Going beyond science-policy interaction? An analysis of views among intergovernmental panel on climate change actors

Abstract

Scholarly literature on science-policy interaction is typically divided between advocating that science and policy need to be brought closer together or separated. In a recent article in this journal, Sundqvist and colleagues [Sundqvist et al. (2018) Oneworld or two? Science-policy interactions in the climate field, Critical Policy Studies, 12:4, 448-468] proposed a typology that structures this debate. We use their typology to conduct a text analysis on empirical material from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) internal consultation on its future. We find that science-policy practitioners are not as divided as the scholarly debate. Moreover, while the typology is a powerful tool in unearthing differences in opinion regarding science-policy interaction, it comes at the price of reductionism. We suggest that a continuum, instead of separate boxes, helps visualize the large spectrum of ideas. However, regardless of type of typology, it is important that the discussion goes beyond the relationship between science and policy, and beyond an unconstructive battle between extremes. It is neither possible nor normatively desirable to demarcate 'science', 'policy' and other actors. Whilst this discussion is of central importance to the IPCC, greater focus should be put on its relationship with society.

Boundary Work and Interpretations in the IPCC Review Process of the Role of Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) in Limiting Global Warming to 1.5°C

“…Our analysis reveals certain ambiguities and inconsistencies in how report authors respond to reviewers that can partly be explained as a consequence of recent changes of the IPCC work processes and attempts to be more inclusive, as described by Gambhir et al (2019), Thoni and Livingston (2021), and Workman et al (2020). The IPCC has a reductionistic tendency deeply rooted in its history as an institution that favors quantitative models and data and results from the natural or economic sciences over less quantitative methods and perspectives (Bjurström and Polk, 2011;Hulme, 2011;Fløttum et al, 2016;Haikola et al, 2019;Low and Schäfer, 2020;Thoni and Livingston, 2021). The SR1.5, meanwhile, was set-up to be the most transparent, inclusive, and interdisciplinary of all IPCC reports, and many IPCC actors welcomed the increased plurality.…”

“…However, the practical drafting of an IPCC special report must deal with conflicting ontological and epistemological demands at the interfaces of different scientific disciplines as well as between science and policy. This would force a tradeoff between embracing complexity and the reductionism that is often required by the conventional methodologies favored by the IPCC and its consensus ideal (IPCC, 2013: §10; see also Livingston, 2018;Thoni and Livingston, 2021). The boundary work studied in the present paper could be seen as a response to being torn between strengthened ideals of openness concerning the IPCC work processes and the institutional path dependency that regulates the work of the IPCC.…”

“…This, for short, has been termed the principle of providing policy-relevant yet policy-neutral assessments. Sundqvist et al (2018) and Thoni and Livingston (2021) make clear that the consensus approach and tight coupling of science and policy often lead to the marginalization of alternatives, and that the oftennarrow definitions of science in the IPCC contexts lead to a scientific reductionism.…”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Guardian of Climate Science

“…Prior to this decision, the IPCC had served as the principal forum for the embryonic political negotiations for a treaty, and the IPCC's work on legal instruments contributed greatly to the content of what became the UNFCCC (Beck and Mahony 2018b). In the years since, the IPCC and UNFCCC have developed in parallel, and are today closely coupled in their efforts to provide knowledge and policy responses on climate change (Thoni and Livingston 2019). In fact, each of the IPCC's subsequent assessment reports has contributed to the international climate regime's institutional development and had a powerful agenda setting effect in the climate negotiations.…”

Sociological Perspectives on Earth System Modeling

“…This has to do with the idea how society works. Several commentators, even from the social sciences, try to find optimal arrangements for the science‐policy interaction (not to close, not too distant; improving participation and communication etc., see Thoni & Livingston, for a recent example). But as we have argued above (2.3), one cannot conceptualize society as a whole as a collective actor of the type organization.…”