Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science-policy interfaces: Challenges and opportunities

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 42, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 676-689

  Heink, Ulrich ^a   Marquard, Elisabeth ^a   Heubach, Katja ^a   Jax, Kurt ^a,b   Kugel, Carolin ^a   Neßhöver, Carsten ^a   Neumann, Rosmarie K ^a   Paulsch, Axel ^c   Tilch, Sebastian ^a   Timaeus, Johannes ^a   Vandewalle, Marie ^a  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c Institute for Biodiversity Network eV (ibn)   (Germany)

Author keywords

Concepts; Decision making; Effectiveness; Evaluation; Policy framing; Trade offs

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; PERCEPTION; TRADE-OFF;

EID: 84939786012     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scu082     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Audi, R. (1983) 'The applications of conceptual analysis', Metaphilosophy, 14: 87-106.
2. Beck, S. (2012) 'Between tribalism and truth: The IPCC under the "public microscope"', Nature and Culture, 7: 151-73.
3. Bernstein, S. (2005) 'Legitimacy in global environmental governance', Journal of International Law and International Relations, 1: 139-66.
4. Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M. et al. (2003) 'Knowledge systems for sustainable development', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100: 8086-91.
5. Chess, C., Dietz, T. and Shannon, M. (1998) 'Who should deliberate when?', Human Ecology Review, 5: 45-8.
6. Clark, W. C., Mitchell, R. B. and Cash, D. W. (2006) 'Evaluating the influence of global environmental assessments'. In: Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, D. W. and Dickson, N. M. (eds) Global Environmental Assessments. Information and Influence, pp. 1-28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Contandriopoulos, D., Lemire, M., Denis, J. L. and Tremblay, E. (2010) 'Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: A narrative systematic review of the literature', Milbank Quarterly, 88: 444-83.
8. Davidson, E. J. (2005a) Evaluation Methodology Basics. The Nuts and Bolts for Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Davidson, E. J. (2005b) 'Effectiveness'. In: Mathison, S. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Evaluation, pp. 122. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Eckley, N. (2001) 'Designing Effective Assessments: The Role of Participation, Science and Governance, and Focus', Environmental Issue Report of a workshop co-organised by the European Environment Agency and the Global Environmental Assessment Project, held 1-3 March 2001, Copenhagen, Denmark.
11. Eckley, N.(2002) 'Dependable dynamism: Lessons for designing scientific assessment processes in consensus negotiations', Global Environmental Change, 12: 15-23.
12. Farrell, A. E., Jäger, J. and Vandeveer, S. D. (2006) 'Overview: Understanding design choices'. In: Farrell, A. E. and Jä ger, J. (eds) Assessments of Regional and Global Environmental Risks. Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in Decisionmaking, pp. 1-24. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
13. Foskett, D. J. (1972) 'A note on the concept of "relevance"', Information Storage and Retrieval, 8: 77-8.
14. Fung, A. (2006) 'Varieties of participation in complex governance', Public Administration Review, 66: 66-75.
15. Girod, B., Wiek, A., Mieg, H. and Hulme, M. (2009) 'The evolution of the IPCC's emission scenarios', Environmental Science & Policy, 12: 103-118.
16. Görg, C., Neßhöver, C. and Paulsch, A. (2010) 'A new link between biodiversity science and policy', Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 19: 183-186.
17. Grunwald, A. (2004) 'Participation as a means of enhancing the legitimacy of decisions on technology? A sceptical analysis', Poiesis and Praxis, 3: 106-22.
18. Habermas, J. (1973) 'Wahrheitstheorien'. In: Fahrenbach, H. (ed.) Wirklichkeit und Reflexion, pp. 211-65. Pfullingen, Germany: Neske.
19. Habermas, J.(1981) Theory of Communicative Action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
20. Hilligoss, B. and Rieh, S. Y. (2008) 'Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context', Information Processing and Management, 44: 1467-84.
21. Hjørland, B. (2010) 'The foundation of the concept of relevance', Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61: 217-37.
