IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v67y2017icp1-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Navigating the authority paradox: Practising objectivity in environmental expertise

Author

Listed:
  • Kunseler, Eva-Maria
  • Tuinstra, Willemijn

Abstract

We empirically reveal how environmental experts interpret the objectivity norm while navigating the authority paradox. The paradox here is that while there is a need for objective scientific advice, such advice is only to be acquired from experts and expert agencies whose objectivity and, hence, authority are contested. Viewed through the lens of practice, we identify what practitioners at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency understand by objectivity. Using this paradigmatic case, we show how practitioners renegotiate the meaning of objectivity while seeking to engage with new policy actors and extended peers in an independent, rigorous and legitimate manner. Successfully navigating the authority paradox is related to skilfully representing and adapting to various meanings of objectivity. Experts and experts agencies accordingly need reflexive skills to recognise which meanings of objectivity they ascribe to and which ones are invoked in public debates. Environmental experts who are able to loosely connect diverse objectivity conceptions are more likely considered as trustworthy and authoritative partners in environmental science-policy interfaces.

Suggested Citation

  • Kunseler, Eva-Maria & Tuinstra, Willemijn, 2017. "Navigating the authority paradox: Practising objectivity in environmental expertise," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 1-7.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:67:y:2017:i:c:p:1-7
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116307304
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.10.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Simo Sarkki & Alice Ludvig & Maria Nijnik & Serhiy Kopiy, 2022. "Embracing policy paradoxes: EU’s Just Transition Fund and the aim “to leave no one behind”," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 761-792, December.
    2. Timo Y. Maas & Annet Pauwelussen & Esther Turnhout, 2022. "Co-producing the science–policy interface: towards common but differentiated responsibilities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Alejandro Esguerra & Sandra van der Hel, 2021. "Participatory Designs and Epistemic Authority in Knowledge Platforms for Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 21(1), pages 130-151, Winter.
    4. Katharina T. Paul & Christian Haddad, 2019. "Beyond evidence versus truthiness: toward a symmetrical approach to knowledge and ignorance in policy studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 299-314, June.
    5. Lise Saffran & Sisi Hu & Amanda Hinnant & Laura D Scherer & Susan C Nagel, 2020. "Constructing and influencing perceived authenticity in science communication: Experimenting with narrative," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Christoph Kehl & Steffen Albrecht & Pauline Riousset & Arnold Sauter, 2021. "Goodbye Expert-Based Policy Advice? Challenges in Advising Governmental Institutions in Times of Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:67:y:2017:i:c:p:1-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.