Science-policy interactions are often contested, due to strategic production and use of knowledge. This is problematic because the potential of science to enrich decision-making is underexploited. Scientific literature suggests that these problems are related to a lack of credibility, salience and/or legitimacy of knowledge. Science-policy interfaces (SPIs), such as knowledge brokers, are suggested to enhance science-policy interactions by promoting the production of credible, salient and legitimate knowledge. However, the current scientific debate provides little clarity on which SPIs are most useful in solving which science-policy interaction problems and what strategies should be employed. Based on a profound literature review, this paper aims to arrive at a better understanding of SPIs, by providing conceptual clarity and linking typical SPIs to distinct problems and the contexts in which they emerge. We suggest an empirical research agenda to test theoretical claims about SPIs and our own refinements thereof, and to identify best practices.

No abstract

Abstract:There is a broad range of literature on individuals who mediate at the boundaries between science and policy. However, there seems to be little empirical evidence on the goals and strategies of knowledge brokers, even though they appear to be becoming increasingly important in the field of environmental science and policy. This paper aims to improve the understanding of why and how knowledge brokers operate through an analysis of 27 in-depth interviews. It demonstrates that they see themselves as (strategically) sensitive to all stakes and stakeholders involved, possess a large network, and act without interests. They appear to act strategically in two different settings: on stage, where the collaboration of all stakeholders is needed, and backstage, where the knowledge broker steers the process on his/her own. Furthermore, our research suggests that the (perceived) credibility and legitimacy of the knowledge broker is more important to the process than the degree of credibility and legitimacy of the knowledge used in the decision-making process, and that it would be advisable to deploy knowledge brokers proactively, instead of reactively, which could lead to 'incident politics'.

No abstract