A research agenda for the science of actionable knowledge: Drawing from a review of the most misguided to the most enlightened claims in the science-policy interface literature

Taming a ‘fuzzy beast’? Stakeholder perspectives on Antarctic science-policy knowledge exchange practices in New Zealand

“…Instead, linear competencies were more evident among Antarctic KE actors, largely serving to reinforce a separation between science and policy worlds [86] and further embed misguided assumptions about the social processes that comprise successful KE [85]. While it is possible that actors invoke linear imaginaries in an attempt to more neatly order this 'fuzzy beast', we wonder to what extent co-production alternatives may have been placed in the too-hard basket.…”

“…In an informal sciencepolicy arrangement that predominantly relies upon person-to-person connections, it is challenging for new voices or perspectives to gain traction when strong and trusting relationships are already well established among inside actors. Any attempts to move away from the current arrangement will require a critical examination of the power relations between actors [85], which may raise uncomfortable and previously unexplored social dynamics. Navigating these sensitivities will require co-production competencies from actors, including being able to question personal assumptions, exercise reflexivity and maintain humility [47,73,88].…”

“…With co-production practices rapidly on the rise, scholars have warned practitioners against embarking upon such approaches without first establishing conceptual clarity on their meaning and outcomes, without which co-production is at risk of being framed as a panacea [55,57]. The realities of harnessing pluralism within collaborative practices raises issues of difference, power and conflict; dimensions that may become overshadowed by more aspirational narratives regarding the urgent need for co-production in the face of today's complex problems [85,87]. Thus co-production practices, if not treated carefully, can actually serve to undermine their stated objectives by reinforcing the issues they are attempting to solve [73].…”

Cap. 18: Interacciones sectoriales, factores de estrés múltiples y sistemas complejos. En: La Quinta Evaluación Nacional del Clima.

“…Por lo tanto, existe confianza media en la declaración. Aunque la literatura teórica sugiere que los enfoques colaborativos ayudan a navegar por las perspectivas contrapuestas de los diferentes actores y las incertidumbres del conocimiento 43,117,119 , hay muy pocos estudios que hayan evaluado hasta qué punto estos enfoques han conseguido mejorar las respuestas climáticas a largo plazo 171,267,269,270 . Por lo tanto, existe confianza baja en la tercera declaración.…”

Transforming relations between science, policy and society for sustainable futures?

“…Based on the insights in this thesis, I articulate one such variant in this section, namely what it could mean for science-policy arrangements to contribute to facilitating transformative change. Before explaining what I think this contribution could consist of, it is helpful to position such a contribution as dovetailing with recent arguments that science-policy arrangements can be fruitfully studied as governance actors in their own right (Jagannathan et al, 2023). Approaching science-policy arrangements as actors in transformations also points to possible connections with a growing literature around notions of transformative governance, which has suggested that the governance of transformations requires the transformation of governance (Termeer et al, 2017) and has explored how and under what conditions, governments can perform 'transition tasks' (Braams et al, 2021(Braams et al, , 2022 or facilitate transformative change (see also Wolfram, 2016;Kok, 2022;Nabeliek et al, 2023).…”