Pathways to deliberative capacity: the role of the IPCC

Berg, Monika; Lidskog, Rolf

doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2180-8

Cited by 22 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the IPCC has been studied in terms of its history [24,27], its relation to nation states [28], its status as a boundary organization [26,29], and the way that it coproduces knowledge and social order [30,31]. The IPCC has further been studied to answer questions about how epistemological assumptions structure expert organizations, and how these assumptions influence the extent to which expert organizations are seen as credible, relevant, and legitimate [4,5,7,13,32].…”

Section: The Ipcc and Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge

Gustafsson

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To create a societal change towards a sustainable future, constructive relations between science and policy are of major importance. Boundary organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have come to play an important role in establishing such constructive relations. This study contributes to the development of empirically informed knowledge on the challenge of balancing different expectations for how the science–policy relation is to be constructed to create trustworthy knowledge and policy decisions, i.e., when to be what and to whom. This study revisits Climategate and uses the public debate on the IPCC’s credibility, legitimacy, and policy relevance that followed Climategate as an analytical window to explore how the IPCC balanced the science–policy relation in a trustworthy manner. The analysis is based on a document study. The study shows how different expectations on the science–policy relation coexist, and how these risks create a loss of trust, credibility, legitimacy, and policy relevance. Thus, for boundary organizations to have a chance to impact policy discussions, reflexivity about the present epistemic ideals and expectations on knowledge production is of major importance, and must be reflected in an organizational flexibility that is open to different strategies on how to connect science and policy in relation to different actors and phases of the knowledge production process.

show abstract

Section: The Ipcc and Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge

Gustafsson

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, even though the linear ideal most often strives towards a scientific consensus and the collaborative ideal most often aims to provide more contextsensitive, plural, and socially robust knowledge (Berg and Lidskog 2018), it would be wrong to assume that the decision to strive towards either consensus or plurality is set by the separate ideals of linearity or collaboration (Stirling 2008). The social processes of boundary work are much more complex.…”

Section: Boundary Workcience and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Intersectional boundary work in socializing new experts. The case of IPBES

Gustafsson

Berg

Lidskog

et al. 2019

Ecosystems and People

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expert organizations are often described as facilitators of the interactions between science and policy. In managing this boundary, they must also manage other boundaries, such as those between different knowledge systems and between different categories of actors. However, how this intersectional boundary work is performed, and what it implies, is still unexplored territory. Focusing on the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this study contributes knowledge on the intersectionality of boundary work and how it influences the production of global policy-relevant knowledge. This is done by examining how IPBES socializes junior experts to become senior experts. This socialization process makes a number of norms and ideals visible and enables an analysis of how the knowhow of boundary work is passed forward from one generation of experts to the next. The study analyzes three boundaries: between senior and junior experts, between science and policy, and between scientific knowledge and indigenous and local knowledge. The findings show how intersectional boundary work is crucial in the creation of expert organizations and policy-relevant knowledge. In the case of IPBES, this study shows how the institutionalization of the organization unintentionally has created restrictions for the boundary work between different knowledge systems.

show abstract

“…However, ideas around science-policy interaction are in essence ontological and epistemological questions, which take different forms when applied practically (cf. Löfmarck and Lidskog 2017;Berg and Lidskog 2018b). To illustrate this point, we return to the example of how the IPCC could maintain 'complete independence' and at the same time increase cooperation with stakeholders and produce reports based on policy requests, as suggested by one government (IPCC 2013, 147, Switzerland).…”

Section: Trade-offs Between Reductionism and Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…e.g. Beck et al 2014;Berg and Lidskog 2018b;Hulme 2018;Livingston, Lövbrand, and Olsson 2018;Pearce, Mahony, and Raman 2018;Pearce et al 2017;Porter, Kuhn, and Nerlich 2018) all issues that are currently being discussed in the scholarly literature.…”

Section: Trade-offs Between Reductionism and Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Thoni¹,

Livingston²

2019

Critical Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Pathways to deliberative capacity: the role of the IPCC

Cited by 22 publications

References 52 publications

Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge

Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge

Intersectional boundary work in socializing new experts. The case of IPBES

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About