Cultural Imprints on Scientific Policy Advice: Climate science-policy interactions within Austrian neo-corporatism

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 343-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Tony Hermann ◽  
Michael Pregernig ◽  
Karl Hogl ◽  
Anja Bauer
Keyword(s):  
Science Policy ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Policy Advice ◽  
Scientific Policy ◽  
Policy Interactions ◽  
Scientific Policy Advice

scholarly journals What Does Good Science-Based Advice to Politics Look Like?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Carrier
Keyword(s):  
Social Values ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
Policy Advice ◽  
Social Goals ◽  
Scientific Policy ◽  
Good Science ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Policy Advice ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
Value Free Ideal

AbstractI address options for providing scientific policy advice and explore the relation between scientific knowledge and political, economic and moral values. I argue that such nonepistemic values are essential for establishing the significance of questions and the relevance of evidence, while, on the other hand, such social choices are the prerogative of society. This tension can be resolved by recognizing social values and identifying them as separate premises or as commissions while withholding commitment to them, and by elaborating a plurality of policy packages that envisage the implementation of different social goals. There are limits to upholding the value-free ideal in scientific research. But by following the mentioned strategy, science can give useful policy advice by leaving the value-free ideal largely intact. Such scientific restraint avoids the risk of appearing to illegitimately impose values on the public and could make the advice given more trustworthy.

scholarly journals Zur Rolle der Ökonometrie in der wissenschaftlichen Politikberatung

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 3-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gebhard Kirchgässner
Keyword(s):  
Political Institutions ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Policy Advice ◽  
Scientific Policy ◽  
Conflicts Of Interests ◽  
Whole Process ◽  
Open Discussion ◽  
Econometric Analyses ◽  
Scientific Policy Advice ◽  
Empirical Analyses

AbstractBecause economic theory alone does in many situations not provide unambiguous policy advice, most of the time empirical analyses are needed in addition. Thus, today econometric analyses are often parts of reports for political institutions or courts. However, it is not unusual that reports with contradicting evidence are presented by different groups or parties. Using the relation between government size and economic growth as an example, it is shown how such contradicting results are possible even if all scientists involved behave sincerely and adhere to the rules of scientific research. Our second example, studies investigating whether the death penalty serves as a deterrent to homicide, shows that the results of empirical analyses might to a large extent depend on a priori convictions of the scientists. Thus, the process of scientific policy advice has to be organised in a way so that - similar to the genuinely scientific discourse - open discussion and criticisms of methods and results are possible. In order to disclose possible conflicts of interests, this demand transparency of the whole process and, in particular for empirical analyses, that data and programmes are made available for re-estimations.

Boundary Organizations: Intermediaries in Science–Policy Interactions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Wesselink ◽  
Robert Hoppe
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Boundary Work ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Policy Advice ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Policy Interactions ◽  
Boundary Organizations ◽  
Science And Politics

Scientific knowledge is often not used in policymaking, even when the aim of the research is to produce policy-relevant results and these are communicated clearly and timely. The problem of the discrepancy between scientific outcomes and usable knowledge for policymaking is often labeled “science–policy gap.” Boundary organizations “bridge” this gap. Boundary organizations are intermediary organizations that produce information that is useful in policymaking and at the same time qualify as scientific (here this includes all academic research, including humanities and social sciences). However, boundary organizations are not just “knowledge brokers” that reconcile a demand (by policy makers) for knowledge with the supply (by academics) of knowledge. The knowledge-brokering perspective on science–policy interaction assumes that parcels of knowledge produced by academics are transmitted unchanged to policy makers, along a linear pathway of knowledge transfer from academia to policy makers. Several decades of close study of science–policy interactions has revealed that the production of policy advice cannot realistically be described in terms of clear boundaries between science and politics, nor can it be conceived as linear knowledge transfer leading to knowledge use. The production of policy-relevant information requires mutual engagement by scientists and policy makers in processes of knowledge co-production. Through the co-production process other concerns than purely scientific ones, such as political acceptability, are integrated in the result. Boundary organizations are sites where this co-production is institutionalized. Boundary organizations engage in quality and relevance assessments of existing scientific research and the production of policy advice reports, but also the design of innovative policy instruments and commissioning of new research and the evaluation of policy impacts of prior output. These activities are labeled “boundary work.” They are inherently tricky because they require a balancing act between scientific credibility and policy usefulness. Science and politics are normally demarcated spheres with different procedures and quality criteria. Boundary organizations endeavor to coordinate these apparently incompatible demands through boundary work. Boundary organizations are often presented as “silver bullet” that will solve all frictions and frustrations in science–policy interactions. However, the extent to which boundary organizations can fulfill such expectations depends on several factors: the (inter)national political culture regarding the status and role of science in policymaking, the culture of the policy domain regarding the same, the characteristics of the policy problem itself, and the availability of boundary working skills. Conversely, in many cases the time-consuming and sensitive creation of boundary organizations is not necessary. By extension, it is not possible to define “best practice” on boundary organizations or boundary work. What works is highly context dependent, but also time-dependent, so changes with time.

scholarly journals Utilization-focused scientific policy advice: a six-point checklist

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 1336-1343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fritz Sager ◽  
Céline Mavrot ◽  
Markus Hinterleitner ◽  
David Kaufmann ◽  
Martin Grosjean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Policy Advice ◽  
Scientific Policy ◽  
Scientific Policy Advice ◽  
Utilization Focused
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document