Willy Pedersen: Say the word "model power" and most of us will associate with the sociologist Stein Bråten. He introduced the concept in the article Model Monopoly and Communication: Systems Theoretical Notes on Democratization in 1973. Some years later he illustrated by referring to something else happening the same year [...] in Norway. Employees were allowed to be represented in the ruling boards of the firms. The reform was regarded as a great step forward in democratization. But was it obvious that the employees' influence would increase, Bråten asks. page 
[…] The example illustrates the theory of model power: Participation need not be contrary to sub ordinance and obedience. The economist close to the management is likely to have more model power than the cloakroom guard representing the employees. Were it, however, the firm's cloakroom conditions to be debated, the conditions would have differed. Pertaining to most of the cases processed at the firm's board meetings, the management emerges as the model-strong partner. Thus, this will increase rather than decrease the management control.
**Models are according to Bråten mediators between theory and experience.** Experience constitutes the basis for theories which in turn confront and highlight experience. [...] An intermediate level is required -- something that mediates. Theories need concreteness. Empirical data need to be translated to acquire meaning. Models contribute. They can be mental or physical, verbal or visual. In all social interaction we use models. But power is unequally distributed and some of the actors' models have more impact than others.
Thus, in the article *Model monopoly and communication* Bråten develops the theory. [...] He uses a formalized language, reflecting knowledge of and interest for computer simulation. The tone is set already in the opening: "Let A and B denote two sets of actors participating in a common system, and influenced by events E." With this point of departure a reasoning is developed which is not hard to grasp: The actor A is more model-strong than B if [...] there are events in R which A's models permit representations of, but which B's models do not. Without access to other and independent sources the interaction between A and B will entail that B seeks to acquire A's models. On a more general level the theory indicates how an apparent dialogue may be a pseudo-dialogue. One of the partners' knowledge and questions are excluded as irrelevant.
In the article Bråten links his reasoning to the development of new forms of collaboration in the industry. It should not be taken for granted that this will lead to more democracy even if the employees participate in new arenas. But the theory has later been used by Bråten himself – and others – to throw light upon interaction in family and school, in science and foreign policy, and in networks in trade and industry. The pattern revealed is that certain experiences are excluded from the domain and how certain actors submit to the experience, mode of thinking and professional knowledge of other actors. In this way they may define own experiences as irrelevant and in the worst cases negate common sense and sound reasoning.
"Model power" has become an important tool in the sociological tool box. [...]." (Willy Pedersen, Sosiolognytt 1/11, pp. 24-25, abridged and translated by S.B.)