Science-policy Relations Research Articles

Reflections on UK science–policy relationships in the light of Covid-19

This article discusses one of many reasons why the UK did so poorly in managing the acute phase of the Covid-19 pandemic despite having access to extensive and high-quality scientific evidence and advice: science–policy relationships. Drawing on the author’s participation in and experiences of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) and its behavioural sub-group, it discusses the following questions: 1. Was the model (framework) for translating scientific advice to policy-makers as effective as it could have been? 2. Could more have been done to communicate science and its implications for policy and practice to the public? 3. Should scientists speak to policy-makers and the public about matters beyond their particular area of study, reflecting their multidisciplinary working and understanding? 4. Do scientists have a social responsibility to discuss policy implications of scientific evidence and challenge politicians when their statements or behaviour go against prevailing evidence? Future directions of inquiry should investigate the process by which research evidence is translated and used, applying social science and implementation science methods, evidence and theories. A question deserving attention across academe and society more generally is how scientists can best interact with, and contribute to, social good beyond their well-trodden paths of academic publications and conference presentations.

Global environmental assessments and transformative change: the role of epistemic infrastructures and the inclusion of social sciences

The gap between what is known about climate change and the action taken to prevent it has instigated debates around how to reconfigure global environmental assessment organizations to better inform and foster transformative change. One recurring request involves the need for a broader and better inclusion of social scientific knowledge. However, despite such intentions, the inclusion of social scientific research remains limited. How can this be explained? Through a detailed analysis of the IPCC special report on limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, this article reveals how the institutional conditions of global environmental assessments condition and shape what knowledge is included in these assessments, as well as how this knowledge is represented. It discusses how and why the understanding of social processes and structures remains underdeveloped, despite such knowledge being critical for transformative change. To integrate such knowledge into environmental assessments would require substantial changes to the current epistemic infrastructure used by global environmental assessments. It is therefore time to think beyond global environmental assessments and consider complementary institutional science–policy relations through which social scientific research can assist policy actions to promote deep transformative change.

“IPCC-envy”? Shaping global soil and land governance through science-policy activism

AbstractUnderstanding the relationship between science and policy, including the role of actors engaged in facilitating science-policy interplay, is crucial in the study of global environmental governance. In spite of this, theorization of agency in science-policy relations has been limited in the IR field. Concomitantly, limited knowledge exists about the role played in this respect by international bureaucracies. This paper addresses these issues by introducing the concept of science-policy activism. The paper is based on the study of two UN institutions, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and the Global Soil Partnership (GSP) of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which operate in the issue—area of soil and land degradation. Informed by a combination of elite interviews and participant observation, the study investigates the ways in which the UNCCD and GSP secretariats steer the interplay between scientific advice and policymaking. The qualitative analysis reveals that, although both secretariats engage in normative narratives of cooperation, they actively and competitively pursue self-interested agendas. Unearthing the key role of secretariats in comparison with other relevant actors, such as member states and epistemic communities, the study shows that science-policy activism is conducive to “regime conflict,” limiting opportunities for interplay management and ultimately benefiting the interests of international bureaucracies themselves.

Finding common ground: Co-producing national soil policy in Wales through academic and government collaboration

Several agricultural reforms are in progress in the UK following its withdrawal from the EU. This is an opportunity to formulate a Welsh Soils Policy Statement (SPS) that raises the status of soils and ensures that their protection and sustainable management are integrated into future policy. We share and reflect on our novel approach at co-producing a SPS for Wales involving academic researchers and policy teams and provide clear insights into soil policy development. Building consensus among the various government departments and agencies formed the basis of our approach. For pragmatic reasons, it was decided to focus on agricultural soils, which cover 85% of Wales. A rigorous evidence review and synthesis formed the foundation for the development of the SPS, which devises a vision, and primary and secondary objectives for Welsh agricultural soils. A first draft was conceived by the researchers, with further iterations developed between the researchers and the policy team. The researchers were embedded into the policy teams, and this proved to be an effective mechanism for evidence-based policy development that also enhances the science-policy relationship in the longer term. New structures and incentives that promote the engagement between researchers and policymakers should be developed to support environmental policymaking across the board.

