Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 14, pp 3615–3639 | Cite as

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

  • Michael Pregernig
Original Paper

Abstract

The complex field of forest conservation, like many other areas of environmental policy and management, is considered to be in urgent need of sound scientific expertise. At the same time, the practice of linking scientific knowledge production to political and societal decision-making is a persistent challenge. Rather than attempting to illuminate the (problematic) interaction between science and policy-making in an empirical way, this study adopts a meta-perspective to investigate how the role of science in policy-making is discursively framed. To this end, seven established theoretical conceptualizations of science-policy interactions are presented. For each conceptualization, the underlying rationales are presented first. Then, the ensuing discursive and institutional effects—in the sense of proposed procedural and organizational measures—are discussed. Finally, the study reflects on the question of how practices of scientific policy advice could be shaped in a more productive way if—instead of taking single narrow framings for granted—the role of science in policy-making were perceived, discussed and enacted in a more frame-reflective way.

Keywords

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

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper and Bleta Arifi for her valuable support in the review of the literature.

References

  1. Åkerman M (2003) What does ‘natural capital’ do? the role of metaphor in economic understanding of the environment. Environ Values 12(4):431–448Google Scholar
  2. Antonelli C (2005) Models of knowledge and systems of governance. J Inst Econ 1(1):51–73Google Scholar
  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 609–626Google Scholar
  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):24–41Google Scholar
  5. Bäckstrand K (2004) Scientisation vs. civic expertise in environmental governance: eco–feminist, Eco–modern and post–modern responses. Environ Politics 13(4):695–714Google Scholar
  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 3–27Google Scholar
  7. Beck U (1986) Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere moderne. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck S (2012) Between tribalism and trust: the IPCC under the ‘public microscope’. Nat Cult 7(2):151–173Google Scholar
  9. Beck U, Bonß W (1984) Soziologie und modernisierung Zur Ortsbestimmung der Verwendungsforschung. Soziale Welt 35(4):381–406Google Scholar
  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):80–87Google Scholar
  11. Benford RD, Snow DA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Ann Rev Soc 26:611–639Google Scholar
  12. Berglund E (2001) Facts, beliefs and biases: perspectives on forest conservation in Finland. J Environ Plan Manag 44(6):833–849Google Scholar
  13. Berkes F (2012) Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management, 3rd edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10(5):1251–1262Google Scholar
  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 87–112Google Scholar
  16. Boehmer-Christiansen S (1995) Reflections on scientific advice and EC transboundary pollution policy. Sci Public Policy 22(3):195–203Google Scholar
  17. Brown MB (2008) Review of Roger S. Pielke, Jr., the honest broker : making sense of science in policy and politics. Minerva 46(4):485–489Google Scholar
  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):329–341Google Scholar
  19. Bush V (1945) Science, the endless frontier—a report to the president. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Callon M (1994) Is science a public good? Sci Technol Human Values 19(4):395–424Google Scholar
  21. Caplan N (1979) The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Sci 22(3):459–470Google Scholar
  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):8086–8091PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Charnley G (2000) Democratic science: enhancing the role of science in stakeholder-based risk management decision-making. HealthRisk Strategies, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  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 259–294Google Scholar
  25. Collaborative Partnership on Forests (2007) Joint initiative on science and technology: concept note. Manuscript, s.lGoogle Scholar
  26. Collingridge D, Reeve C (1986) Science speaks to power: the role of experts in policy making. Pinter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Cooke B, Kothari U (2001) Participation: the new tyranny?. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Council InterAcademy (2010) Climate change assessments: review of the processes and procedures of the ipcc. IAC Secretariat, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  29. Cumming GS, Olsson P, Chapin FS, Holling CS (2013) Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28(6):1139–1150Google Scholar
  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 firstGoogle Scholar
  31. Demeritt D (2001) The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 91(2):307–337Google Scholar
  32. Dunn WN (1980) The Two–Communities Metaphor and Models of Knowledge Use: An Exploratory Case Survey. Knowledge 1(4):515–536Google Scholar
  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 127–151Google Scholar
  34. Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–58Google Scholar
