In studies of environmental issues, the question of how to establish a productive interplay between science and policy is widely debated, especially in relation to climate change. The aim of this article is to advance this discussion and contribute to a better understanding of how science is summarized for policy purposes by bringing together two academic discussions that usually take place in parallel: the question of how to deal with formalization (structuring the procedures for assessing and summarizing research, e.g. by protocols) and separation (maintaining a boundary between science and policy in processes of synthesizing science for policy). Combining the two dimensions, we draw a diagram onto which different initiatives can be mapped. A high degree of formalization and separation are key components of the canonical image of scientific practice. Influential Science and Technology Studies analysts, however, are well known for their critiques of attempts at separation and formalization. Three examples that summarize research for policy purposes are presented and mapped onto the diagram: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the European Union's Science for Environment Policy initiative, and the UK Committee on Climate Change. These examples bring out salient differences concerning how formalization and separation are dealt with. Discussing the space opened up by the diagram, as well as the limitations of the attraction to its endpoints, we argue that policy analyses, including much Science and Technology Studies work, are in need of a more nuanced understanding of the two crucial dimensions of formalization and separation. Accordingly, two analytical claims are presented, concerning trajectories, how organizations represented in the diagram move over time, and mismatches, how organizations fail to handle the two dimensions well in practice.

No abstract

No abstract

Recent advances in information technology have enabled new ways of communicating research reports. A significant innovation in this area is that of 'eprint' archives: online repositories in which researchers make their papers freely available to their colleagues. This practice, which is known as self-archiving, poses a serious challenge to traditional academic journals. Publishers have responded with several strategies for remodelling journals in order to make them more attractive to authors and readers. New services, products and initiatives are constantly being launched in this market, and the outcome of the present disruption is uncertain. The present paper employs the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) methodology to analyse the current transformation in scholarly communication. The analysis defines the functions long served by academic publishing, examines the extent to which newly introduced technologies fulfil these functions and explains the dynamics of the stabilization process now underway. A key element of the analysis is the principle of interpretative flexibility. In the present case, interpretative flexibility brings into relief disciplinary variation in the needs and interests of potential users.The extent to which scientific knowledge reflects the specific social and historical circumstances surrounding its construction has long been the subject of acrimonious debate, but there is general consensus that science is a social activity in the sense that those engaged in it do not work in isolation from their colleagues. Practitioners of all disciplines communicate intensively with one another using a variety of forms. An elementary distinction for categorizing such communication is between formal and informal modes. Informal communication includes information exchanged via telephone, fax, letters and email, as well as in face-to-face interaction at seminars and conferences. Formal communication, by contrast, refers to published research.

No abstract