Abstract
Using the Q method with a Hong Kong dataset, this paper identifies four types of expert advisors in a hybrid regime. These four types have shared and distinct preferences for managing tensions between scientific knowledge and value/interests, between scientific and layperson’ knowledge, and the different preferences of policymakers, citizens, and experts. Their degrees of involvement in policymaking and varied strategies to influence policymaking reflect the features of the hybrid regime. The findings provide useful lessons for expert advisors to manage tensions between science and politics over contested issues.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
