Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive and institutional effects: examples from conservation and environmental policy

Biodiversity and Conservation

Volumn 23, Issue 14, 2014, Pages 3615-3639

  Pregernig, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Environmental policy; Knowledge utilization; Linear model; Science policy interactions; Socio constructivism

Indexed keywords

EID: 84914675298     PISSN: 09603115     EISSN: 15729710     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-014-0806-3     Document Type: Article

References (182)

1. Åkerman M (2003) What does ‘natural capital’ do? the role of metaphor in economic understanding of the environment. Environ Values 12(4):431–448
2. Antonelli C (2005) Models of knowledge and systems of governance. J Inst Econ 1(1):51–73
3. Arrow K (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson RR (ed) The rate and direction of inventive activity: economic and social factors. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 609–626
4. Bäckstrand K (2003) Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environ Politics 3(4):24–41
5. Bäckstrand K (2004) Scientisation vs. civic expertise in environmental governance: eco–feminist, Eco–modern and post–modern responses. Environ Politics 13(4):695–714
6. Bäckstrand K, Khan J, Kronsell A, Lövbrand E (2010) The promise of new modes of environmental governance. In: Bäckstrand K, Khan J, Kronsell A, Lövbrand E (eds) Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: examining the promise of new modes of governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–27
7. Beck U (1986) Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere moderne. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main
8. Beck S (2012) Between tribalism and trust: the IPCC under the ‘public microscope’. Nat Cult 7(2):151–173
9. Beck U, Bonß W (1984) Soziologie und modernisierung Zur Ortsbestimmung der Verwendungsforschung. Soziale Welt 35(4):381–406
10. Beck S, Borie M, Chilvers J, Esguerra A, Heubach K, Hulme M, Lidskog R, Lövbrand E, Marquard E, Miller C, Nadim T, Neßhöver C, Settele J, Turnhout E, Vasileiadou E, Görg C (2014) Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise: the cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA 23(2):80–87
11. Benford RD, Snow DA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Ann Rev Soc 26:611–639
12. Berglund E (2001) Facts, beliefs and biases: perspectives on forest conservation in Finland. J Environ Plan Manag 44(6):833–849
13. Berkes F (2012) Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management, 3rd edn. Routledge, New York
14. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10(5):1251–1262
15. Biermann F (2006) Whose experts? The role of geographic representation in global environmental assessments. In: Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson N (eds) Global environmental assessments: information and influence. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 87–112
16. Boehmer-Christiansen S (1995) Reflections on scientific advice and EC transboundary pollution policy. Sci Public Policy 22(3):195–203
17. Brown MB (2008) Review of Roger S. Pielke, Jr., the honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Minerva 46(4):485–489
18. Buijs AE, Arts BJM, Elands BHM, Lengkeek J (2011) Beyond environmental frames: the social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland. Geoforum 42(3):329–341
19. Bush V (1945) Science, the endless frontier—a report to the president. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
20. Callon M (1994) Is science a public good? Sci Technol Human Values 19(4):395–424
21. Caplan N (1979) The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Sci 22(3):459–470
22. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson N, Eckley N, Guston DH (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8086–8091
23. Charnley G (2000) Democratic science: enhancing the role of science in stakeholder-based risk management decision-making. HealthRisk Strategies, Washington, DC
24. Clark WC, Dickson N (2001) Civic Science: America’s Encounter with Global Environmental Risks. In: Social Learning Group (ed) Learning to manage global environmental risks – volume 1: a comparative history of social responses to climate change, ozone depletion and acid rain, vol 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 259–294
25. Collaborative Partnership on Forests (2007) Joint initiative on science and technology: concept note. Manuscript, s.l
26. Collingridge D, Reeve C (1986) Science speaks to power: the role of experts in policy making. Pinter, London
27. Cooke B, Kothari U (2001) Participation: the new tyranny?. Zed Books, London
28. Council InterAcademy (2010) Climate change assessments: review of the processes and procedures of the ipcc. IAC Secretariat, Amsterdam
29. Cumming GS, Olsson P, Chapin FS, Holling CS (2013) Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28(6):1139–1150
30. Danielsen F, Jensen PM, Burgess ND, Coronado I, Holt S, Poulsen MK, Rueda RM, Skielboe T, Enghoff M, Hemmingsen LH, Sørensen M, Pirhofer-Walzl K (2014) Testing focus groups as a tool for connecting indigenous and local knowledge on abundance of natural resources with science-based land management systems. Conservation letters online first
31. Demeritt D (2001) The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 91(2):307–337
32. Dunn WN (1980) The Two–Communities Metaphor and Models of Knowledge Use: An Exploratory Case Survey. Knowledge 1(4):515–536
33. Elzinga A (1993) Science as the continuation of politics by other means. In: Brante T, Fuller S, Lynch W (eds) Controversial science: from content to contention. SUNY Press, Albany, pp 127–151
34. Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–58
35. Ezrahi Y (1980) Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: the political context of scientific advice. Minerva 18(1):111–131
36. Fazey I, Evely AC, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Kruijsen J, White PCL, Newsham A, Jin L, Cortazzi M, Phillipson J (2013) Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management. Environ Conserv 40(1):19–36
37. Fischer F (1990) Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Sage Publ, Newbury Park
38. Fischer F (2001) Beyond technocratic environmentalism: citizen inquiry in sustainable development. In: Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R, Dunn WN, Ravetz JR (eds) Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 29–45
39. Fischer F (2003) Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford University Press, Oxford
40. Fischhoff B (2013) The sciences of science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(Supplement 3):14033–14039
41. Fletcher AL (2009) Clearing the air: the contribution of frame analysis to understanding climate policy in the United States. Environ Politics 18(5):800–816
42. Foltz F (1999) Five arguments for increasing public participation in making science policy. Bull Sci Technol Soc 19(2):117–127
43. Ford JD, Vanderbilt W, Berrang-Ford L (2012) Authorship in IPCC AR5 and its implications for content: climate change and Indigenous populations in WGII. Clim Change 113(2):201–213
44. Foucault M (1980) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Pantheon, New York
45. Friedman SM, Dunwoody S, Rogers CL (1999) Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science. Routledge, New York
46. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–756
47. Gamborg CH, Parrotta JA, Thorsen BJ (2004) The forest science/policy interface: building bridges to a sustainable future. Scand J For Res 19(S4):1–176
48. Game ET, Meijaard E, Sheil D, McDonald‐Madden E (2013) Conservation in a wicked complex world; challenges and solutions. Conservation letters online first
49. German Advisory Council on Global Change (2011) World in transition: a social contract for sustainability. WBGU, Berlin
50. Geuna A (1999) The economics of knowledge production: funding and the structure of university research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
51. Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non–science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48(6):781–795
52. Godin B (2006) The linear model of innovation: the historical construction of an analytical framework. Sci Technol Human Values 31(6):639–667
53. Grundmann R (2009) The role of expertise in governance processes. Forest Policy Econ 11(5–6):398–403
54. Grundmann R (2012) The legacy of climategate: revitalizing or undermining climate science and policy? Wiley Interdiscip Rev 3(3):281–288
55. Guldin RW, Parrotta JA, Hellström E (2005) Working effectively at the interface of forest science and forest policy: guidance for scientists and research organizations. IUFRO Occasional Paper No. 17. IUFRO, Vienna
56. Guston DH (2000) Retiring the social contract for science. Issues Sci Technol 16(4):32–36
57. Guston DH (2001) Toward a “best practice” of constructing “serviceable truths”. In: Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R, Dunn WN, Ravetz JR (eds) Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis. Transaction Publishers, London, pp 97–118
58. Haas P (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Org 46(1):1–35
59. Habermas J (1968) Technik und wissenschaft als ‘ideologie’. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main
60. Hagendijk R, Irwin A (2006) Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary europe. Minerva 44(2):167–184
61. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2014) The ecosystem approach as a framework for understanding knowledge utilisation. Environ Plan C 32(2):301–319
62. Hajer MA, Laws D (2006) Ordering through discourse. In: Moran M, Rein M, Goodin RE (eds) The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 251–268
63. Hamann A, Zea-Schmidt C, Leinfelder R (eds) (2013) Die große Transformation. Klima - Kriegen wir die Kurve? Verlagshaus Jacoby & Stuart, Berlin
64. Harding S (1993) Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is ‘strong objectivity’? In: Alcoff L, Potter E (eds) Feminist epistemology. Routledge, New York, pp 49–82
65. Hertin J, Jacob K, Pesch U, Pacchi C (2009) The production and use of knowledge in regulatory impact assessment: an empirical analysis. Forest Policy Econ 11(5–6):413–421
66. Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R (2001) Coping with Intractable Controversies: The Case for Problem Structuring in Policy Design and Analysis. In: Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R, Dunn WN, Ravetz JR (eds) Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis., Policy studies review annual no. 12Transaction Publishers, London, pp 47–72
67. Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R, Dunn WN, Ravetz JR (2001) Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis: an introduction. In: Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R, Dunn WN, Ravetz JR (eds) Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis., Policy studies review annual no. 12Transaction Publishers, London, pp 1–26
68. Hulme M (2010) Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Glob Environ Change 20(4):558–564
69. International Council for Science (2010) Earth system science for global sustainability: the grand challenges. ICSU, Paris
70. Irwin A (1995) Citizen science: a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. Routledge, London
71. Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst Sci 10(1):1–18
72. Jäger J (1998) Current thinking on using scientific findings in environmental policy making. Environ Model Assess 3(3):143–153
73. Janse G (2008) Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe: a survey on both sides of the science/policy interface. Forest Policy Econ 10(3):183–194
74. Jasanoff S (1987) Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc Stud Sci 17(2):195–230
75. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
76. Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3):223–244
77. Jasanoff S (2004) The idiom of co–production. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge: the co–production of science and social order. Routledge, London, pp 1–12
78. Jasanoff S (2005) Judgement under Siege: The Three–Body Problem of Expert Legitimacy. In: Maasen S, Weingart P (eds) Democratization of expertise? exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision–making, vol 24., sociology of the science yearbookSpringer, Dordrecht, pp 209–224
79. Jasanoff S (2008) Speaking honestly to power. Am Sci 96(3):240
80. Jasanoff S, Wynne B (1998) Science and decisionmaking. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change, vol 1., The societal frameworkBattelle Press, Columbus, pp 1–87
81. Johnson KN, Herring M (1999) Understanding bioregional assessments. In: Johnson KN, Swanson F, Herring M, Greene S (eds) Bioregional assessments: science at the crossroads of management and policy. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 341–376
82. Jones MD, Song G (2013) Making sense of climate change: how story frames shape cognition. Political psychology online first
83. Juntti M, Russel D, Turnpenny J (2009) Evidence, politics and power in public policy for the environment. Environ Sci Policy 12(3):207–215
84. Keller R (2011) The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD). Hum Stud 34(1):43–65
85. Kleine M (2009) Capacity building for effective work at the interface of forest science and forest policy. Mt Res Dev 29(2):114–120
86. Kleinschmit D, Krott M (eds) (2005) Public Relations for Forest Science. IUFRO Task Force Public Relations; IUFRO-SPDC, Vienna
87. Kohler-Koch B (2000) Framing: the bottleneck of constructing legitimate institutions. J Eur Public Policy 7(4):513–531
88. Kosoy N, Corbera E (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ 69(6):1228–1236
89. Krott M (2012) Value and risks of the use of analytical theory in science for forest policy. Forest Policy Econ 16(1):35–42
90. Kueffer C, Underwood E, Hirsch Hadorn G, Holderegger R, Lehning M, Pohl C, Schirmer M, Schwarzenbach R, Stauffacher M, Wuelser G, Edwards P (2012) Enabling effective problem-oriented research for sustainable development. Ecol Soc 17 (4): Art. 8 (online)
91. Larigauderie A, Mooney HA (2010) The Intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services: moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Curr Opinion Environ Sustain 2(1–2):9–14
92. Lawton RN, Rudd MA (2014) A narrative policy approach to environmental conservation. AMBIO online first
93. Leach M, Sumner A, Waldman L (2008) Discourses, dynamics and disquiet: multiple knowledges in science, society and development. J Int Dev 20(6):727–738
94. Lee S, Roth WM (2001) How ditch and drain become a healthy creek: re–presentations, translations and agency during the re/design of a watershed. Soc Stud Sci 31(3):315–356
95. Lee DK, Koch NE, Innes J, Mayer P (2011) Emerging issues in forest science. Folia Forestalia Polonica, Series A 53(1):52–63
96. Lewicki RJ, Gray B, Elliott M (eds) (2003) Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: concepts and cases. Island Press, Washington, D.C
97. Lindquist EA (1990) The third community, policy inquiry, and social scientists. In: Brooks S, Gagnon AG (eds) Social scientists, policy, and the state. Praeger, New York, pp 21–51
98. Litfin KT (1995) Framing science: precautionary discourse and the ozone treaties. Millennium 24(2):251–277
99. Long Martello M, Iles A (2006) Making climate change impacts meaningful: framing, methods, and process in coastal zone and agricultural assessments. In: Farrell AE, Jäger J (eds) Assessments of regional and global environmental risks: designing processes for the effective use of science in decisionmaking. RFF Press, Washington, DC, pp 101–118
100. Loreau M, Oteng-Yeboah A (2006) Diversity without representation. Nature 442(7100):245–246
101. Lövbrand E, Stripple J, Wiman B (2009) Earth System governmentality: reflections on science in the Anthropocene. Glob Environ Change 19(1):7–13
102. Lund DH (2012) Scientific and local knowledge in the Danish national park process. In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (eds) Environmental governance: the challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 242–259
103. Martin B, Richards E (1995) Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public decision making. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Peterson JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 506–526
104. Mayer P, Rametsteiner E (2004) Forest science–policy interface in the context of the ministerial conference on the protection of forests in europe: a policy perspective. Scand J Forest Res 19(Suppl. 4):150–156
105. Meyer M (2010) The rise of the knowledge broker. Sci Commun 32(1):118–127
106. Michaels S (2009) Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environ Sci Policy 12(7):994–1011
107. Miller CA (2000) The dynamics of framing environmental values and policy: four models of societal processes. Environ Values 9(2):211–233
108. Miller CA (2004) Resisting empire: globalism, relocalization, and the politics of knowledge. In: Jasanoff S, Long Martello M (eds) Earthly politics: local and global in environmental governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 81–102
109. Millstone E (2005) Science-based policy–making: an analysis of processes of institutional reform. In: Bogner A, Torgersen H (eds) Wozu Experten? Ambivalenzen der Beziehung von Wissenschaft und Politik. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 314–341
110. Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW (2006) Information and influence. In: Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson N (eds) Global environmental assessments: information and influence. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 307–338
111. Neilson S (2001) Knowledge utilization and public policy processes: a literature review. Evaluation Unit IDRC, Ottawa
112. Nisbet MC, Mooney C (2007) Framing science. Science 316(5821):56
113. Norgaard RB (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69(6):1219–1227
114. Nowotny H (1994) wissen entsteht im kontext der anwendung’—theoretische und praktische anmerkungen zum wissenschaftstransfer. In: Apeltauer M (ed) Wissen an der börse—bürgernahe wissenschaft in österreich. Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung, Wien, pp 31–37
115. Oh CH (1996) Linking social science information to policy–making. Jai Press, Greenwich
116. O’Riordan T (1996) Exploring the role of civic science in risk management. In: Hood C, Jones DKC (eds) Accident and design: contemporary debates in risk management. UCL Press, London, pp 182–192
117. Parrotta JA, Campos Arce JJ (2003) Communication across the forest science/forest policy interface. Forest Policy Econ 5(4):329–446
118. Perrings C, Duraiappah A, Larigauderie A, Mooney H (2011) The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface. Science 331(6021):1139–1140
119. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Change 1(1):35–41
120. Pielke RA (2004) When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over the skeptical environmentalist. Environ Sci Policy 7(5):405–417
121. Pielke RA (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
122. Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 11(1):46–53
123. Pregernig M (2000) Putting science into practice: the diffusion of scientific knowledge exemplified by the Austrian ‘research initiative against forest decline’. Forest Policy Econ 1(2):165–176
124. Pregernig M (2006) Transdisciplinarity viewed from afar: science–policy assessments as forums for the creation of transdisciplinary knowledge. Sci Public Policy 33(6):445–455
125. Pregernig M, Böcher M (2012) Normative and analytical perspectives on the role of science and expertise in environmental governance. In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (eds) Environmental governance: the challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
126. Pregernig M, Böcher M (2013) The role of expertise in environmental governance: theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. In: Siebenhüner B, Arnold M, Eisenack K, Jacob K (eds) Long-term governance for social-ecological change. Routledge, London, pp 29–46
127. Price DK (1981) The spectrum from truth to power. In: Kuehn TJ, Porter AL (eds) Science, technology, and national policy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 95–131
128. Pullin AS, Knight TM (2009) Doing more good than harm: building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. Biol Conserv 142(5):931–934
129. Pullin AS, Knight TM, Watkinson AR (2009) Linking reductionist science and holistic policy using systematic reviews: unpacking environmental policy questions to construct an evidence-based framework. J Appl Ecol 46(5):970–975
130. Radaelli CM (1995) The role of knowledge in the policy process. J Eur Public Policy 2(2):160–183
131. Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manag 91(8):1766–1777
132. Rayner S (2003) Democracy in the age of assessment: reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public–sector decision making. Sci Public Policy 30(3):163–170
133. Rein M, Schön DA (1991) Frame-reflective policy discourse. In: Wagner P, Weiss CH, Wittrock B, Wollmann H (eds) Social sciences and modern states: national experiences and theoretical crossroads. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 262–289
134. Rich RF (1977) Uses of social science information by federal bureaucrats: knowledge for action versus knowledge for understanding. In: Weiss CH (ed) Using social research in public policy making. Lexington Books, Lexington, pp 199–212
135. Rich RF (1991) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and utilization: perspectives of the founding editor of knowledge. Knowledge 12(3):319–337
136. Ronge V (1989) Verwendung sozialwissenschaftlicher ergebnisse in institutionellen kontexten. In: Beck U, Bonß W (eds) Weder Sozialtechnologie noch Aufklärung? Analysen zur Verwendung sozialwissenschaftlichen Wissens. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 332–354
137. Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (1987) Knowledge transfer from scientists to decision makers: the threat of air pollution to forests. Report No. 325. IVA, Stockholm
138. Salter AJ, Martin BR (2001) The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Res Policy 30(3):509–532
139. Sanderson I (2002) Making sense of ‘what works’: evidence based policy making as instrumental rationality? Public Policy Adm 17(3):61–75
140. Schelsky H (1965) Auf der Suche nach Wirklichkeit: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Eugen Diederichs Verlag, Düsseldorf; Köln
141. Schön DA, Rein M (1994) Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books, New York
142. Scoones I (2009) The politics of global assessments: the case of the international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development (IAASTD). J Peasant Stud 36(3):547–571
143. Seppälä R (2004) The future of forest research in a changing world. J For Res 9(4):313–316
144. Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, Phillips T, Wiggins A, Jordan R, McCallie E, Minarchek M, Lewenstein BV, Krasny ME (2012) Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol Soc 17(2):29
145. Shmueli DF (2008) Framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts: theory, methodology and three case studies. Geoforum 39(6):2048–2061
146. Shove E, Rip A (2000) Users and unicorns: a discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science. Sci Public Policy 27(3):175–182
147. Skolnikoff EB (2008) Review of Roger A. Pielke, Jr., The Honest Broker: making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Rev Policy Res 25(1):71–73
148. Snow CP (1959) The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press, New York
149. Soberón MJ (2004) Translating life’s diversity. Environment 46(7):10–20
