Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive and institutional effects: examples from conservation and environmental policy

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (14) ◽  
pp. 3615-3639 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Pregernig
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Policy ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Policy Interactions ◽  
Institutional Effects

scholarly journals THE USE AND INFLUENCE OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY MAKING: LESSONS LEARNED FROM NOVA SCOTIA

2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzuette S. Soomai
Keyword(s):  
Nova Scotia ◽  
Environmental Policy ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Policy Design ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Coastal Policy ◽  
Strategic Approach ◽  
Science Policy Interface

Governmental organisations produce vast quantities of scientific information on the state of the marine and coastal environment which is often intended to guide policy-making to mitigate or reverse the declining trends in the health of the environment. How scientific information is used and how it influences environmental policy and decision making are however not well understood. The apparent disconnect between the knowledge and information produced by scientists and that used by policy makers is attributed to problems at the science-policy interface. Based on a multi-disciplinary literature review, this paper describes how policy makersseek out and use scientific information within the context of policy design in the 21st century. Best practices for increasing information flows across the science-policy interface are drawn from a study of the awareness, use, and influence of The 2009 State of the Nova Scotia Coast Report in coastal policy making in Nova Scotia.Strategic or rational approaches to policy making can increase the two-way flow of information across the science-policy interface as it facilitates collaboration among multiple actors in information generation, transmis-sion, and use. The production, use, and influence of The 2009 State ofNova Scotia's Coast Report in coastal policy making in Nova Scotia demonstrates the strategic approach to policy making whereby coastal policy is being developed through (i) intergovernmental partnerships, (ii) the use of best available information, (iii) linkages between the policy process and policy output, and (iv) public participation.

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 Science-Policy Interactions in MPA Site Selection in the Dutch Part of the North Sea

2010 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 656-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eline K. van Haastrecht ◽  
Hilde M. Toonen
Keyword(s):  
North Sea ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Site Selection ◽  
Policy Interactions ◽  
The North ◽  
The North Sea

Antarctic Treaty Summit: Science-Policy Interactions in International Governance

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 527-541
Author(s):  
Paul Arthur Berkman
Keyword(s):  
Science Policy ◽  
50Th Anniversary ◽  
International Governance ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Open Forum ◽  
Policy Interactions ◽  
The Past ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
The City

Abstract For the past five decades, the Antarctic Treaty has provided a firm foundation for ongoing international cooperation to successfully manage nearly ten percent of the Earth for “peaceful purposes only ... on the basis of freedom of scientific investigation.” Growing from seven claimant and five non-claimant signatories, the Antarctic Treaty now engages 47 nations, representing nearly 90 percent of humankind. To assess the legacy lessons of the Antarctic Treaty and to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its December 1, 1959 signature in the city where it was adopted in “in the interest of all mankind” – the Antarctic Treaty Summit: Science-Policy Interactions in International Governance will be convened in Washington, DC at the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, from November 30 to December 3, 2009. The Antarctic Treaty Summit will provide a unique open forum for scientists, legislators, administrators, lawyers, historians, educators, executives, students and other members of civil society to share insights. Together, this international and interdisciplinary group of stakeholders will explore science-policy achievements and precedents for sustained peaceful governance of international spaces that cover nearly 75 percent of the Earth’s surface beyond national jurisdictions.

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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document