  35. Ezrahi Y (1980) Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: the political context of scientific advice. Minerva 18(1):111–131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  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):19–36Google Scholar
  37. Fischer F (1990) Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Sage Publ, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  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 29–45Google Scholar
  39. Fischer F (2003) Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Fischhoff B (2013) The sciences of science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(Supplement 3):14033–14039PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Fletcher AL (2009) Clearing the air: the contribution of frame analysis to understanding climate policy in the United States. Environ Politics 18(5):800–816Google Scholar
  42. Foltz F (1999) Five arguments for increasing public participation in making science policy. Bull Sci Technol Soc 19(2):117–127Google Scholar
  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):201–213Google Scholar
  44. Foucault M (1980) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Pantheon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Friedman SM, Dunwoody S, Rogers CL (1999) Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–756Google Scholar
  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):1–176Google Scholar
  48. Game ET, Meijaard E, Sheil D, McDonald‐Madden E (2013) Conservation in a wicked complex world; challenges and solutions. Conservation letters online firstGoogle Scholar
  49. German Advisory Council on Global Change (2011) World in transition: a social contract for sustainability. WBGU, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  50. Geuna A (1999) The economics of knowledge production: funding and the structure of university research. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  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):781–795Google Scholar
  52. Godin B (2006) The linear model of innovation: the historical construction of an analytical framework. Sci Technol Human Values 31(6):639–667Google Scholar
  53. Grundmann R (2009) The role of expertise in governance processes. Forest Policy Econ 11(5–6):398–403Google Scholar
  54. Grundmann R (2012) The legacy of climategate: revitalizing or undermining climate science and policy? Wiley Interdiscip Rev 3(3):281–288Google Scholar
  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, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  56. Guston DH (2000) Retiring the social contract for science. Issues Sci Technol 16(4):32–36Google Scholar
  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 97–118Google Scholar
  58. Haas P (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Org 46(1):1–35Google Scholar
  59. Habermas J (1968) Technik und wissenschaft als ‘ideologie’. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  60. Hagendijk R, Irwin A (2006) Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary europe. Minerva 44(2):167–184Google Scholar
  61. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2014) The ecosystem approach as a framework for understanding knowledge utilisation. Environ Plan C 32(2):301–319Google Scholar
  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 251–268Google Scholar
  63. Hamann A, Zea-Schmidt C, Leinfelder R (eds) (2013) Die große Transformation. Klima - Kriegen wir die Kurve? Verlagshaus Jacoby & Stuart, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  64. Harding S (1993) Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is ‘strong objectivity’? In: Alcoff L, Potter E (eds) Feminist epistemology. Routledge, New York, pp 49–82Google Scholar
  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):413–421Google Scholar
  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 47–72Google Scholar
  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 1–26Google Scholar
  68. Hulme M (2010) Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Glob Environ Change 20(4):558–564Google Scholar
  69. International Council for Science (2010) Earth system science for global sustainability: the grand challenges. ICSU, ParisGoogle Scholar
  70. Irwin A (1995) Citizen science: a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst Sci 10(1):1–18Google Scholar
  72. Jäger J (1998) Current thinking on using scientific findings in environmental policy making. Environ Model Assess 3(3):143–153Google Scholar
  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):183–194Google Scholar
  74. Jasanoff S (1987) Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc Stud Sci 17(2):195–230Google Scholar
  75. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  76. Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3):223–244Google Scholar
  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 1–12Google Scholar
  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 209–224Google Scholar
  79. Jasanoff S (2008) Speaking honestly to power. Am Sci 96(3):240Google Scholar
  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 1–87Google Scholar
  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 341–376Google Scholar
  82. Jones MD, Song G (2013) Making sense of climate change: how story frames shape cognition. Political psychology online firstGoogle Scholar
  83. Juntti M, Russel D, Turnpenny J (2009) Evidence, politics and power in public policy for the environment. Environ Sci Policy 12(3):207–215Google Scholar
  84. Keller R (2011) The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD). Hum Stud 34(1):43–65Google Scholar
  85. Kleine M (2009) Capacity building for effective work at the interface of forest science and forest policy. Mt Res Dev 29(2):114–120Google Scholar