150. Spierenburg M (2012) Getting the message across biodiversity science and policy interfaces a review. GAIA 21(2):125–134
151. Steinberg MW (1998) Tilting the frame: considerations on collective action framing from a discursive turn. Theory Soc 27(6):845–872
152. Stephan PE (1996) The economics of science. J Econ Lit 34(3):1199–1235
153. Stirling A (2008) ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Human Values 33(2):262–294
154. Stirling A (2014) Transforming power: social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Res Soc Sci 1:83–95
155. Stone D (2002) Using knowledge: the dilemmas of ‘bridging research and policy’. Compare 32(3):285–296
156. Sutherland W (2003) Evidence-based conservation. Conserv Pract 4(3):39–42
157. Sutherland WJ, Mitchell R, Prior SV (2012) The role of ‘conservation evidence’ in improving conservation management. Conserv Evid 9(1):1–2
158. Sutherland WJ, Gardner TA, Haider LJ, Dicks LV (2014) How can local and traditional knowledge be effectively incorporated into international assessments? Oryx 48(1):1–2
159. Sutton R (1999) The policy process: an overview. Overseas Development Institute, London
160. Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M (2014) Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO online first
161. Turner JM (2006) Conservation science and forest service policy for roadless areas. Conserv Biol 20(3):713–722
162. Turnhout E, Bloomfield B, Hulme M, Vogel J, Wynne B (2012) Conservation policy: listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488(7412):454–455
163. Turnhout E, Stuiver M, Klostermann J, Harms B, Leeuwis C (2013a) New roles of science in society: different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Sci Public Policy 40(3):354–365
164. Turnhout E, Waterton C, Neves K, Buizer M (2013b) Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to ‘living with’. Conserv Lett 6(3):154–161
165. UNESCO (2013) World social science report: changing global environments—summary. UNESCO Publishing, Paris
166. van Lieshout M, Dewulf A, Aarts N, Termeer CJAM (2011) Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a ‘mega farm’in a small Dutch village. Ecology Society 16(1):38
167. Varner J (2014) Scientific outreach: toward effective public engagement with biological science. Bioscience 64(4):333–340
168. Ward V, Smith S, House A, Hamer S (2012) Exploring knowledge exchange: a useful framework for practice and policy. Soc Sci Med 74(3):297–304
169. Waylen KA, Young J (2014) Expectations and experiences of diverse forms of knowledge use: the case of the Uk national ecosystem assessment. Environ Plann C 32(2):229–246
170. Webber DJ (1992) The distribution and use of policy knowledge in the policy process. In: Dunn WN, Kelly RM (eds) Advances in policy studies since 1950. Transaction Books, London, pp 383–418
171. Weber SM (2013) Politikberatung - Wer spricht? Dispositive der Relationierung im Feld der Politikberatung. In: Felden Hv, Hof C, Schmidt-Lauff S (eds) Erwachsenenbildung im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Politik und Praxis. Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, Baltmannsweiler, pp 34–48
172. Weigold MF (2001) Communicating science: a review of the literature. Sci Commun 23(2):164–193
173. Weingart P (1999) Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Sci Public Policy 26(3):151–161
174. Weiss CH (1977) Research for policy’s sake: the enlightenment function of social research. Policy Anal 3(4):531–545
175. Weiss CH (1980) Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge 1(3):381–404
176. Wildavsky A (1987) Speaking truth to power: the art and craft of policy analysis. Transaction Books, Oxford
177. Wingens M (1990) Toward a general utilization theory: a systems theory reformulation of the two–communities metaphor. Knowledge 12(1):27–42
178. Wynne B (1987) Uncertainty—technical and social. In: Brooks H, Cooper C, Cooper CL (eds) Science for public policy. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 95–115
179. Wynne B (2005) Risk as globalizing ‘democratic’discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement, vol Zed Books. London; New York, NY, pp 66–82
180. Wynne B, Shackley S (1994) Environmental models: truth machines of social heuristics? Globe 21:6–8
181. Young JC, Jordan A, Searle KR, Butler A, Simmons P, Watt AD (2013) Framing scale in participatory biodiversity management may contribute to more sustainable solutions. Conserv Lett 6(5):333–340
182. Young JC, Waylen KA, Sarkki S, Albon S, Bainbridge I, Balian E, Davidson J, Edwards D, Fairley R, Margerison C, McCracken D, Owen R, Quine CP, Stewart-Roper C, Thompson D, Tinch R, van den Hove S, Watt A (2014) Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers Conserv 23(2):387–404