Method of work & Principles

The SSC works on a four-year cycle, at the beginning of which a set of over-arching themes are identified and the working programme – which also includes evaluation mandates – defined. When implementing the working programme, the plenary sessions serve as a focal point for discussion and decision-making, as they assemble the various working groups that explore different subtopics within each overarching theme and present them to the Council for consideration.
The path to consensus is based on the available data, which are collectively assessed in an iterative process by members of the Council. The approach is characterised by analytical rigour, incremental development, and continuous improvement until the desired result is achieved. The five phases of this process are described in more detail below.

1. Agenda setting: The SSC develops its own working programme, which contains several overarching themes and takes current debates in account. Within each theme, the Council identifies key issues and creates interdisciplinary working groups to tackle these issues more in detail.
   

2. Data collection and analysis: Accompanied by at least one scientific advisor from the secretariat, the working groups organise workshops, interviews, or roundtable discussions with experts from various disciplines. The initial findings are presented to the Council, which may then decide to mandate experts in specific fields.
   

3. Considerations and recommendations: The findings from these mandates are presented to the Council to foster a deeper discursive approach by including national and international expert opinions. These are then expanded and complemented with literature reviews and exchanges between Council members. This process gradually leads to a synthesis, which helps the Council to formulate its recommendations.
   

4. Dissemination of results: The Council’s considerations and recommendations are published as reports or position statements before being disseminated. With the help of the secretariat, the Council interacts with various stakeholders in the ERI landscape, organises events, and is invited to present its findings to various committees.
   

5. Impact: The Council has an impact when its recommendations are taken up by the SERI, the Federal Council, or other stakeholders, such as parliamentary commissions, cantonal authorities or higher education institutions. This can be seen especially during legislative changes or political decisions such as the ERI dispatch. But the CSS also wants to initiate formal and informal debates, or bring important topics to the attention of the public at large.

Relevance: Science policy advice provides evidence-based solutions to fundamental issues. Every four years, the SSC identifies and addresses a set of overarching themes that are relevant to the future development of the Swiss ERI system.
With the publication of the report Social Selectivity, for example, the Council shed light on the deep-rooted problem of social inequality in the Swiss ERI system and heightened public and political awareness of this issue.

Long-term perspective: The challenges we face and the measures we take today have far-reaching consequences. The SSC always takes a long-term perspective to anticipate challenges ahead of time, and thus work towards the continual improvement of the Swiss ERI system.
The Council published in-depth reports on quantum computing and Fintech technologies to prepare decision-makers for the potentially disruptive impact these technologies might have in the decades to come.

Holistic: The Swiss ERI system is decentralised and heterogeneous. To maintain an overall picture, the SSC does not examine policies in isolation but takes a holistic approach. The SSC is for instance just as interested in academic autonomy as in Citizen Science.
Within a specific topic, like Citizen Science, the Council examines various interrelated issues like scientific literacy and science communication to provide recommendations for the public participation in science.

Evidence: The SSC bases its policy advice on scientifically sound evidence. It mandates experts from different background and disciplines to obtain the best available evidence in order to arrive at salient conclusions.
This process is rooted in collective forms of reasoning that combines analytical rigour with deliberative argumentation, which is conducted during the Council’s workshops and plenary meetings.

Independence: Science policy advice must be responsive to stakeholders’ needs, but independent from partisan interests. While the SSC values its proximity to the government and the opportunities for mutual exchange, it remains committed to its independence.
The Council defines its own working programme, publishes position papers on important debates, and remains above political influence to tackle fundamental issues within the Swiss ERI system.

Transparency: A science advisory body should be an honest knowledge broker. The SSC maintains a transparent approach in how it selects, processes, and interprets evidence.
As an extra-parliamentary commission, the Council is accountable to politics and the public, and regularly publishes its results and activities. Individual Council members do not represent the interests of their home institutions but take responsibility for their own viewpoints and recommendations.

Openness: Democratic societies promote and rely on good scientific research, practice, and discourse. The SSC supports openness and collaborative networks within and beyond Switzerland.
By cooperating on such topics as student mobility and the free movement of talent, the Council deepens its commitment to the community of democratic values it shares with its European and international partners, thereby reaching beyond polarisation and protectionism.