Towards Productive Science-Policy Interfaces: A Research Agenda

Abstract

Science-policy interactions are often contested, due to strategic production and use of knowledge. This is problematic because the potential of science to enrich decision-making is underexploited. Scientific literature suggests that these problems are related to a lack of credibility, salience and/or legitimacy of knowledge. Science-policy interfaces (SPIs), such as knowledge brokers, are suggested to enhance science-policy interactions by promoting the production of credible, salient and legitimate knowledge. However, the current scientific debate provides little clarity on which SPIs are most useful in solving which science-policy interaction problems and what strategies should be employed. Based on a profound literature review, this paper aims to arrive at a better understanding of SPIs, by providing conceptual clarity and linking typical SPIs to distinct problems and the contexts in which they emerge. We suggest an empirical research agenda to test theoretical claims about SPIs and our own refinements thereof, and to identify best practices.

Joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: what is in it for science?

“…Recent empirical analyses of JKP have started to zoom in on the quality of the knowledge production processes in projects in which scientists, public policy makers, and sometimes other societal actors collaborate in "climate proofing" specific regions (Hegger et al 2012, Edelenbos et al 2011. Other recent studies have dealt with project structures and project management in transdisciplinary research teams (Boon et al 2014), knowledge management in the context of ecosystem-based management (Giebels et al 2015), interactive knowledge development in coastal projects (Seijger et al 2014), JKP in sustainability partnerships (Offermans and Glasbergen 2015), and knowledge gaps regarding the desirable link between sciencepolicy interfaces and problem types (Van Enst et al 2014). …”

Reflections on recent recommendations on the use of science in disaster risk reduction using case studies from Bangladesh and the western United States

“…This supports the assertion in much of the science-policy interface literature that science, in whatever form it takes, is "just one part of the complex decision making process," and that it competes with other information from many other sources (for a review, see, for example, Van Enst et al, 2014). If the scientifi c community better understood the decision-making context and the competition among information types and sources in a given case, we might better infl uence change for that case.…”

Working at the Boundary: An Empirical Study into the Goals and Strategies of Knowledge Brokers in the Field of Environmental Governance in the Netherlands

“…On the other hand, if a boundary is too porous, science might get mixed with politics, which would decrease the value of research-based knowledge. In more general terms, Van Enst et al argue that there are three types of meta-problems related to interactions between science and policy: (i) the strategic use of knowledge; (ii) the strategic production of knowledge; and (iii) the operational misfit between the demand for, and supply of, knowledge [9]. Boundary work, in those cases, is required to construct and manage the interactions among various stakeholders, or communities, with the aim to lead to more productive and informed policy-making [31].…”

“…However, as Van Kerkhoff and Lebel [6] argue, the use of scientific knowledge is neither sufficient nor self-evident. The use of science in decision-making about environmental problems appears to be complicated, especially in situations with high levels of conflict among stakeholders, and where there are controversies surrounding environmental issues, e.g., [7][8][9]. In such situations, scientific knowledge can be strategically used, or selectively presented, either by scientists or by policymakers [10,11].…”