Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
Communicating Science in Social Contexts

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • 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 http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/execsumm.pdf.

  • 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 http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/Posters/sciencecomm.htm.

  • 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 

  • Campbell, A. (2006). The Australian NRM knowledge system. Occasional paper. Canberra: Land & Water Australia. Retrieved on 10 October 2007 from http://www.lwa.gov.au/downloads/publications_pdf/PR061081.pdf.

  • Campbell, A. & Schofield, N. (2007). The getting of knowledge. Occasional paper. Canberra: Land & Water Australia. Retrieved on 10 October 2007 from http://www.lwa.gov.au/downloads/publications_pdf/PR061240.pdf.

  • 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 

  • CSTA (Council of Science and Technology Advisors) (1999). SAGE: Science advice for government effectiveness. Retrieved on 13 October 2007 from http://www.csta-cest.ca/index.php?ID = 90&Lang = En.

  • 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 http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/uk-strategy/index.htm.

  • 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 http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/publications/documents/SMP2005.pdf.

  • DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2005). Five components of robust evidence. Retrieved on 17 September 2007 from http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/how/ documents/Wallchart.pdf.

  • EC (Environment Canada) (2007). Environment Canada’s science plan: A strategy for Environment Canada’s science. Ottawa: Science and Technology Branch, EC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-73443–201–1-DO_TOPIC.html.

  • 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 http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/pics/te/stadvice_e.pdf.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D. A. and Thomas, S. M. (2007). Big lessons for a healthy future. Nature, 449, 791–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/hcan-scan/commission_blood_final_rep-e/index.html.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • LWA (Land & Water Australia) (2006). Natural passion: Inspiring stories of practical sustainability. Canberra: LWA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2004/pdf/ost.pdf.

  • Nisbitt, M. C. & Mooney, C. (2007). Framing science. Science, 316(5821), 56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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), 163–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th edition. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://www.cynefin.net/kbase/7_Organic_KM_1_of_3_ASHEN.pdf.

  • 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 http://www.cynefin.net/kbase/8_Organic_KM_2_of_3_discovery.pdf.

  • 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 

  • Sorrell, S. (2007). Improving the evidence base for energy policy: The role of systematic reviews. Energy Policy, 5(3), 1858–1871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • STAB (Science and Technology Advisory Board) (2000), Science Communications Framework for Environment Canada. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Report #2. Retrieved on 13 October 2007 from http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.asp?lang = En&nav = 9670FE5C–11.

  • 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 

  • Van Buuren, A. & Edelenbos, J. (2004). Why is joint knowledge production such a problem? Science and Public Policy, 31(4), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex T. Bielak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bielak, A.T., Campbell, A., Pope, S., Schaefer, K., Shaxson, L. (2008). From Science Communication to Knowledge Brokering: the Shift from ‘Science Push’ to ‘Policy Pull’. In: Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., Shi, S. (eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics