Filter by keyword: Science and policy-making

Jun 14, 2019 Article

The possibilities of Open Science for knowledge transfer in the science-policy interface

by Arko Olesk , Esta Kaal , Kristel Toom

This paper explores the possible role of Open Science in the knowledge transfer between research and policy, focusing on its potential use by scientific councillors at Estonian ministries. Qualitative interviews with scientific councillors show that they perceive their role as intermediaries between research and policy and focus their work on improving the quality of research commissioned by their ministry. This process, for them, involves using existing academic articles and datasets to which, however, they lack official access. We show that Open Science can contribute to knowledge transfer if there are knowledge brokers in public sector organizations.

Volume 18Issue 032019Special Issue: Communication at the Intersection of Science and Politics, 2019 (Intersection of Science and Politics)

Jun 14, 2019 Article

Speaking with one voice for climate science — climate researchers' opinion on the consensus policy of the IPCC

by Imke Hoppe , Simone Rödder

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proceeds on the assumption that scientific consensus is a tool for successful climate communication. While ‘speaking with one voice’ has contributed to the Panel's success in putting climate change on the public and political agenda, the consensus policy is also contested, as our literature analysis (n=106) demonstrates. The arguments identified thereby inform a survey of climate scientists (n=138), who are the ones responsible for realising the policy. The data indicate moderate support for the consensus policy but significantly more in traditional climate sciences than in social sciences, life- and geosciences.

Volume 18Issue 032019Special Issue: Communication at the Intersection of Science and Politics, 2019 (Intersection of Science and Politics)

Jun 14, 2019 Article

Science and technology for the people? On the framing of innovation in policy discourses in India and in EU

by Anwesha Chakraborty , Rita Giuffredi

In 2010 both India and Europe launched new strategies focused on innovation, for economic growth and for addressing societal challenges: the Decade of Innovation from the Indian Government and the Innovation Union from the European Union. This piqued our interest in investigating how these two political entities have envisioned the concept of innovation, particularly in studying and comparing how they have focused on people, both as final beneficiaries (and thus principal legitimisers) of policy actions, and as actors themselves in the innovation process. Per contra we found, in institutional documents, very different descriptions of how to adequately realise citizens' involvement, spanning from the abiding reference to people's inclusion in the Indian case to the varied discourses on public engagement in EU, down to the passive role accorded to citizens in some Expert Groups reports. The comparison between the understandings of innovation (and innovators) in the two contexts can enlarge and refine the argumentative and metaphoric repertoire of science communicators. Further, it can form the basis of a mature and shared debate on the role that knowledge production and innovation policies can and should play in the public governance of science and technology.

Volume 18Issue 032019Special Issue: Communication at the Intersection of Science and Politics, 2019 (Intersection of Science and Politics)

Jun 14, 2019 Article

Foundations as organisational science policy interfaces? An analysis of the references to foundations made during parliamentary debates in the German federal parliament

by Franziska Oehmer , Otfried Jarren

Complex political decisions increasingly require scientific knowledge and expertise. But the exchange between actors from the political and the scientific systems is confronted by challenges. Science policy interfaces are needed in order to overcome the barriers to communication. This article analyses and discusses the importance of foundations as science policy interfaces. To this end, we will first present the salient features and functions of foundations as organisations in the framework of theoretical considerations and discuss their fundamental suitability as mediators of scientific knowledge in the political process. We will then identify the significance of foundations as science policy interfaces using a quantitative content analysis of references to foundations in the debates of the 18th German Bundestag.

Volume 18Issue 032019Special Issue: Communication at the Intersection of Science and Politics, 2019 (Intersection of Science and Politics)

Jun 14, 2019 Article

How do think tanks qualify their expertise? Exploring the field of scientific policy advice in France

by Thomas Laux

This study explores the field of scientific policy advice in environmental and energy policies in France to gain insights into the role of think tanks. The field evolved along with the growth of think tanks. The think tanks refer to several orders of worth and combine them in their communication in order to qualify their expertise. The results of the study reveal that the think tanks have become more independent actors and that the field of scientific policy advice has gained autonomy. Both aspects indicate that the relationship between politics and expertise has gradually changed in France.