Working the boundary: science–policy interactions and uneven knowledge politics in IPBES

The rising demand for policy-relevant knowledge has supported the emergence of global boundary organizations at the science–policy interface. By synthesizing environmental knowledge for policy-makers, boundary organizations influence how we know and govern sustainability challenges. Therefore, it is essential to better understand what happens in and through these organizations. This paper examines the very practices that configure science–policy relations in global boundary organizations by studying the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Through Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Political Ecology perspectives, we disclose mechanisms of boundary work that demarcate science from non-science and, hereby, determine which expertise becomes authoritative in IPBES. Building on original empirical data, we first examine how science and policy domains were interrelated during the IPBES global assessment process (2016–2019). Second, we investigate how this boundary work shaped the production of biodiversity knowledge. Our findings indicate that integration and demarcation efforts configured science–policy relations through formalized and informal mechanisms. We argue that this boundary work continuously established science as authoritative voice for addressing biodiversity loss in IPBES. Spatial aspects of boundary work highlight power differentials between IPBES member States that manifested in uneven geographies of knowledge. Instead of concealing these inequalities through the norm of political neutrality, we need to recognize boundary organizations as political spaces in which science and policy are co-produced. By adopting a critical and reflexive co-productionist approach, it becomes possible to addresses uneven knowledge–power relations through more inclusive and transparent practices. Boundary organizations, such as IPBES, are then able to provide more diversified environmental explanations and transformative solutions.

Co-producing the science\u2013policy interface: towards common but differentiated responsibilities

Formulating adequate responses to pressing socio-ecological challenges requires effective and legitimate knowledge production and use. The academic debate has gradually shifted from a linear model of science–policy relations towards co-productive alternatives. Yet, in practice, the linear model remains lingering. This paper uses a case study of a collaboration between a Dutch research institute and a ministerial department to examine how and why this linear model is so persistent. Our analysis shows the dominance of the linear model in this collaboration, while openings for a more co-productive relationship remain largely unexplored. Our findings illustrate that an important reason for this persistence of the linear model is the lack of a convincing and attractive alternative imaginary of science–policy practices, which defines clear roles and competencies for researchers as well as policy actors involved. We argue this is symptomatic of a wider tendency among both researchers and policy actors to construct science as an obligatory passage point towards policy. However, this tendency not only enables policy actors to offload their responsibility but also fails to capitalise on the opportunities offered by these practices to explicate the politics embedded in and foregrounded by knowledge production. Such an engagement with the politics of knowledge by experts as well as policymakers can encourage more effective and legitimate knowledge production and use.

‘Close but not too close’ – experiences of science-policy bridging in three international advisory organizations

ABSTRACT The role of science in environmental decision-making calls for an improved understanding of how scientific advice can best inform policy. Policy-relevant science is trapped in the conundrum of being close to policy and politics while trying not to become too close, to avoid politicization. We investigate this dilemma in three scientific advisory organizations: the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Comparing marine, climate, and biodiversity governance at the international level, we reveal how the science-policy interface is understood and arranged in the institutional designs of these organizations. While they are all mandated to be policy-relevant, they aim to provide a neutral space for science that is not overtly impacted by politics. Our analysis reveals key differences in science-policy interactions regarding four issues: mandate; science-policy separation; politicization of advisory science; and knowledge inclusion. After discussing how these dimensions exhibit challenges connected to the ‘proximity vs. distance’ dilemma, we formulate an ideal-typical continuum comprising the following arrangements: a clear-cut boundary, a boundary zone, a fuzzy boundary. Based on this three-tiered model, we argue for a non-dichotomous understanding of science-policy relationships.

The Promised Land: Contrasting frames of marginal land in the European Union

Appropriating marginal land is seen as a way to overcome a wide range of land-use challenges such as food-feed-fuel competition, avoiding land abandonment, and preserving nature. As a result, there is growing interest in policy and academic communities to identify, define and measure the potential of marginal land to overcome these challenges. However, multiple definitions of marginal land exist due to the various ways of framing the problems and the solutions marginal land can address. This leads to a number of competing claims on and diverging debates about marginal land. To explore the competing claims on marginal land in these frames, we performed a framing analysis of EU policy debates about marginal land. Through this analysis, we find that different actors have conflicting ways of framing what problems marginal land can address and what courses of action to take. These frames do not overcome but form part of contested land-use debates already present in Europe. Exact definitions or estimations of marginal land are unlikely to overcome land-use debates because land-use decisions are subject to the same competing claims and hence normative decisions as land-use decisions around productive land. These marginal land frames reflect a vision for how land should be used; for food, feed, fuel or nature. We argue that exact estimations of marginal land are unlikely to fix controversies on land-use due to the inherent ambiguity of marginal land. Instead, we believe that deliberative science-policy relationships are needed.

Preparing Scientists for Science Diplomacy Requires New Science Policy Bridges

Summary Differences between the outputs of academic science and those of science policy contribute to a critical science-policy challenge — the inability of academia to sufficiently value either the outputs of the policy process as comparable to academic outputs, or the expertise required to maintain and develop policy. Few colleges and universities in the United States adequately prepare students to become scientists with expertise operating in science-policy spaces. Consequently, most academic scientists lack sufficient training in the policy process, exposure to science diplomacy and capacity to deliver science advice. Science-policy relationships are more than the dichotomised paradox of politicisation of science and the scientisation of politics. Adjustments in how scientists teach, research and engage with policy and policy-makers are necessary to better prepare future generations to address global problems. This article describes currency variances used in these two ecosystems and identifies opportunities to better support science-policy collaborations for more effective research, teaching and service.

