Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science–policy interface

Wesselink, A. J.; Buchanan, Karen; Georgiadou, Yola; Turnhout, Esther

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.008

Cited by 176 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Working at the science-policy interface in the case of wicked global change and sustainability problems is also said to oblige researchers to reflect on how their own frames of reference, values, beliefs, assumptions, etc. have shaped the conceptualization of http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss4/art1/ Motivation and gratification derived from interaction with "society" the problem as well as the development of the method of investigation and the solution (Wickson et al 2006, Lövbrand 2011, Cornell et al 2013, Wesselink et al 2013interview #5). One can logically assume that a transdisciplinary context as can be found in JKP projects would be conducive to such reflexivity [H5].…”

Section: Changes In Producing Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: what is in it for science?

Hegger¹,

Dieperink²

2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Both in literature and in practice, it is claimed that joint knowledge production (JKP) by researchers, policy makers, and other societal actors is necessary to make science relevant for addressing climate adaptation. Although recent assessments of JKP projects have provided some arguments in favor of their societal merit, much less is known about their scientific merit. We explored the latter by developing a conceptual framework addressing characteristics of doing JKP as well as hypotheses on potential merits and pitfalls in terms of its process, output, and impact for science. Semistructured interviews with six environmental science research leaders as well as discussions with five researchers involved in past JKP projects were used to start operationalizing the framework into criteria and compiling a survey. This survey was filled out by 144 researchers involved in Knowledge for Climate, a large Dutch multiactor research program. The findings suggest that, at least in the context of recently carried out Dutch climate adaptation projects, JKP contributes to a broader empirical knowledge base; more reflexivity on the part of researchers; and more publications for policy makers. We conclude this paper by formulating next research steps, including evaluating what would be a proper balance between more versus less participatory forms of scientific knowledge production.

show abstract

Section: Changes In Producing Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: what is in it for science?

Hegger¹,

Dieperink²

2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the translation of evidence from science to policy is rarely linear and decisions are informed through other mechanisms as well as published literature (e.g. Sharman and Holmes, 2010;Wesselink et al, 2013 and references therein), misinformation and misrepresentation within reviews is likely to further undermine evidence-informed decision-making. There is consequently a need to develop ways in which the reliability of individual reviews can be evaluated and compared to determine the value of their contribution to the evidence base prior to their incorporation within the decisionmaking process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation

O‘Leary

Kvist

Bayliss

et al. 2016

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the proliferation of primary research articles, the importance of reliable environmental evidence reviews for informing policy and management decisions is increasing. Although conducting reviews is an efficient method of synthesising the fragmented primary evidence base, reviews that are of poor methodological reliability have the potential to misinform by not accurately reflecting the available evidence base. To assess the current value of evidence reviews for decision-making we appraised a systematic sample of articles published in early 2015 (N=92) using the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool (CEESAT). CEESAT assesses the methodology of policy-relevant evidence reviews according to elements important for objectivity, transparency and comprehensiveness. Overall, reviews performed poorly with a median score of 2.5/39 and a modal score of zero (range 0-30, mean 5.8), and low scores were ubiquitous across subject areas. In general, reviews that applied meta-analytical techniques achieved higher scores than narrative syntheses (median 18.3 and 2.0 respectively), as a result of the latter consistently failing to adequately report methodology or how conclusions were drawn. However, some narrative syntheses achieved high scores, illustrating that the reliability of reviews should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Given the potential importance of reviews for informing management and policy, as well as research, it is vital that overall methodological reliability is improved. Although the increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses highlight that some progress is being made, our findings suggest little or no improvement in the last decade. To motivate progress, we recommend that an annual assessment of the methodological reliability of evidence reviews be conducted. To better serve the environmental policy and management communities we identify a requirement for independent critical appraisal of review methodology thus enabling decisionmakers to select reviews that are most likely to accurately reflect the evidence base.

show abstract

“…To understand these processes I position my approach within an interpretive tradition. The methodological foundations of constructivist science studies (Clarke, 2005;Jasanoff, 2004Jasanoff, , 2010a and interpretative policy analysis (Wagenaar, 2011;Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2006) have much in common (Wesselink, Buchanan, Georgiadou & Turnhout, 2013). Both share a particular attention to the subjective meanings actors construct and mobilise in particular situations, and the approach of using thick descriptions to provide insights in the situated context of meaning-making.…”

Section: Methodological Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming adaptation. Authoritative knowledge for climate change governance

Boezeman¹

2017

Bestuurskunde

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science–policy interface

Cited by 176 publications

References 51 publications

Joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: what is in it for science?

Joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: what is in it for science?

The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation

Transforming adaptation. Authoritative knowledge for climate change governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About