A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making

Abstract

Knowledge brokers are often portrayed as neutral intermediaries that act as a necessary conduit between the spheres of science and policy. Conceived largely as a task in packaging, brokers are expected to link knowledge producers and users and objectively translate science into policy-useable knowledge. The research presented in this paper shows how brokering can be far more active and precarious. We present findings from semistructured interviews with practitioners working with community-based groups involved in collaborative water planning in New Zealand's South Island region of Canterbury. Working in a highly conflicted situation, our brokers had to navigate different knowledges and epistemic practices, highly divergent values and grapple with uncertainties to deliver recommendations for regional authorities to set water quality and quantity limits. Conceiving science and policy as interlinked, mutually constitutive and co-produced at multiple levels, rather than as separate domains, shows how the brokers of this study were not only bridging or blurring science policy boundaries to integrate and translate knowledges. They were also building boundaries between science and policy to foster credibility and legitimacy for themselves as scientists and the knowledge they were brokering. This research identifies further underexplored aspects of brokering expertise, namely, the multiple dimensions of brokering, transdisciplinary skills and expertise, 'absorptive' uncertainty management and knowledge translation practices.

The influence of climate change advisory bodies on political debates: evidence from the UK Committee on Climate Change

“…If CCC information is utilized primarily by politicians of the governing party, especially cabinet ministers, we take this as evidence of a legitimiser function (Owens 2011). Evidence of a knowledge broker function includes CCC-generated information being used by all political parties (suggesting little polarisation of scientific evidence and advice) and there being little direct criticism of the Committee (suggesting that the CCC is trusted by politicians (Duncan et al 2020;Gluckman 2014;Pielke 2007)). Lastly, the CCC's policy entrepreneur function is associated with Parliamentary interventions that introduce new policy ideas or call for greater policy ambition based on CCC information.…”

“…And rather than advocating for a particular policy solution, 'honest' and neutral knowledge brokers are argued to pave the way for the safe movement of scientific knowledge into the policy process. This can help foster credibility for the body and its staff, legitimacy of the information provided, and trust in its neutrality (Duncan et al 2020;Gluckman 2014;Pielke 2007).…”

Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes

“…Advising decisions can involve explaining choices and trade-offs (Kirchoff et al 2015) or evaluating the likely impacts of specific decisions (Topp et al 2018). BIBS can broaden or expand the range of options decision makers consider (Duncan et al 2020), for example by "navigating options and choices for strategic policy and planning" (Choi et al 2005, p. 635). BIBS can also focus attention by making the case for considering particular research (Olejniczak et al 2016) and supporting the role of research in decision making by defending scientific expertise and articulating the scientific basis for sources of information (De Pryck & Wanneau 2017).…”

Understanding Brokers, Intermediaries, and Boundary Spanners: A Multi-Sectoral Review of Strategies, Skills, and Outcomes

“…These strategies are also expected to influence users' perceptions and attitudes about important qualities of research evidence including its relevance, credibility, impartiality, trustworthiness, acceptability, and feasibility (e.g., Bednarek et al 2018;Duncan et al 2020). Among knowledge producers, BIBS' strategies are expected to increase awareness of knowledge users' needs (Pitt et al 2018) and increase engagement with policy and sources of policy expertise (Bednarek et al 2018).…”

“…Advising decisions can involve explaining choices and trade-offs (Kirchoff et al 2015) or evaluating the likely impacts of specific decisions (Topp et al 2018). BIBS can broaden or expand the range of options decision makers consider (Duncan et al 2020), for example by "navigating options and choices for strategic policy and planning" (Choi et al 2005, p. 635). BIBS can also focus attention by making the case for considering particular research (Olejniczak et al 2016) and supporting the role of research in decision making by defending scientific expertise and articulating the scientific basis for sources of information (De Pryck & Wanneau 2017).…”