Knowledge on Stage: Scientific Policy Advice

Abstract

The paper provides a deeper insight into institutionally given opportunities for and limitations to reflexive, dialogue-centered, and risk-sensitive knowledge exchange between scientific experts and agro-political decision makers, especially under the conditions of a significant degree of complexity, far-reaching uncertainties and potential impacts. It focuses on the practical orientations, guiding expectations and selection criteria shaping expertise in processes of science policy consulting. In doing so, two perspectives will be discussed: first the orientation of the knowledge production process by different concepts of ‘‘usable knowledge.’’ Second, the influence of specific constellations on different stages of the political process, which shape the institutional conditions for the transfer and the use of scientific knowledge within the policy consulting process. Both perspectives help to come to a closer understanding of the demanding and very heterogeneous process of science policy consulting, which - if successful - leads to the interactive production of a very special form of ‘‘orientational knowledge.’’

The Science–Policy Nexus in Collaborative Governance: Use of Science in Ecosystem Recovery Planning

“…Rather than serving a function of providing solutions to existing problems, conceptual knowledge may exist alongside, or prior to, a problem being identified. Thus, even in a chaotic policy‐making system, where solutions may go looking for problems, scientific knowledge has a role to play (Kingdon, ; Kropp & Wagner, ; Weiss, ). For example, Kingdon () describes academic research contributing to a general climate of pre‐existing ideas that seeped into transportation and health‐care policy proposals after a particular problem became salient.…”

Bridging Research and Environmental Regulatory Processes: The Role of Knowledge Brokers

“…Here, scientific expertise can be instrumental in providing critical analyses. 14 While it is important that scientific experts are engaged during this stage, their input will become less significant as the process transitions and returns to agenda setting. As shown on Figure 1, the process continues forward and can serve as a feedback loop that informs and improves environmental policies.…”

“…25–31 Around the time Brown’s SRP began publishing on vapor intrusion, the regulatory policy timeline had transitioned to “decision-making,” which does not provide significant opportunities for scientific experts to influence the regulatory process. 14 …”

Enacting knowledge exchange: a context dependent and ‘role-based’ typology for capturing utility from university research

“…It complements existing approaches, such as STS studies, by explicitly focusing on researchers' impact on technological innovation systems and the different roles they play to make impact, rather than showing how research is made useful in a particular policy process, or analysing which factors impede the uptake of research (Woodhouse and Nieusma, 1997;Weiss, 1999;Kropp and Wagner, 2010). Although there are overlaps, the TIS perspective on research impact is also different from the work of Martin and Tang (2007) on communication channels, which has more of a macro perspective, attempting to explain how publicly-funded research contributes to economic growth.…”