  86. Kleinschmit D, Krott M (eds) (2005) Public Relations for Forest Science. IUFRO Task Force Public Relations; IUFRO-SPDC, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  87. Kohler-Koch B (2000) Framing: the bottleneck of constructing legitimate institutions. J Eur Public Policy 7(4):513–531Google Scholar
  88. Kosoy N, Corbera E (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ 69(6):1228–1236Google Scholar
  89. Krott M (2012) Value and risks of the use of analytical theory in science for forest policy. Forest Policy Econ 16(1):35–42Google Scholar
  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)Google Scholar
  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):9–14Google Scholar
  92. Lawton RN, Rudd MA (2014) A narrative policy approach to environmental conservation. AMBIO online firstGoogle Scholar
  93. Leach M, Sumner A, Waldman L (2008) Discourses, dynamics and disquiet: multiple knowledges in science, society and development. J Int Dev 20(6):727–738Google Scholar
  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):315–356Google Scholar
  95. Lee DK, Koch NE, Innes J, Mayer P (2011) Emerging issues in forest science. Folia Forestalia Polonica, Series A 53(1):52–63Google Scholar
  96. Lewicki RJ, Gray B, Elliott M (eds) (2003) Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: concepts and cases. Island Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  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 21–51Google Scholar
  98. Litfin KT (1995) Framing science: precautionary discourse and the ozone treaties. Millennium 24(2):251–277Google Scholar
  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 101–118Google Scholar
  100. Loreau M, Oteng-Yeboah A (2006) Diversity without representation. Nature 442(7100):245–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Lövbrand E, Stripple J, Wiman B (2009) Earth System governmentality: reflections on science in the Anthropocene. Glob Environ Change 19(1):7–13Google Scholar
  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 242–259Google Scholar
  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 506–526Google Scholar
  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):150–156Google Scholar
  105. Meyer M (2010) The rise of the knowledge broker. Sci Commun 32(1):118–127Google Scholar
  106. Michaels S (2009) Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environ Sci Policy 12(7):994–1011Google Scholar
  107. Miller CA (2000) The dynamics of framing environmental values and policy: four models of societal processes. Environ Values 9(2):211–233Google Scholar
  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 81–102Google Scholar
  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 314–341Google Scholar
  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 307–338Google Scholar
  111. Neilson S (2001) Knowledge utilization and public policy processes: a literature review. Evaluation Unit IDRC, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  112. Nisbet MC, Mooney C (2007) Framing science. Science 316(5821):56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Norgaard RB (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69(6):1219–1227Google Scholar
  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 31–37Google Scholar
  115. Oh CH (1996) Linking social science information to policy–making. Jai Press, GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  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 182–192Google Scholar
  117. Parrotta JA, Campos Arce JJ (2003) Communication across the forest science/forest policy interface. Forest Policy Econ 5(4):329–446Google Scholar
  118. Perrings C, Duraiappah A, Larigauderie A, Mooney H (2011) The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface. Science 331(6021):1139–1140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Change 1(1):35–41Google Scholar
  120. Pielke RA (2004) When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over the skeptical environmentalist. Environ Sci Policy 7(5):405–417Google Scholar
  121. Pielke RA (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  122. Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 11(1):46–53Google Scholar
  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):165–176Google Scholar
  124. Pregernig M (2006) Transdisciplinarity viewed from afar: science–policy assessments as forums for the creation of transdisciplinary knowledge. Sci Public Policy 33(6):445–455Google Scholar
  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, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  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 29–46Google Scholar
  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 95–131Google Scholar
  128. Pullin AS, Knight TM (2009) Doing more good than harm: building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. Biol Conserv 142(5):931–934Google Scholar
  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):970–975Google Scholar
  130. Radaelli CM (1995) The role of knowledge in the policy process. J Eur Public Policy 2(2):160–183Google Scholar
  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):1766–1777Google Scholar
  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):163–170Google Scholar
  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 262–289Google Scholar
  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 199–212Google Scholar
  135. Rich RF (1991) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and utilization: perspectives of the founding editor of knowledge. Knowledge 12(3):319–337Google Scholar
