I don't have anything bad to say about Brede Hangeland or Aasmund Nordstoga. But there are undoubtedly people better suited to review the research.
The men's committee recently submitted its report a report On the challenges of equality between men. The committee highlights important challenges, but it is necessary to ask why the committee is made up of more cultural figures than professors in relevant fields.
Representativeness is already ensured by the fact that the research reviewed by the committee must be representative. Many different types of studies have been conducted in different fields with participants of different ages, backgrounds, parts of the country and from different social classes. Committee members, who must interpret available knowledge and make recommendations to solve complex challenges, should be the most competent in the relevant fields.
I don't have anything bad to say about former footballer Brede Hangeland or singer Asmund Nordstoja. But there is no doubt that there are professionals with more relevant prior knowledge who are better suited to review and interpret research.
The entire selection could consist of sociology professors, equality researchers, experts from the education sector, and specialists in law and mental health, to name a few.
The committee should consist of several members, such as Dr. Waseem Zahid, sociologist Lisa Raizel, and Professor Camilla Stoltenberg. Conclusions could then have been drawn more effectively, given greater weight and influence.
A large proportion of laymen are not unique to the men's committee. by Election Law Committee As of 2020, which made recommendations to electoral law on matters such as the level of the barrier threshold and gerrymandering, half of the selection was made up of party politicians. In most regions, one can also open party platforms to see what these members have recommended regarding the electoral law. If you want to confirm what parties think about the electoral law, you can find this information elsewhere.
If the purpose is not to understand the best, most professional, and most credible recommendations possible, then what is the purpose of such choices?
It goes without saying that the ministries and institutions that provide advice and recommendations to politicians are made up of professionals. I want the same thing from public committees.
“Explorer. Unapologetic entrepreneur. Alcohol fanatic. Certified writer. Wannabe tv evangelist. Twitter fanatic. Student. Web scholar. Travel buff.”
