln and Guba (2000, p. 172)

Nowotny et al. (2003, p. 179)

Millstone (2005, p. 11)

On p. 4, this reference was corrected:

Habermas (1970)

It now reads:

Habermas (1970, p. 67)

On p. 5, this reference was corrected in three places:

Brossard and Lewenstein (2010)

It now reads:

Lincoln and Guba (2000)

On p. 6, these references read:

Jahn et al. (2022)

Van der Hel (2018)

They now read:

Jahn et al. (2022, p. 2)

Van der Hel (2018, p. 256)

This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.