Building capacity for the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services: Activities, fellows, outcomes, and neglected capacity building needs

Capacity building has been identified as being of importance for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). As the IPBES is becoming an influential expert organization, it is essential to examine what capacity building means in its context, what capacities it has built, and what implications these capacities have. This study explores these issues by focusing on the IPBES's general strategy for capacity building, the IPBES's fellowship programme and to what extent there are additional capacity building needs that can be addressed. The study shows that the IPBES has focused its capacity building efforts on the science side of the science-policy interface while, thus far, it has neglected to build capacities on the policy side of the interface. The study provides insight into how capacity building for the science-policy interface sets preconditions for science-policy relations at different levels and scales within biodiversity and ecosystem services and beyond.

Sumitomo Chemical partners to accelerate research on chemical recycling

Capacity building has been identified as being of importance for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). As the IPBES is becoming an influential expert organization, it is essential to examine what capacity building means in its context, what capacities it has built, and what implications these capacities have. This study explores these issues by focusing on the IPBES's general strategy for capacity building, the IPBES's fellowship programme and to what extent there are additional capacity building needs that can be addressed. The study shows that the IPBES has focused its capacity building efforts on the science side of the science-policy interface while, thus far, it has neglected to build capacities on the policy side of the interface. The study provides insight into how capacity building for the science-policy interface sets preconditions for science-policy relations at different levels and scales within biodiversity and ecosystem services and beyond.

Ecological economics in the age of fear

Far right political movements are rising and seizing power in many influential countries, affecting not only the governance of democratic regimes but also the science-policy relationship and the global environmental agenda. Here we disentangle the roots of such ‘far right insurgency’ and discuss the implications for ecological economics as a field. We propose that in order to be able to understand and address this phenomenon, ecological economists should devote attention to analyse how the evolution of value systems (including environmental values) is related to the profile and governance of contemporary global capitalism. By means of developing a relevant research agenda, ecological economics could contribute to support academically the creation of a ‘politics of hope’, in response to the ‘politics of fear’ on which emerging authoritarian regimes rely.

Cleaning the air, protecting the climate: Policy, legal and institutional nexus to reduce black carbon emissions in China

There are significant co-benefits to reducing black carbon emissions for air quality, human health and the climate; yet the pollutant has not yet received sufficient policy attention in China. Overall, realizing co-benefits is complicated by the fact that climate and air quality policy goals have been pursued separately from each other. In this article, we explore the current policy and legal status of black carbon emissions across the domains of air pollution prevention and control, and climate change with a view to identify synergies and opportunities for an integrated approach.We suggest three ways to strengthen the policy, legal and institutional nexus of air pollution and climate change to reduce black carbon emissions in China: improving scientific knowledge and the science-policy interface, increasing policy and legal connections between air quality and climate portfolios, and enhancing institutional linkages. For instance, we argue that more interdisciplinary cooperation and improvements to the black carbon inventory as well as a closer science-policy relationship are necessary. From a legal and policy angle, we identify clear openings through which to integrate reduction of black carbon emissions into the air pollution prevention and control agenda. Institutionally, the recent government reform brings air quality and climate portfolios under the supervision of the same ministry but their integration is still to be ensured. In addition, vertical linkages between different levels of environmental governance – central, provincial and municipal – need to be addressed.

Brokering behaviour change: the work of behavioural insights experts in government

A behavioural insights community has emerged within a growing number of governments. While this community helps to make policies more behavioural science based, its frontstage role models tend to assume a straightforward, instrumental and apolitical view of the science–policy relationship that seems unrealistic. This article therefore examines what goes on backstage in this community, based on an ethnographic study of behaviour experts in Dutch central government. The article argues that their work consists of a complex palette of practices (that is, choice architecture; analysis; capacity building). Because these practices resemble typical knowledge brokerage work, the article pushes for an envisaging of ‘behaviour experts as knowledge brokers’.

How policymakers’ demands for usable knowledge shape science-policy relations in environmental policy in Poland

This article discusses how aspects related to policymakers’ demands for knowledge shape preferences for science-policy models such as Mode 1 and Mode 2. It focuses on the demands that Polish policymakers make of science and how they envision their role in the knowledge production process in the field of environmental policy. The article applies a set of criteria on how policymakers define usable knowledge to better understand preference and use in practice of different science-policy models. Results show that preferences for Mode 1 or Mode 2 are in part the result of trade-off between criteria of quality, relevance, conformity, and action orientation. While science can provide truth and usable knowledge in both Mode 1 and 2, Mode 1 is attractive when policymakers have specific political demands: they may use it to avoid responsibility for negative policy outcomes or to discredit undesirable results.

