From Science Communication to Knowledge Brokering: the Shift from ‘Science Push’ to ‘Policy Pull’

  • Alex T. Bielak
  • Andrew Campbell
  • Shealagh Pope
  • Karl Schaefer
  • Louise Shaxson


Traditional (big C) communications in large organizations usually serve to ensure consistent over-arching messaging internally, and to the public at large. To deliver on their public-good mandate, science-based governmental institutions must do more than broadcast the department’s position. They must communicate not only broad policy directions, but also raw data, leading-edge science, general and informed layperson interpretations, and advice for action and behaviour change. Different sectors prefer to receive information and use knowledge in different ways. Science departments must engage with diverse audiences—for example, science users and decision makers, the scientific community, public organizations, and individual citizens—in ways tailored for each audience. This means paying greater attention to the changing contexts in which information is received and used, and consequently the mechanisms and relationships required to produce and transfer scientific information. For policy audiences in particular, the relevance of the science to the issues of the day, and the crucial importance of timing, underline the need for interactive knowledge brokering approaches that can deliver synergistic combinations of ‘science push’ and ‘policy pull’. The authors draw on examples from Environment Canada, as well as from the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Land & Water Australia, to show how dedicated (little c) science and technology communications and knowledge brokering activities are growing in importance. The need for investment in specialized approaches, mechanisms and skill sets for knowledge transfer at the interface of science and policy is also explored, particularly in relation to the field of environmental sustainability.


