Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces

Sarkki, Simo; Niemelä, Jari; Tinch, Rob; Hove, Sybille van den; Watt, Allan D.; Young, Juliette

doi:10.1093/scipol/sct046

Cited by 172 publications

(192 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

176

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3). Evidence from practitioners in the field and qualitative studies claim that salience, credibility, and legitimacy are important to generate policy action, even while they recognize tradeoffs may be necessary among these attributes (16)(17)(18)20). Our results indicate that these attributes are not equally important for each stage of impact we considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…"Salience" refers to the relevance of scientific knowledge to the needs of decisionmakers; "credibility" comes from scientific and technical arguments being trustworthy and expert-based; and "legitimacy" refers to knowledge that is produced in an unbiased way and that fairly considers stakeholders' different points of view. Their framework has inspired researchers to investigate these three attributes and how they affect decision-makers using knowledge (17)(18)(19)(20)(21).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

Posner

McKenzie

Ricketts

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

217

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research about ecosystem services (ES) often aims to generate knowledge that influences policies and institutions for conservation and human development. However, we have limited understanding of how decision-makers use ES knowledge or what factors facilitate use. Here we address this gap and report on, to our knowledge, the first quantitative analysis of the factors and conditions that explain the policy impact of ES knowledge. We analyze a global sample of cases where similar ES knowledge was generated and applied to decision-making. We first test whether attributes of ES knowledge themselves predict different measures of impact on decisions. We find that legitimacy of knowledge is more often associated with impact than either the credibility or salience of the knowledge. We also examine whether predictor variables related to the science-to-policy process and the contextual conditions of a case are significant in predicting impact. Our findings indicate that, although many factors are important, attributes of the knowledge and aspects of the science-to-policy process that enhance legitimacy best explain the impact of ES science on decision-making. Our results are consistent with both theory and previous qualitative assessments in suggesting that the attributes and perceptions of scientific knowledge and process within which knowledge is coproduced are important determinants of whether that knowledge leads to action. ecosystem services | science policy interface | conservation | knowledge systems | boundary organizations T he ongoing loss of biological diversity and persistence of poverty have sparked interest in policies that protect, restore, and enhance ecosystem services (ES). In response, there has been a growth in ES research that aims to inform policies, incentives, and institutions on a large scale (1-3). Despite this goal, scientific knowledge about ES continues to have limited impact on policy and decisions (1, 4-7).The fact that most land-and resource-use policy decisions still do not take ES into account stems in part from an ineffective interface between ES science and policy, a need for scientists to better understand decision-making processes, and challenges in clarifying conflicting stakeholder values (8-11). In some cases, the science-policy interface is an important aspect of decisionmaking, but often the ES research and policy communities are disconnected from one another, with limited interactions, infrequent exchanges of information, and different objectives that hinder coordinated science and policy processes (12). Many scientists conduct ES research without fully considering how the knowledge they are producing might be used (5). If we want ES information to be incorporated into decisions, then we need to understand how and why decision-makers use certain kinds of information. We define "information" as a tangible, factual output of scientific research produced through specific ES analyses; "knowledge" as a body of information learned and conveyed through scientific and policy processes; ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

Posner

McKenzie

Ricketts

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

217

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, knowledge is something better understood as socially constructed (co-production) (Cash et al 2006) and there are important trade-offs in producing knowledge that is simultaneously credible, legitimate and relevant (Cash et al 2003). For example, whilst there may sometimes be a case for rushing results to meet pressing policy demands thereby addressing their relevance, there is a risk this may impact on the quality of the science produced, its credibility and, in turn, the perceived credibility of the knowledge providers (Sarkki et al 2013).…”

Section: Insights From the Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A better, more effective dialogue is needed between biodiversity science and policy to underpin the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. Many initiatives exist to improve communication, but these largely conform to a 'linear' or technocratic model of communication in which scientific ''facts'' are transmitted directly to policy advisers to ''solve problems''. While this model can help start a dialogue, it is, on its own, insufficient, as decision taking is complex, iterative and often selective in the information used. Here, we draw on the literature, interviews and a workshop with individuals working at the interface between biodiversity science and government policy development to Building on these recommendations, we stress the need to: (a) frame research and policy jointly; (b) promote inter-and trans-disciplinary research and ''multi-domain'' working groups that include both scientists and policy makers from various fields and sectors; (c) put in place structures and incentive schemes that support interactive dialogue in the long-term. These are changes that are needed in light of continuing loss of biodiversity and its consequences for societal dependence on and benefits from nature.

show abstract

“…As the challenges of an SPI bringing together diverse actors, are diverse in terms of functions, structures, governance, processes and outputs of such SPIs (Sarkki et al 2013;Carmen et al 2015), the papers of the special issue accordingly deal with different dimensions that need to be addressed in successful SPIs (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Challenges and Solutions For Networking Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, scientific evidence may not always be strong enough to directly derive conclusions and recommendations of high certainty. As a consequence, there is a need for complementary approaches of knowledge synthesis that are flexible enough to meet the needs of knowledge users to inform decisions in difficult policy and societal contexts (Sarkki et al 2013;Young et al 2014;Nesshöver et al 2014). In this context, working at synthesizing or co-constructing knowledge by associating scientists and other actors can increase the effectiveness of the interfacing activity between science, policy and society, going further than the usual mere translation of knowledge from providers to requesters, described as the classical linear-model of policy advice (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1994;Pielke 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and solutions for networking knowledge holders and better informing decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to effectively inform decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services has been under continuous debate in Europe and globally since the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in 1992. On the global level the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services was installed in 2012 to address this need. Yet, biodiversity and ecosystem services management have to be addressed on multiple levels, across biophysical as well as administrative scales. Also, the knowledge needed to address them has to be brought together from science, management practices and other knowledge domains to become relevant and it must be delivered in ways relevant for policies beyond the environmental sector. This Special Issue brings together papers that analyse the challenges arising from this context. Most of them are based on the EU-funded project KNEU that aimed at developing a new, integrative approach to activate knowledge holders and bring them together for targeted knowledge synthesis activities. The papers address the potential functions, structures and processes of such activities in a joint framework, the Network of Knowledge. Practical aspects are addressed via a number of trial assessments carried out in the project. All in all, they 123Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:1207-1214 DOI 10.1007/s10531-016-1124 showcase new ways of knowledge synthesis that have the potential to complement and strengthen existing ones across scales and sectors, thus supporting an improved management of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

show abstract

Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces

Abstract: The NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner.

Cited by 172 publications

References 34 publications

Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another

Challenges and solutions for networking knowledge holders and better informing decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About