IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v68y2016icp65-72.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How does science-based policy advice matter in policy making? The RIU model as a framework for analyzing and explaining processes of scientific knowledge transfer

Author

Listed:
  • Böcher, Michael

Abstract

A “linear” scientific knowledge transfer from science (“truth”) to political practice (“power”) does not seem to be possible. Therefore an alternative understanding of scientific knowledge transfer is suggested: In the RIU-model, scientific knowledge is produced in the science system (Research), and science-based problem solutions are utilized within politics by political actors (Utilization). Between the two spheres there is no “automatic” connection that leads to a linear application of science in policy making. Rather, it highlights the important sphere of “integration”, a step that lies between science and utilization. Integration means the orientation of research toward political and practical problems with the aim to describe and solve them (Integration). By the example of a German case study (activities of the German federal environment agency in waste policy) it will be shown (1) what important integration measures are, and (2) how they lead to science-based policy advice that matters in policy making.

Suggested Citation

  • Böcher, Michael, 2016. "How does science-based policy advice matter in policy making? The RIU model as a framework for analyzing and explaining processes of scientific knowledge transfer," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 65-72.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:68:y:2016:i:c:p:65-72
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116300466
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.04.001?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "Government science in forestry: Characteristics and policy utilization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 37-45, January.
    2. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521727327.
    3. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    4. Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2011. "Research institutes as hybrid organizations: central challenges to their legitimacy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(3), pages 215-230, September.
    5. Krott, Max, 2012. "Value and risks of the use of analytical theory in science for forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 35-42.
    6. Stevanov, Mirjana & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max & Krajter, Silvija & Vuletic, Dijana & Orlovic, Sasa, 2013. "The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research ins," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 20-28.
    7. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521898690.
    8. Hahn, Robert W, 1989. "Economic Prescriptions for Environmental Problems: How the Patient Followed the Doctor's Orders," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 95-114, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stevanov, Mirjana & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max & Krajter, Silvija & Vuletic, Dijana & Orlovic, Sasa, 2013. "The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research ins," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 20-28.
    2. Edwards, David M. & Meagher, Laura R., 2020. "A framework to evaluate the impacts of research on policy and practice: A forestry pilot study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    3. Do, Thi Huong & Krott, Max & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Multiple traps of scientific knowledge transfer: Comparative case studies based on the RIU model from Vietnam, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, and Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Hasanagas, Nikolaos D., 2016. "Managing information in forest policy networks: Distinguishing the influential actors from the “postmen”," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 73-80.
    5. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Böcher, Michael & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Forest Policy Analysis: Advancing the analytical approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-6.
    6. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    7. Janet Judy McIntyre‐Mills, 2013. "Anthropocentrism and Well‐being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 136-155, March.
    8. Hall, C. Michael & Amelung, Bas & Cohen, Scott & Eijgelaar, Eke & Gössling, Stefan & Higham, James & Leemans, Rik & Peeters, Paul & Ram, Yael & Scott, Daniel & Aall, Carlo & Abegg, Bruno & Araña, Jorg, 2015. "No time for smokescreen skepticism: A rejoinder to Shani and Arad," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 341-347.
    9. Nancy Menning, 2018. "Narrating climate change as a rite of passage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 343-353, March.
    10. Mercedes Bleda & Elisabeth Krull & Jonatan Pinkse & Eleni Christodoulou, 2023. "Organizational heuristics and firms' sensemaking for climate change adaptation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 6124-6137, December.
    11. Chhetri, Netra & Ghimire, Rajiv & Wagner, Melissa & Wang, Meng, 2020. "Global citizen deliberation: Case of world-wide views on climate and energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    12. Hochachka, Gail, 2021. "Integrating the four faces of climate change adaptation: Towards transformative change in Guatemalan coffee communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    13. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    14. George Ferns & Kenneth Amaeshi & Aliette Lambert, 2019. "Drilling their Own Graves: How the European Oil and Gas Supermajors Avoid Sustainability Tensions Through Mythmaking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 201-231, August.
    15. Shaw, Christopher & Nerlich, Brigitte, 2015. "Metaphor as a mechanism of global climate change governance: A study of international policies, 1992–2012," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 34-40.
    16. Kattirtzi, Michael & Winskel, Mark, 2020. "When experts disagree: Using the Policy Delphi method to analyse divergent expert expectations and preferences on UK energy futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    17. Nena Vukelić & Nena Rončević & Sven Toljan, 2022. "Student Teachers’ Willingness to Act in the Climate Change Context," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    18. Zeigermann, Ulrike & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Challenges for bridging the gap between knowledge and governance in sustainability policy – The case of OECD ‘Focal Points’ for Policy Coherence for Development," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    19. Elisabeth Eide & Risto Kunelius, 2021. "Voices of a generation the communicative power of youth activism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-20, November.
    20. Martin Bohle & Cornelia E. Nauen & Eduardo Marone, 2019. "Ethics to Intersect Civic Participation and Formal Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:forpol:v:68:y:2016:i:c:p:65-72. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.