Formalization and separation: A systematic basis for interpreting approaches to summarizing science for climate policy

Abstract

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.

Mismatches in the production of a scoping review: Highlighting the interplay of (in)formalities

“…It is probably impossible to understand the production of complex scoping reviews without acknowledging the role of this interplay. Following Sundqvist et al, 13 there is a point in making these informalities visible in the scientific literature and thus reducing the mismatch between formal accounts and the reality of reviewing. In a Swedish context, the division of labour between the government agencies involved in evidence-basing must not be overlooked.…”

“…The formal rules serve to minimize the influence of personal biases when searching, mapping, and synthesizing scientific studies . Empirical studies of the production of knowledge within STS and other fields, however, have shown that formalized methods help create a canonical view of general and objective scientific knowledge although the actual practices of science are highly particular and informal . These findings are particularly interesting in light of the increasing development towards a formalized scoping review method, which is becoming more similar to the traditional systematic review methodology within EBM.…”

Stakeholder Engagement in the Making: IPBES Legitimization Politics

“…In this context, the aim of formalization was to make sure that the SES procedures are "purpose driven, robust, and deliver results" (IPBES 2014b, 2). However, this type of formalization certainly contributed to restricting the available space for bottom-up and inclusive process (see Sundqvist et al 2015).…”

"I Will Write a Letter and Change the World". The Knowledge Base Kick-Starting Norway’s Rainforest Initiative

“…In The third entry point for developing the Sundqvist et al (2015) framework was analyzing how civil society actors (like ENGOs) perform in terms of formalization and separation compared to other actors such as scientists and decision-makers. We have seen that this theoretical framework also can be useful for studying other actors and their knowledge production aimed at policymaking.…”

“…We have seen that this theoretical framework also can be useful for studying other actors and their knowledge production aimed at policymaking. Yet it has proved necessary to introduce nuances into certain areas of Sundqvist et al's (2015) framework. For example, whether and how the letter is a formalized source of knowledge is a point of contention: It is weakly formalized as such, yet it depends on highly formalized sources (like the IPCC and the Stern report)…”