bic C’ and ‘little c’ science communication DEFRA Environment Canada and Land & Water Australia environmental sustainability knowledge brokers and brokering knowledge transfer and translation science communication science-policy linkages science push and policy pull 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AEA Technology (2005). The validity of food miles as an indicator of sustainable development. Report No. ED 50254. London: DEFRA. Retrieved on 18 October 2007 from
  2. Bielak, A. T., Howell, G., Enros, P. & Hempel, P (2002). Advances in developing a science communications curriculum, communications tools and best practices in the Department of the Environment, Canada. Conference on Communicating the Future: Best Practices for Communicating Science and Technology to the Public. Washington DC: United States Department of Energy and National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved on 8 October 2007 from
  3. Bochel, H. & Shaxson, L (2007). Forward looking policy making. In H. Bochel & S. Duncan (Eds.), Making policy in theory and practice. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, A. (2006). The Australian NRM knowledge system. Occasional paper. Canberra: Land & Water Australia. Retrieved on 10 October 2007 from
  5. Campbell, A. & Schofield, N. (2007). The getting of knowledge. Occasional paper. Canberra: Land & Water Australia. Retrieved on 10 October 2007 from
  6. CCMD (Canadian Centre for Management Development) (2002). Creating common purpose: The integration of science and policy in Canada’s Public Service. Action-Research Roundtable on Science and Public Policy. Ottawa: CCMD.Google Scholar
  7. CSTA (Council of Science and Technology Advisors) (1999). SAGE: Science advice for government effectiveness. Retrieved on 13 October 2007 from = 90&Lang = En.
  8. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2005). Securing the future: UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy. London: DEFRA. Retrieved on 17 September 2007 from
  9. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2006). Science meets policy 2005: Next steps for an effective science–policy interface. Report of London conference held as part of the UK’s Presidency of the European Union, 23–25 November 2005. Retrieved on 17 September 2007 from
  10. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2005). Five components of robust evidence. Retrieved on 17 September 2007 from documents/Wallchart.pdf.
  11. EC (Environment Canada) (2007). Environment Canada’s science plan: A strategy for Environment Canada’s science. Ottawa: Science and Technology Branch, EC.Google Scholar
  12. Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzmann, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Gonsalves, J., Becker, T., Braun, A., Campilan, D., de Chavex, H., Fajber, E., Kapiriri, M., Rivaca-Caminade, J. & Vernooy, R. (Eds.) (2005). Participatory research and development for sustainable agriculture and natural resource management: A sourcebook. International Development Research Centre. Retrieved on 19 October 2007 from–201–1-DO_TOPIC.html.
  15. Government of Canada (2000). A framework for science and technology advice: Principles and guidelines for the effective use of science and technology advice in government decision making. Retrieved on 13 October 2007 from
  16. Hutchings, J. A. (1996). Spatial and temporal variation in the density of northern cod and a review of hypotheses for the stock’s collapse. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53, 943–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. King, D. A. and Thomas, S. M. (2007). Big lessons for a healthy future. Nature, 449, 791–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krever, H. (1997). Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada (Krever Commission) final report. Library and Archives Canada electronic collection. Retrieved on 13 October 2007 from
  20. Kurtz, C. F. & Snowden, D. J. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, 42, 462–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levitt, R. (2003). GM crops and foods. Evidence, policy and practice in the UK: a case study. Evidence Network Working Paper No. 20. London: Economic and Social Research Council, UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.Google Scholar
  22. LWA (Land & Water Australia) (2006). Natural passion: Inspiring stories of practical sustainability. Canberra: LWA.Google Scholar
  23. McNie, E (2007). Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MORI (Market and Opinion Research International Ltd) (2004) Science in society: Findings from qualitative and quantitative research conducted for the Office of Science and Technology, Department for Trade and Industry. London: Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Retrieved on 10 October 2007 from
  25. Nisbitt, M. C. & Mooney, C. (2007). Framing science. Science, 316(5821), 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pannell, D. J., Marshall, G. R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F. & Wilkinson, R. (2006). Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation behaviour by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46(11), 1407–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parsons, W. (2002). From muddling through to muddling up: Evidence based policy making and the modernization of British Government. Public Policy and Administration, 17(3), 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pretty, J. & Chambers, R. (1993). Towards a learning paradigm: New professionalism and institutions for sustainable agriculture, IDS Discussion Paper DP334. Brighton, UK: Institute for Development Studies.Google Scholar
  29. Rayner, S. (2003). Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision-making. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th edition. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. RPA (Risk & Policy Analysts) Ltd. (2007). A review of recent developments in, and the practical use of, ecological footprinting methodologies: A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London: DEFRA.Google Scholar
  32. Sarewitz, D. & Pielke, R. A. Jr. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schaefer, K. A. & Bielak, A. T. (2006). Linking water science to policy: Results from a series of national workshops on water. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 113, 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schofield, N. in collaboration with Agtrans Research (2005). Land & Water Australia’s portfolio return on investment and evaluation case studies. Canberra: Land & Water Australia.Google Scholar
  35. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Shaxson, L. J. (2005). Is your evidence robust enough? Questions for policy makers and practitioners. Journal of Evidence and Policy, 1, 101–111.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, A. G. & Stirling, A. C. (2006). Moving inside or outside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4), 1–23.Google Scholar
  38. Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 100–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Snowden, D. (2004a). The ASHEN model: An enabler of action. Originally published in Knowledge Management, 3(7); re-edited and updated 2004. Retrieved on 10 October 2007 from
  40. Snowden, D. (2004b). Knowledge elicitation: Indirect knowledge discovery. Originally published in Knowledge Management, 3(9); re-edited and updated 2004. Retrieved on 10 October 2007 from
  41. Solesbury, W. (2001). Evidence based policy: Whence it came and where it’s going. Economic and Social Research Council, UK Centre for Evidence-Based Policy & Practice (CEBPP) Working Paper 1. London: CEBPP.Google Scholar
  42. Sorrell, S. (2007). Improving the evidence base for energy policy: The role of systematic reviews. Energy Policy, 5(3), 1858–1871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. STAB (Science and Technology Advisory Board) (2000), Science Communications Framework for Environment Canada. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Report #2. Retrieved on 13 October 2007 from = En&nav = 9670FE5C–11.
  44. Stirling, A. (2005). Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In M. Leach, I. Scoones & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Books, 218–231.Google Scholar
  45. Van Buuren, A. & Edelenbos, J. (2004). Why is joint knowledge production such a problem? Science and Public Policy, 31(4), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex T. Bielak
    • 1
  • Andrew Campbell
    • 2
  • Shealagh Pope
    • 3
  • Karl Schaefer
    • 1
  • Louise Shaxson
    • 4
  1. 1.S&T BranchEnvironment CanadaBurlingtonCanada
  2. 2.Triple Helix Consulting Pty Ltd.QueanbeyanAustralia
  3. 3.S&T BranchEnvironment Canada, Arctic Science Policy, Northern Affairs Organization, Indian and Northern Affairs CanadaGatineauCanada
  4. 4.Independent consultantDorsetUK

Personalised recommendations