Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: A literature review

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 40, Issue , 2014, Pages 16-25

  Spruijt, Pita ^a,b   Knol, Anne B ^b   Vasileiadou, Eleftheria ^c   Devilee, Jeroen ^b   Lebret, Erik ^a,b   Petersen, Arthur C ^c,d  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d PBL NETHERLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Complex issues; Policy advice; Roles of scientists; Scientific experts; Scientometrics

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; ARTICLE; CITATION ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; EMPLOYEE; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE BASE; POLICY; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SCIENCE; SCIENTIST; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 84899581113     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: 18736416     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Ackoff R.L. Redesigning the Future: a system approach to societal problems 1974, John Wiley & Sons, NY.
2. Bäckstrand K. Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environ. Politics 2003, 3(4):24-40.
3. Beck U. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity 1992, Sage, London, UK.
4. Beck S. Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Reg. Environ. Change 2011, 11(2):297-306.
5. Bijker W.E., Bal R., Hendriks R. The Paradox of Scientific Authority: The Role of Scientific Advice in Democracies 2009, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
6. Bradshaw G.A., Borchers J.G. Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science-policy gap. Conserv. Ecol. 2000, 4(1):7.
7. Briggs D.J. A framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment of systemic risks. Environ. Health 2008, 7(1):61.
8. Burgess J., Stirling A., Clark J., Davies G., Eames M., Staley K., Williamson S. Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions. Public Underst. Sci. 2007, 16(3):299-322.
9. Carolan M.S. Science, expertise, and the democratization of the decision-making process. Soc. Nat. Res. 2006, 19(7):661-668.
10. Carolan M.S. The politics in environmental science: the Endangered Species Act and the Preble's mouse controversy. Environ. Polit. 2008, 17(3):449-465.
11. Choi B.C.K., Pang T., Lin V., Puska P., Sherman G., Goddard M., Ackland M.J., Sainsbury P., Stachenko S., Morrison H., Clottey C. Can scientists and policy makers work together?. J. Epidemiol. Community Health (1979-) 2005, 59(8):632-637.
12. Choi B.C.K., Gupta A., Ward B. Good thinking: six ways to bridge the gap between scientists and policy makers. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2009, 63(3):179-180.
13. Churchman C.W. Guest editorial: wicked problems. Manage. Sci. 1967, 14(4):B141-B142.
14. Cuppen E. Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods. Policy Sci. 2012, 45(1):23-46.
15. Dunn W.N. Methods of the second type: Coping with the wilderness of conventional policy analysis. Review Policy Res. 1988, 7(4):720-737.
16. Dunlop C.A. Policy transfer as learning - capturing variation in what decision-makers learn from epistemic communities. Policy Stud. 2009, 30(3):289-311.
17. Eeten M.J.G.v. Recasting intractable policy issues: the wider implications of the Netherlands civil aviation controversy. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 2001, 20(3):391-414.
18. Ericsson K.A., Lehmann A.C. Expert and exceptional performance: evidence and maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1996, 47(1):273.
19. Ericsson K.A., Ward P. Capturing the naturally occurring superior performance of experts in the laboratory: toward a science of expert and exceptional performance. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2007, 16(6):346-350.
20. Funtowicz S.O., Ravetz J.R. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy 1990, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
21. Funtowicz S.O., Ravetz J.R. Risk management as a post-normal science. Risk Anal. 1992, 12(1):95-97.
22. Funtowicz S.O., Ravetz J.R. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 1993, 25(7):735-755.
23. Garfield E. From Bibliographic Coupling to Co-citation Analysis via Algorithmic Historio-bibliography 2001, Drexel University, Philadelphia.
24. Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M. The New Production of Knowledge; The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies 1994, Sage Publications Ltd., Stockholm, Sweden.
25. Gieryn T.F. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48(6):781-795.
26. Guston D.H. Boundary organisations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci. Technol. Human Values 2001, 26(4 (Special Issue: Boundary)):399-408.
27. Hage M., Leroy P. Leidraad Stakeholderparticipatie voor het Milieu-en Natuurplanbureau: Hoofddocument 2007, 23. PBL, Bilthoven.
28. Hage M., Leroy P., Petersen A.C. Stakeholder participation in environmental knowledge production. Futures 2010, 42:254-264.
29. Hajer M.A. Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. Words Matter in Policy and Planning; Discourse Theory and Method in the Social Sciences 2006, vol. 344:65-74. Netherlands Geographical Studies., Utrecht.