Volume 18Issue 032019Special Issue: Communication at the Intersection of Science and Politics, 2019 (Intersection of Science and Politics)

Jun 14, 2019 Article

Between offensive and defensive mediatization. An exploration of mediatization strategies of German science-policy stakeholders

by Andreas M. Scheu

The study contributes to mediatization research. Mediatization is understood as a process during which individual and collective actors adapt towards the demands of publicity and public attention. The manuscript introduces a differentiation of mediatization strategies, ranging from defensive to offensive strategies. This conceptual differentiation is applied empirically regarding relevant stakeholders within the German science-policy constellation from politics, science, and science funding. Results are based on 35 in-depth interviews with decision makers. The results section deals with similarities and differences considering the mediatization of organizations, and introduces a typology of science-policy stakeholders based on the conceptual differentiation of mediatization strategies.

Volume 18Issue 032019Special Issue: Communication at the Intersection of Science and Politics, 2019 (Intersection of Science and Politics)

Feb 25, 2019 Article

Societal problem solver or deficient discipline? The debate about social science in the online public sphere

by Brigitte Huber , Irmgard Wetzstein , Ingrid Aichberger

This study uses the online discourse surrounding an Austrian publicly-funded study about “Islamic kindergartens” as a case study to approach communication about the social sciences in the online public sphere. Results from a discourse analysis of 937 user comments in online forums of two Austrian daily newspapers show that the social sciences are often referred to as a “special case”. While some use this argument to neglect its societal relevance, others use it to highlight its role as societal problem solver. Moreover, users discuss characteristics of “true” social scientists and scrutinise the independence of institutionalised social science.

Volume 18Issue 022019

Oct 16, 2018 Article

To debate or not debate? Examining the effects of scientists engaging in debates addressing contentious issues

by David Morin

According to the Gateway Belief Model, scientists and science educators should stress the scientific consensus when engaging with the lay population across a wide variety of mediums, including debates. The purpose of this study, then, was to determine if engaging in such debates does more harm than good in terms of persuading individuals towards accepting the scientific consensus of controversial issues. Participants (N = 208) read a manipulated debate segment altered by the issue discussed as well as the position/title of the skeptic debater. Results indicate that it is possible to influence individuals exposed to these debate segments, but the effects are issue-contingent. Limitations and future research related to science education are discussed.

Volume 17Issue 042018

Oct 03, 2018 Practice Insight

Engaging with policy practitioners to promote institutionalisation of public participation in science, technology and innovation policy

by Mitsuru Kudo , Go Yoshizawa , Kei Kano

This paper is a reflective account of a public participation project the authors conducted in Japan in 2012–2015, as part of the central government's initiative for evidence-based policy-making. The reflection focusses on three key aspects of the project: setting a precedent of involving public participation in policy-making; embedding an official mechanism for public participation in policy-making process; and raising policy practitioners' awareness of public participation. We also discuss why we think engaging with policy practitioners, while problematic in various ways, is and will continue to be important in promoting institutionalised practice of public participation.

Volume 17Issue 042018

Sep 12, 2018 Book Review

Book review: The science communication challenge. Truth and disagreement in democratic knowledge societies

by Birte Fähnrich

The Science Communication Challenge by Gitte Meyer, a Danish science communication scholar with a previous career in science journalism, is a collection of essays on the interrelationships among science, society and politics in modern knowledge societies. The book is valuable as it contributes to the important debate on the “whys” (instead of the “hows”) of science communication and its (long term) impact on science and society. However, it does not present explicit solutions to the questions in focus but rather reads as a large patchwork of ideas, theories and concepts which require readers to have at least some basic knowledge.

Volume 17Issue 032018

Search results