22. Hoppe, R. (1999) 'Policy analysis, science and politics: From "speaking truth to power" to "making sense together"', Science and Public Policy, 26: 201-10.
23. Hulme, M. (2009) Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, UK: CUP.
24. Hurrelmann, A., Krell-Laluhova, Z., Lhotta, R., Nullmeier, F. and Schneider, S. (2005) 'Is there a legitimation crisis of the nation-state?', European Review, 13: 119-37.
25. Hurrelmann, A., Krell-Laluhova, Z., Lhotta, R., Nullmeier, F. and Schneider, S. and Wiesner, A. (2009) 'Why the democratic nation-state is still legitimate: A study of media discourses', European Journal of Political Research, 48: 483-515.
26. Jackson, F. (1998) From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
27. Jantsch, E. (1970) 'Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary university: Systems approach to education and innovation', Policy Sciences, 1: 403-28.
28. Jax, K. (2006) 'Ecological units: Definitions and application', Quarterly Review of Biology, 81: 237-58.
29. Jones, S. A., Fischhoff, B. and Lach, D. (1999) 'Evaluating the science-policy interface for climate change research', Climatic Change, 43: 581-99.
30. Keller, A. C. (2010) 'Credibility and relevance in environmental policy: Measuring strategies and performance among science assessment organizations', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20: 357-86.
31. Keller, C., Siegrist, M. and Gutscher, H. (2006) 'The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication', Risk Analysis, 26: 631-9.
32. Koetz, T., Bridgewater, P., van den Hove, S. and Siebenhü ner, B. (2008) 'The role of the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice to the convention on biological diversity as science-policy interface', Environmental Science and Policy, 11: 505-16.
33. Koetz, T., Bridgewater, P., van den Hove, S. and Siebenhü ner, B. Farrell, K. N. and Bridgewater, P. (2012) 'Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: Assessing potential within the intergovernmental platform for biodiversity and ecosystem services', International Environmental Agreements, 12: 1-21.
34. Lakoff, G. (2010) 'Why it matters how we frame the environment', Environmental Communication, 4: 70-81.
35. Lemos, M. C. and Morehouse, B. J. (2005) 'The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments', Global Environmental Change, 15: 57-68.
36. Lubchenco, J. (1998) 'Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science', Science, 279: 491-7.
37. Max-Neef, M. A. (2005) 'Foundations of transdisciplinarity', Ecological Economics, 53: 5-16.
38. Merriam-Webster (2013) The Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus Online 2013 http://www.merriam-webster.com accessed 15 Jan 2014.
39. Miller, C. (2001) 'Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime', Science, Technolog, and Human Values, 26: 478-500.
40. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J. (1997) 'Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts', Academy of Management Review, 22: 853-86.
41. Morse, J. M. (1995) 'Exploring the theoretical basis of nursing using advanced techniques of concept analysis', Advances in Nursing Science, 17: 31-46.
42. Nickerson, R. S. (1998) 'Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises', Review of General Psychology, 2: 175-220.
43. Penrod, J. and Hupcey, J. E. (2005) 'Enhancing methodological clarity: Principle-based concept analysis', Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50: 403-9.
44. Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) 'The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion', Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29: 123-205.
45. Pielke, R. A. (2007) The Honest Broker. Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge, UK: CUP.
46. Rantala, T. (2008) 'Discourse on legitimacy of forest and nature conservation policy in Finnish print media: Framework for analysis and revised principles of democratic legitimacy'. In: Bö cher, M., Giessen, L. and Kleinschmit, D. (eds) Environmental and Forest Governance. The Role of Discourses and Expertise, pp. 41-68. Gö ttingen, Germany: Universitä tsdrucke Gö ttingen.
47. Renn, O. and Schweizer, P.-J. (2012) 'Inclusive risk governance: Concepts and application to environmental policy making', Environmental Policy and Governance, 19: 174-85.
48. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2005) 'A typology of public engagement mechanisms', Science Technology, and Human Values, 30: 251-90.
49. Saracevic, T. (1975) 'Relevance: Review and a framework for thinking on notion in information science', Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26: 321-43.
50. Sarkki, S., Niemelä, J., Tinch, R., van den Hove, S., Watt, A. and Young, J. C. (2014) 'Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science- policy interfaces', Science and Public Policy, 41: 194-206.
51. Schiappa, E. (2003) Defining Reality. Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
52. Siebenhü ner, B. (2002a) 'How do scientific assessments learn? Part 1. Conceptual framework and case study of the IPCC', Environmental Science and Policy, 5: 411-20.
53. Siebenhü ner, B. (2002b) 'How do scientific assessments learn? Part 2. Case study of the LRTAP assessments and comparative conclusions', Environmental Science and Policy, 5: 421-7.
54. Spierenburg, M. (2012) 'Getting the message across biodiversity science and policy interfaces: A review', GAIA, 21: 125-34.
55. Star, S. L. (2010) 'This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept', Science, Technology, and Human Values, 35: 601-17.
56. Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989) 'Institutional ecology, "translations" and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39', Social Studies of Science, 19: 387-420.
57. Svarstad, H., Sletten, A., Paloniemi, R., Barton, D. N. and Grieg-Gran, M. (2011) 'Three Types of Environmental Justice: From Concepts to Empirical Studies of Social Impacts of Policy Instruments for Conservation of Biodiversity', PolicyMix Report Issue No. 1. Oslo: Policymix. 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: 349-63.
58. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974) 'Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases', Science, 185: 1124-31.
59. UN Environmental Programme (2010) 'Report of the Third Ad Hoc Intergovernmental and Multi-Stakeholder Meeting on an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ('Busan Outcome')', UNEP/IPBES/3/3. New York: UN Environmental Programme.
60. van den Hove, S. (2007) 'A rationale for science-policy interfaces', Futures, 39: 807-26.
61. van Herzele, A. and van Woerkum, C. M. J. (2008) 'Local knowledge in visually mediated practice', Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27: 444-55.
62. Vä yrynen, P. (2009) 'Objectionable thick concepts in denials', Philosophical Perspectives, 23: 439-69.
63. Vogel, C., Moser, S. C., Kasperson, R. E. and Dabelko, G. D. (2007) 'Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships', Global Environmental Change, 17: 349-64.
64. Vohland, K., Mlambo, M. C., Horta, L. D., Jonsson, B., Paulsch, A. and Martinez, S. I. (2011) 'How to ensure a credible and efficient IPBES?', Environmental Science and Policy, 14: 1188-94.
65. Waylen, K. A., Fischer, A., McGowan, P J. K., Thirgood, S. J. and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010) 'Effect of local cultural context on the success of community-based conservation interventions', Conservation Biology, 24: 1119-29.
66. Weatherford, M. S. (1992) 'Measuring political legitimacy', American Political Science Review, 86: 149-66.
67. Weiss, C.H. (1979) 'The many meanings of research utilization', Public Administration Review, 39: 426-31.
68. Weichselgartner, J. and Kasperson, R. (2010) 'Barriers in the science-policy-practice interface: Toward a knowledge- action-system in global environmental change research', Global Environmental Change, 20: 266-77.
69. Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O. and Renn, O. (2011) 'Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners' perspectives', Environment and Planning A, 43: 2688-704.
70. White, D. D., Wutich, A., Larson, K. L., Gober, P., Lant, T. and Senneville, C. (2010) 'Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: Water managers' assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater', Science and Public Policy, 37: 219-32.
71. Wilson, D. C. (2009) The Paradoxes of Transparency: Science and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management in Europe, MARE Publication Series No. 5. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.