Ozone and climate governance: An implausible path dependence

Many observers and commentators have used the case of ozone science and politics as a role model for climate science and politics. Two crucial assumptions underpin this view: (1) that science drives policymaking, and (2) that a unified, international science assessment is essential to provide “one voice” of science that speaks to policymakers. I will argue that these assumptions are theoretically problematic and empirically questionable. We should realize that both cases, ozone and climate, are profoundly different and only have superficial similarities. Ozone science developed late, but efforts to protect the ozone layer happened swiftly. The relation between carbon dioxide and climate change has been studied for many decades, but efforts to control global warming have failed so far. I will discuss the linear model of the science-policy relationship and use the typology of tame and wicked problems to explain this stark difference.

The Science–Policy Relationship Hierarchy (SPRHi) model of co-production: how climate science organizations have influenced the policy process in Canadian case studies

Can better-functioning science–policy relationships (SPRs) address the seeming discrepancy between the scientific consensus on climate change and the insufficient ensuing policy outcomes? Certain scholarly works on science–policy interfaces and evidence-based policy are optimistic, while the literature on research utilization is pessimistic. The field of science, technology, and society and the concept of co-production advance a broader view, suggesting that more holistic (i.e., institutional or systemic) changes may offer a way forward. This article synthesizes causal claims from such literatures into an analytical framework of potential pathways from co-productive SPR characteristics to policy action. It then investigates, through expert interviews, three climate SPRs in Canada: a municipal-level case between the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium and local communities, a provincial-level case between the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions and the Climate Action Secretariat, and a national-level case between the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences and the federal government. In light of the analytical framework, the cases suggest a theoretical hierarchy of function for SPRs: incidental interaction (at the bottom), basic partnership, interactive dialogue, and true co-production (at the top), each of which can be coupled with a supplementary network (to the side). This template is presented as the Science–Policy Relationship Hierarchy model. Collectively, the cases and the model reveal causal pathways that may explain why any given SPR ends up functioning the way it does (e.g., external political conditions are important), implying prescriptions for improvement. Besides the analytical framework and model, the main contribution is the finding that co-productive strategies are unlikely to lead to concrete policy changes on their own, but are crucial for cultivating soft policy influences and side benefits.

Pathways to deliberative capacity: the role of the IPCC

This article explores the arguments for expanding deliberation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and scrutinizes their implications for the deliberative capacity of global environmental governance (GEG). An analysis of the IPCC is presented that builds on a systematic literature review and thus a broad set of scientific debates concerning the IPCC. Based on this analysis, two different paths are outlined, one moderate and one radical; these paths ascribe different democratizing functions to the IPCC and rely on different epistemologies. The moderate path emphasizes decision capacity, whereas the radical path strives to create deliberative space and to identify the value inherent in different claims. It is argued that the IPCC cannot accommodate the aspirations of these different pathways in a single assessment. Parallel assessments must be developed in complementary subject areas with different science-policy relations.

Understanding and managing trust at the climate science–policy interface

Climate change effects are accelerating, making the need for appropriate actions informed by sound climate knowledge ever more pressing. A strong climate science–policy relationship facilitates the effective integration of climate knowledge into local, national and global policy processes, increases society’s responsiveness to a changing climate, and aligns research activity to policy needs. This complex science–policy relationship requires trust between climate science ‘producers’ and ‘users’, but our understanding of trust at this interface remains largely uncritical. To assist climate scientists and policymakers, this Perspective provides insights into how trust develops and operates at the interface of climate science and policy, and examines the extent to which trust can manage — or even create — risk at this interface.

One world or two? Science–policy interactions in the climate field

ABSTRACTThis article assesses how science–policy interactions are conceptualized in the social sciences with special reference to climate change and the IPCC. In terms of the dimension of distance (or proximity) between science and policy, we discern two ideal-type cases: a ‘two-worlds’ and a ‘one-world’ perspective. The first understands science and policy as independent spheres separated by a clear gap, while the second perceives science and policy as tightly coupled. These two perspectives, presented here in detail and in various sub-variants in order to show their complexity, appear dominant also in the discussions on how to improve, not only describe, the interaction between science and policy. We argue that this situation of opposing perspectives is not beneficial, nor properly recognized by scholars in the field. In response to this, we present a typology that may serve as a modest and judicious way for thinking about and making more nuanced choices in designing science–policy relations.