Advanced

Going beyond science-policy interaction? : An analysis of views among intergovernmental panel on climate change actors

Thoni, Terese LU and Livingston, Jasmine LU (2019) In Critical Policy Studies
Abstract
Scholarly literature on science-policy interaction is typically divided
between advocating that science and policy need to be brought
closer together or separated. In a recent article in this journal,
Sundqvist and colleagues [Sundqvist et al. (2018) Oneworld or
two? Science–policy interactions in the climate field, Critical Policy
Studies, 12:4, 448–468] proposed a typology that structures this
debate. We use their typology to conduct a text analysis on empiri-
cal material from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
(IPCC) internal consultation on its future. We find that science-policy
practitioners are not as divided as the scholarly debate. Moreover,
while the typology is a powerful tool... (More)
Scholarly literature on science-policy interaction is typically divided
between advocating that science and policy need to be brought
closer together or separated. In a recent article in this journal,
Sundqvist and colleagues [Sundqvist et al. (2018) Oneworld or
two? Science–policy interactions in the climate field, Critical Policy
Studies, 12:4, 448–468] proposed a typology that structures this
debate. We use their typology to conduct a text analysis on empiri-
cal material from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
(IPCC) internal consultation on its future. We find that science-policy
practitioners are not as divided as the scholarly debate. Moreover,
while the typology is a powerful tool in unearthing differences in
opinion regarding science-policy interaction, it comes at the price of
reductionism. We suggest that a continuum, instead of separate
boxes, helps visualize the large spectrum of ideas. However, regard-
less of type of typology, it is important that the discussion goes
beyond the relationship between science and policy, and beyond
an unconstructive battle between extremes. It is neither possible
nor normatively desirable to demarcate ‘science’, ‘policy’ and other
actors. Whilst this discussion is of central importance to the IPCC,
greater focus should be put on its relationship with society. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
epub
subject
keywords
science-policy interaction, climate regime, expertise, IPCC, policy-relevant knowledge
in
Critical Policy Studies
pages
18 pages
publisher
Routledge
external identifiers
  • scopus:85073816261
ISSN
1946-0171
DOI
10.1080/19460171.2019.1665564
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
978eeb46-28ee-4970-a9c8-8689d7051471
date added to LUP
2019-09-20 21:28:43
date last changed
2019-11-05 05:26:24
@article{978eeb46-28ee-4970-a9c8-8689d7051471,
  abstract     = {Scholarly literature on science-policy interaction is typically divided<br/>between advocating that science and policy need to be brought<br/>closer together or separated. In a recent article in this journal,<br/>Sundqvist and colleagues [Sundqvist et al. (2018) Oneworld or<br/>two? Science–policy interactions in the climate field, Critical Policy<br/>Studies, 12:4, 448–468] proposed a typology that structures this<br/>debate. We use their typology to conduct a text analysis on empiri-<br/>cal material from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s<br/>(IPCC) internal consultation on its future. We find that science-policy<br/>practitioners are not as divided as the scholarly debate. Moreover,<br/>while the typology is a powerful tool in unearthing differences in<br/>opinion regarding science-policy interaction, it comes at the price of<br/>reductionism. We suggest that a continuum, instead of separate<br/>boxes, helps visualize the large spectrum of ideas. However, regard-<br/>less of type of typology, it is important that the discussion goes<br/>beyond the relationship between science and policy, and beyond<br/>an unconstructive battle between extremes. It is neither possible<br/>nor normatively desirable to demarcate ‘science’, ‘policy’ and other<br/>actors. Whilst this discussion is of central importance to the IPCC,<br/>greater focus should be put on its relationship with society.},
  author       = {Thoni, Terese and Livingston, Jasmine},
  issn         = {1946-0171},
  keyword      = {science-policy interaction,climate regime,expertise,IPCC,policy-relevant knowledge},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {18},
  publisher    = {Routledge},
  series       = {Critical Policy Studies},
  title        = {Going beyond science-policy interaction? : An analysis of views among intergovernmental panel on climate change actors},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2019.1665564},
  year         = {2019},
}