30. Halffman W. Science-policy boundaries: national styles?. Sci. Public Policy 2005, 32(6):457-467.
31. Halffman W., Hoppe R. Science/policy boundaries: a changing division of labour in Dutch expert policy advice. Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision Making 2005, Kluwer, Dordrecht. S. Maasen, P. Weingart (Eds.).
32. Hessels L.K., Van Lente H. Re-thinking new knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda. Res. Policy 2008, 37:740-760.
33. Hisschemöller M., Hoppe R. Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowl. Technol. Policy 1995, 8(4):40-60.
34. Hisschemöller M., Hoppe R. Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. Policy Studies Review Annual 2001, vol. 12. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
35. Hoppe R. Scientific advice and public policy: expert advisers' and policymakers' discourses on boundary work. Poiesis Prax 2008, 6:235-263.
36. Hoppe R. Scientific advice and public policy: expert advisers' and policymakers' discourses on boundary work. Poiesis Prax 2009, 6(3/4):235-263.
37. Jasanoff S. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 2003, 41:233-244.
38. Jasanoff S. The science of science advice. Future Directions for Scientific Advice in Whitehall 2013, University of Cambridge. R. Doubleday, J. Wilsdon (Eds.).
39. Jasanoff S., Wynne B. Science and decision making. Human Choice & Climate Change 1998, vol. 1:1-87. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio.
40. Kheifets L.I., Hester G.L., Banerjee G.L. The precautionary principle and EMF: implementation and evaluation. J. Risk Res. 2001, 4(2):113-125.
41. Klinke A., Renn O. Systemic risks as challenge for policy making in risk governance. Forum: Qual. Social Res. 2006, 7(1). Art. 33.
42. Levidow L., Carr S., Wield D. European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy. Sci. Public Policy 2005, 32(4):261-276.
43. Leydesdorff L., Carley S., Rafols I. Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories. Scientometrics 2013, 94(2):589-593.
44. Lövbrand E. Pure science or policy involvement? Ambiguous boundary-work for Swedish carbon cycle science. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10(1):39-47.
45. Lövbrand E., Öberg G. Comment on "How science makes environmental controversies worse" by Daniel Sarewitz, Environ. Sci. Policy, 7, 385-403 and "When Scientists politicise science: making sense of the controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Roger A. Pielke Jr., Environ. Sci. Policy, 7, 405-417. Environ. Sci. Policy 2005, 8:195-197.
46. Lövbrand E., Pielke R., Beck S. A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2011, 36(4):474-496.
47. McNie E.C. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10(1):17-38.
48. Merton R.K. Role of the intellectual in public bureaucracy. Social Forces 1945, 23(4):405-415.
49. Mieg H.A. System experts and decision making experts in transdisciplinary projects. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2006, 7(3):341-351.
50. Mieg H.A. Two factors of expertise? Excellence and professionalism of environmental experts. High Abil. Stud. 2009, 20(1):91-115.
51. Nooy W.d., Mrvar A., Batagel V. Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek 2005.
52. Nowotny H. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Sci. Public Policy 2003, 30(3):151-156.
53. Nowotny H. How many policy rooms are there? Evidence-based and other kinds of science policies. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2007, 32(4):479-490.
54. OECD Emerging Systemic Risks. Final Report to the OECD Futures Project 2003, OECD, Paris, France.
55. Petersen A.C., Cath A., Hage M., Kunseler E., Van der Sluijs J.P. Post-normal science in practice at the Netherlands environmental assessment agency. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2011, 36(3):362-388.
56. Pielke R.A. When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist. Environ. Sci. Policy 2004, 7(5):405-417.
57. Pielke R.A. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
58. Rafols I., Porter A.L., Leydesdorff L. Science overlay maps: a new tool for research policy and library management. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 2010, 61(9):1871-1887.
59. Renn O., Graham P. White Paper on Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach 2005, IRGC, Geneva, Switzerland.
60. Rittel H.W.J., Webber M.M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973, 4:155-169.
61. Sabatier P.A., Jenkins-Smith H.C. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach 1993, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
62. Sarewitz D. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ. Sci. Policy 2004, 7:385-403.
63. Simon H.A. The structure of ill-structured problems. Models of discovery 1977, 304-325. Springer.
64. Souren A.F.M.M., Poppen R.S., Groenewegen P., van Straalen N.M. Knowledge production and the science-policy relation in Dutch soil policy: results from a survey on perceived roles of organisations. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10(7-8):697-708.
65. Spruijt P., Knol A.B., Torenvlied R., Lebret E. Different roles and viewpoints of scientific experts in advising on environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 2013, 33(10):1844-1857.
66. Stirling A. Science, precaution, and the politics of technological risk - converging implications in evolutionary and social scientific perspectives. Strategies for Risk Communication: Evolution, Evidence, Experience 2008, 1128:95-110. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden.
67. Stirling A., Lobstein T., Millstone E. Methodology for obtaining stakeholder assessments of obesity policy options in the PorGrow project. Obes. Rev. 2007, 8(Suppl. 2):17-27.
68. Taylor-Gooby P., Zinn J.O. Current directions in risk research: new developments in psychology and sociology. Soc. Risk Anal. 2006, 26(2):397-411.
69. Tuinstra W. Preparing for the European Thematic Strategy on air pollution: at the interface between science and policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10(5):434-444.
70. Turnhout E., Leroy P. Participeren in onzekerheid. Literatuuronderzoek naar het inzetten van participatie in wetenschappelijke beleidsadvisering 2004, RIVM, Bilthoven.
71. Turnhout E., Hisschemöller M., Eijsackers H. Ecological indicators: between the two fires of science and policy. Ecol. Indic. 2007, 7(2):215-228.
72. Turnhout E., Hisschemöller M., Eijsackers H. Science in Wadden Sea policy: from accommodation to advocacy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2008, 11(3):227-239.
73. Turnhout E., Stuiver M., Klostermann J., Harms B., Leeuwis C. New roles of science in society: different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Sci. Public Policy 2013, 40(3):354-365.
74. Van Asselt M.B.A. Nieuwe risico's in het vizier [New risks in the picture]. The Hague, Raad voor Ruimtelijk, Milieu-en Natuuronderzoek (RMNO) 2010.
75. Van Asselt M.B.A., Renn O. Risk governance. J. Risk Res. 2011, 14(4):431-449.
76. Van Asselt M.B.A., Vos E. The precautionary principle and the uncertainty paradox. J. Risk Res. 2006, 9(4):313-336.
77. Van der Sluijs J. Uncertainty as a monster in the science-policy interface: four coping strategies. Water Sci. Technol. 2005, 52(6):87-92.
78. Van Dijk H.F.G., Van Rongen E., Eggermont G., Lebret E., Bijker W.E., Timmermans D.R.M. The role of scientific advisory bodies in precaution-based risk governance illustrated with the issue of uncertain health effects of electromagnetic fields. J. Risk Res. 2011, 14(4):451-456.
79. Van Eijndhoven J., Groenewegen P. The construction of expert advice on health risks. Social Stud. Sci. 1991, 21(2):257-278.
80. Weible C.M. Stakeholder perceptions of scientists: Lake Tahoe environmental policy from 1984 to 2001. Environ. Manage. 2007, 40(6):853-865.
81. Weible C.M. Expert-based information and policy subsystems: a review and synthesis. Policy Stud. J. 2008, 36(4):615-635.
82. Weible C.M., Moore R.H. Analytics and beliefs: competing explanations for defining problems and choosing allies and opponents in collaborative environmental management. Public Admin. Rev. 2010, 70(5):756-766.
83. Weible C.M., Sabatier P.A. Coalitions, science, and belief change: comparing adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems. Policy Stud. J. 2009, 37(2):195-212.
84. Weible C.M., Sabatier P.A., Lubell M. A comparison of a collaborative and top-down approach to the use of science in policy: establishing marine protected areas in California. J. Policy Stud. 2004, 32(2):187-208.
85. Weible C.M., Sabatier P.A., McQueen K. Themes and variations: taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Stud. J. 2009, 37(1):121-140.
86. Weible C.M., Pattison A., Sabatier P.A. Harnessing expert-based information for learning and the sustainable management of complex socio-ecological systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13(6):522-534.
87. Weingart P. From finalization to mode 2: old wine in new bottles?. Social Sci. Inf. 1997, 36(4):591-613.
88. Weingart P. Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Science Public Policy 1999, 26(3):151-161.
89. Weiss C. Scientific uncertainty and science-based precaution. Int. Environ. Agree.: Polit. Law Econ. 2003, 3(2):137-166.
90. Wesselink A., Buchanan K.S., Georgiadou Y., Turnhout E. Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science-policy interface. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 30(0):1-9.
91. WRR Lerende overheid: een pleidooi voor probleemgerichte politiek 2006, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
92. Yearley S. Bridging the science-policy divide in urban air-quality management: Evaluating ways to make models more robust through public engagement. Environ. Plann. C Gov. Policy 2006, 24(5):701-714.
93. Zinn J.O. Social Contexts and Responses to Risk Network (SCARR) Literature Review: Sociology and Risk 2004, University of Kent, Kent.