Boundary work in contemporary science policy: A review

Abstract

This paper looks at the role of boundary work in contemporary science policy. The paper argues that one of the consequences of policy efforts to bridge gaps between science and society is the proliferation of boundary work as new categories have to be constructed and reified in order to make room for particular policy initiatives. In this process of eroding and remaking boundaries, the power to divide, categorise and classify forms a significant starting point for a re-structuring of social, economic and political relations between science and policy.collaboration, boundary, user, science policy, knowledge,

Delegation of authority in research funding to networks: experiences with a multiple goal boundary organization

“…research councils with an 'innovation agency function' (Gulbrandsen, 2005). These combine both the economic and substantive dimension of the relationship between policy bodies, researchers and user groups, acting at several boundaries and fulfilling several bridging functions within a multi-stakeholder setting (Hellström and Jacob, 2003;Raman, 2005;Jacob, 2005;Dalrymple, 2006;Durant, 2006).…”

Cultures, contexts and commitments in the governance of controversial technologies: US, UK and Canadian publics and xenotransplantation policy development

“…In this context, framing can apply to how an issue is defined, who is responsible, which values might be relevant, where and how such an issue might be addressed (Cobb and Elder, 1983) including who has the chance to participate and how. Such activities of interpreting relevant publics and delineating processes of engaging with such publics reflect the boundary work that illustrates the science policy-society or science-society interfaces (Jacob, 2005). Such boundary work can emerge from the nature of technological preferences for, or commitments made by, policy actors to particular technological paths (Stirling, 2008), or can be performed by interested publics in their choices of operational strategies or arenas.…”

Operationalizing Demand-Driven Agricultural Research: Institutional Influences in a Public and Private System of Research Planning in The Netherlands

“…This requires considerable input in terms of time and money, as has been earlier note by Sperling and Ashby (2001) and Dorward et al (2003). Furthermore, participation in formal planning procedures requires considerable skills from users, who hence should be trained to act in the different arena's (see also Jacob et al, 2005;Lettl et al, 2007). When users are not sufficiently empowered they cannot act as equal partners of researchers, which may downplay their role.…”