  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 332–354Google Scholar
  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, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  138. Salter AJ, Martin BR (2001) The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Res Policy 30(3):509–532Google Scholar
  139. Sanderson I (2002) Making sense of ‘what works’: evidence based policy making as instrumental rationality? Public Policy Adm 17(3):61–75Google Scholar
  140. Schelsky H (1965) Auf der Suche nach Wirklichkeit: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Eugen Diederichs Verlag, Düsseldorf; KölnGoogle Scholar
  141. Schön DA, Rein M (1994) Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  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):547–571Google Scholar
  143. Seppälä R (2004) The future of forest research in a changing world. J For Res 9(4):313–316Google Scholar
  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):29Google Scholar
  145. Shmueli DF (2008) Framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts: theory, methodology and three case studies. Geoforum 39(6):2048–2061Google Scholar
  146. Shove E, Rip A (2000) Users and unicorns: a discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science. Sci Public Policy 27(3):175–182Google Scholar
  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):71–73Google Scholar
  148. Snow CP (1959) The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  149. Soberón MJ (2004) Translating life’s diversity. Environment 46(7):10–20Google Scholar
  150. Spierenburg M (2012) Getting the message across biodiversity science and policy interfaces a review. GAIA 21(2):125–134Google Scholar
  151. Steinberg MW (1998) Tilting the frame: considerations on collective action framing from a discursive turn. Theory Soc 27(6):845–872Google Scholar
  152. Stephan PE (1996) The economics of science. J Econ Lit 34(3):1199–1235Google Scholar
  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):262–294Google Scholar
  154. Stirling A (2014) Transforming power: social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Res Soc Sci 1:83–95Google Scholar
  155. Stone D (2002) Using knowledge: the dilemmas of ‘bridging research and policy’. Compare 32(3):285–296Google Scholar
  156. Sutherland W (2003) Evidence-based conservation. Conserv Pract 4(3):39–42Google Scholar
  157. Sutherland WJ, Mitchell R, Prior SV (2012) The role of ‘conservation evidence’ in improving conservation management. Conserv Evid 9(1):1–2Google Scholar
  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):1–2Google Scholar
  159. Sutton R (1999) The policy process: an overview. Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  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 firstGoogle Scholar
  161. Turner JM (2006) Conservation science and forest service policy for roadless areas. Conserv Biol 20(3):713–722PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. Turnhout E, Bloomfield B, Hulme M, Vogel J, Wynne B (2012) Conservation policy: listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488(7412):454–455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  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):354–365Google Scholar
  164. Turnhout E, Waterton C, Neves K, Buizer M (2013b) Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to ‘living with’. Conserv Lett 6(3):154–161Google Scholar
  165. UNESCO (2013) World social science report: changing global environments—summary. UNESCO Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  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):38Google Scholar
  167. Varner J (2014) Scientific outreach: toward effective public engagement with biological science. Bioscience 64(4):333–340Google Scholar
  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):297–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  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):229–246Google Scholar
  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 383–418Google Scholar
  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 34–48Google Scholar
  172. Weigold MF (2001) Communicating science: a review of the literature. Sci Commun 23(2):164–193Google Scholar
  173. Weingart P (1999) Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Sci Public Policy 26(3):151–161Google Scholar
  174. Weiss CH (1977) Research for policy’s sake: the enlightenment function of social research. Policy Anal 3(4):531–545Google Scholar
  175. Weiss CH (1980) Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge 1(3):381–404Google Scholar
  176. Wildavsky A (1987) Speaking truth to power: the art and craft of policy analysis. Transaction Books, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  177. Wingens M (1990) Toward a general utilization theory: a systems theory reformulation of the two–communities metaphor. Knowledge 12(1):27–42Google Scholar
  178. Wynne B (1987) Uncertainty—technical and social. In: Brooks H, Cooper C, Cooper CL (eds) Science for public policy. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 95–115Google Scholar
  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 66–82Google Scholar
  180. Wynne B, Shackley S (1994) Environmental models: truth machines of social heuristics? Globe 21:6–8Google Scholar
  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):333–340Google Scholar
  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):387–404Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Environmental Social Sciences and GeographyAlbert Ludwigs-University FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations