Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
6 - Usable Knowledge
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2019
Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter discusses the issue of ‘usable knowledge‘. Specifically, it looks at the relation of science to decision making: governments, civil servants, or groups of actors deliberating over collective problems, goals and solutions, and how these should be achieved. A key question that is often asked is how the sciences can best contribute to policy making: with what kinds of attitude or principles, in what kinds of organisations, with what kinds of communication tools? The chapter introduces concepts to characterise and analyse strategies of connecting science and policy. It addresses institutional as well as problem-oriented attempts to connect knowledge production and use. What kinds of arrangements lead to ‘usable knowledge’, or, alternatively phrased, to knowledge that is ‘effective’ or has ‘impact’? And, finally, can we still sensibly figure out some sort of criteria to evaluate the usability and quality of knowledge and of the knowledge production processes?
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Environmental ExpertiseConnecting Science, Policy and Society, pp. 126 - 140Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Allison, G. T., and Zelikow, P. (1971). Essence of Decision. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Bammer, G. (2013). Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: Integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-World Problems. Canberra: ANU E-Press. doi: 10.22459/DI.01.2013Google Scholar
Bammer, G. (2017). Should We Discipline Interdisicplinarity? Palgrave Communications, 3 (30). doi: 10.1057/s41599-017–0039-7Google Scholar
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., et al. (2003). Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(14), 8086–8091.Google Scholar
Drucker, P. F. (1967). The Effective Decision. Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration. Cambridge, MA: Lansford.Google Scholar
Farrell, A. E., VanDeveer, S. D., and Jäger, J. (2001). Environmental Assessments: Four Under-appreciated Elements of Design. Global Environmental Change 11(4), 311–333.Google Scholar
Farrell, A. E., and Jäger, J., eds. (2005). Assessments of Regional and Global Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in Decisionmaking. Washington, DC: RFF Press.Google Scholar
Fazey, I., Evely, A. C., Reed, M. S., et al. (2013). Knowledge Exchange: A Review and Research Agenda for Environmental Management. Environmental Conservation 40, 19–36.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and Power: Democracy and Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the Boundary Between US Politics and Science: The Role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a Boundary Organization. Social Studies of Science, 29, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary Organisations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26, 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halffman, W. (2005). Science/Policy Boundaries: National Styles? Science and Public Policy, 32(6), 457–467. doi: 10.3152/147154305781779281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halffman, W. (2008). States of Nature: Nature and Fish Stock Reports for Policy. The Hague: Netherlands Consultative Committee of Sector Councils for Research and Development.Google Scholar
Halffman, W., and Broekhans, B. (2012). The Landscape of Environmental Expertise. In Tuinstra, W., ed., Course Book Environmental Problems: Crossing Boundaries Between Science, Policy and Society (pp. 55–87). Heerlen: Open Universiteit.Google Scholar
Hisschemöller, M., and Hoppe, R. (1996). Coping with Intractable Controversies: The Case for Problem Structuring in Policy Design and Analysis. Knowledge and Policy, 8, 40–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoppe, R. A. (2010). The Governance of Problems: Puzzling, Powering, and Participation. Portland: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Huitema, D., and Turnhout, E. (2009). Working at the Science–Policy Interface: A Discursive Analysis of Boundary Work at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Environmental Politics, 18, 576–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, J. T., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Haberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R. W., and Welti, M. (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kunseler, E.-M., and Tuinstra, W. (2017). Navigating the Authority Paradox: Practising Objectivity in Environmental Expertise. Environmental Science and Policy 67, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, I. S., Daalen, C. E. van, and Bots, P. W. G. (2004). Perspectives on Policy Analyses: A Framework for Understanding and Design. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 4(2), 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, J., and Grennfelt, P., eds. (1988). Critical Loads for Sulphur and Nitrogen. The Nordic Council of Ministers 15. Copenhagen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pielke, R. (2007). The Honest Broker Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohl, C., and Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research Proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. München: Oekom Verlag.Google Scholar
Reed, M. S. (2018). The Research Impact Handbook, 2nd edn. Newcastle upon Tyne: Fast Track Impact.Google Scholar
Rich, R. F. (1991). Knowledge Creation, Diffusion and Utilization, Perspectives of the Founding Editor of Knowledge. Knowledge Creation, Diffusion and Utilization, 12, 319–337.Google Scholar
Rittel, H., and Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Star, S. L., and Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’, and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuinstra, W., Hordijk, L., and Kroeze, C. (2006). Moving Boundaries in Transboundary Air Pollution Co-production of Science and Policy under the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Global Environmental Change, 16, 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnhout, E. (2009). The Effectiveness of Boundary Objects: The Case of Ecological Indicators. Science and Public Policy, 36, 403–412.Google Scholar
Turnhout, E., Hisschemöller, M., and Eijsackers, H. (2007). Ecological Indicators: Between the Two Fires of Science and Policy. Ecological Indicators, 7(2), 215–228.Google Scholar
Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What Is Participatory Action Research? Action Research International Paper 2. www.aral.com.au/ari/p-ywadsworth98.htmlGoogle Scholar
Walter, A.I., Wiek, A., and Scholz, R.W. (2008). Constructing Regional Development Srategies: A Case Study Approach for Integrated Planning and Synthesis. In Hadorn, Hirsch, et al., (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research (pp. 223–243). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H. (1995). The Haphazard Connection: Social Science and Public Policy. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 137–150.Google Scholar