A new typology for comparing scientific advisory committees. Evidence from the Italian response to the COVID‐19 pandemic

Abstract

AbstractThe study of scientific advisory committees (SACs) is a recurrent topic of research in public policy and public administration. Scholars are increasingly interested in analyzing the scientization of policy advice as well as the role played by knowledge‐based policymaking processes. Despite recent developments in the field, SACs studies continue to face an analytical and empirical gap due to the lack of parsimonious conceptualizations of the characteristics that enable them to be both theoretically relevant and effective in driving comparative analysis. To fill this research gap, this article proposes a novel typology of SACs based on a specific conceptualization of the motivations of policymakers that allows the selection of two classificatory criteria: the origin of the members and the degree to which their expertise is homogeneous. The theoretical relevance of this typology is illustrated by applying it to the SACs established in the Italian regions to address the COVID‐19 pandemic. The article highlights the relevance of the typology to the theory underlying the empirical analysis. In doing so, it provides relevant insights into the composition and nature of SACs that is useful not only for the academic debate on evidence‐based policymaking but also for both practitioners and decision‐makers.