Part III: A systematic change perspective draft law on psychiatry. While the Austrian NPM systematically separates visiting work (which is done by multidisciplinary commissions) from its follow-up work (which is done by the lawyers at the Ombuds institution), it says to include experts from other disciplines occasionally in its follow-up work. The recourse to social sciences for understanding the social world Change processes in different areas can only be understood in a comprehensive inter/transdisciplinary manner. They require an appropriate understanding of the social world in which actions take place, and this can be greatly helped by the insights of different social sciences. ‘Knowing about existing [social] theories may sharpen your own thinking, provide new ways of looking at the policy world and give you a leg up on developing your own ‘theory of change’.284 Fortunately, this aspect is increasingly taken up in human rights research, where attempts have been made to systematically engage in a process of communication with different social sciences in order to understand which social action can help to promote human rights.285 It is obvious that the limit of this Study only allows pointing to the existence of some relevant insights from social sciences and their possible use for strategic follow-up action. The following two examples of social science knowledge seem particularly relevant.286 œœ Example 1: Knowledge about social and political dynamics - Detecting and using opportunities for change Political science research regarding policy processes has helped to understand developments in the political and social sphere which might have a bearing on the question whether recommendations might lead to effective change. There are several approaches which tend to show that under certain circumstances the probability that a reform proposal might be accepted is higher. The prospects of an issue receiving attention in the policy process depend on whether some of the following three streams converge at a critical moment, opening up a ‘policy window’ for change.287 These three streams are: • Problems: the extent to which a social situation/event is defined as a problem, which is grave enough to warrant action and which is considered to be solvable. Dramatic events might be particularly relevant for highlighting such a problem. • Policies: the extent to which proposals to solve this problem exist and are brought to discussion • Politics: the extent to which a favourable political constellation or ‘mood’ exists or can be created for tackling the issue concerned. Policy windows might appear suddenly, e.g. through dramatic events, or they might be predictable, e.g. elections. Equally, this research suggests that policy windows can be created in a deliberate way. The implications for NPMs using these insights are the following: • NPM could be strategically aware of such developments or try to create them, in particular by impacting problem definition through its reporting on the problems found. • NPM could develop concrete policy options for tackling the problems identified. • NPMs could systematically try to influence the political climate through networking and media work. • NPMs would need the appropriate knowledge and skills as well as the necessary reputation for doing so. In the consultations with NPMs, several examples of NPM practice surfaced which could be seen in this Stachowiak (2013) 3. R Goodman, D Jinks, A Woods (eds.), Understanding Social Action, Promoting Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2012). 286 See Stachowiak (2013), where the author has identified 10 social science theories deemed helpful to inform advocacy and policy change efforts in a ‘theory of change’ approach. Stachowiak distinguishes between ‘global theories’, representing more comprehensive worldviews of how change happens, and “tactical theories”, which are more geared to specific tactics to be employed throughout the process of making change happen. 287 See N Zahariadis, ‘Ambiguity and Multiple Streams’ in Sabatier P and Weible Ch, Theories of the policy process (3rd edn, Boulder/Westview 2014) 25; and Stachowiak (2013) 7. 284 285 - 97 -