Understanding Conceptual Impact of Scientific Knowledge on Policy: The Role of Policymaking Conditions

Abstract

This paper presents a framework to understand the impact of scientific knowledge on the policy-making process, focusing on the conceptual impact. We note the continuing dissatisfaction with the quality and effects of science-policy interactions in both theory and practice. We critique the current literature’s emphasis on the efforts of scientists to generate policy impact, because it neglects the role of ‘user’ policymaking organisations. The framework offered in the paper develops an argument about the essential role of institutional conditions of policy ‘users’ for scientific knowledge to achieve impact. The framework is informed by the reflexive institutionalist and the neo-institutionalist theoretical approaches. Its main contribution is in outlining the intra- and inter-organisational conditions of policymaking organisations, along with personal characteristics of individual policy officials that influence the likelihood of scientific knowledge to generate conceptual impact. We also offer an operationalisation of the framework. The wider relevance of the paper is in moving the focus from the activities of scientists and the incentive structure in scientific organisations to the policy user side.

Engagement of scientists with the public and policymakers to promote alternative methods

“…This is obviously an opportunity for lobbying with considerable ethical implications. Edler et al (2022) discuss "the continuing dissatisfaction with the quality and effects of science-policy interactions in both theory and practice". In 2017, the Brussels Declaration 23 (Box 3) was launched to address these ethical issues.…”

Research impact seen from the user side

“…Conceptual use is closely aligned with Weiss´ enlightenment function, while the use of research results to legitimate and sustain existing decisions was described as symbolic use and instrumental use referred to the direct and specific application of research results. This distinction has been operationalised in quantitative empirical studies of the use of university research (Amara, Ouimet et al 2004, Olmos-Peñuela, Castro-MartÌnez et al 2014, user-centred qualitative analysis (Edler, Karaulova et al 2020), while other studies have employed slightly different definitions and classifications of types of use (Molas-Gallart, Tang et al 2000).…”

Lessons Learnt on Science-Policy Interfaces

“…Furthermore, we believe that through this document and the various science-policy activities of EuroSea, the European oceanographic community can contribute valuable best practices globally. The impact of science on policy and on society has come to the fore as a major justification of scientific activity (Edler et al, 2022). However, the drivers for scientists to do science and for policymakers to develop policies are very different.…”

“…There are several conditions which make science-policy interface efficient: relevance (responsiveness to the needs of decisionmakers), credibility (weight of scientific claims), and legitimacy (the proper process of bringing the information into the policy domain) (Edler et al, 2022;UNEP, 2020;Cash et al, 2003;Nutley et al, 2007). Moreover, a precondition underpinning successful evidence-informed decision-making is trust (Cvitanovic et al, 2021).…”

“…The impact of science is typically defined as a change in the thinking or behaviour of societal actors (Edler et al, 2022). However, a classical input-output-outcome-impact model is not suitable for ocean observing and forecasting.…”