IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v32y2014i2p208-228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Possible Experts: How Epistemic Communities Negotiate Barriers to Knowledge Use in Ecosystems Services Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Claire A Dunlop

    (Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, Engand)

Abstract

The increased salience of how to value ecosystems services has driven up the demand for policy-relevant knowledge. It is clear that advice by epistemic communities can show up in policy outcomes, yet little systematic analysis exists prescribing how this can actually be achieved. This paper draws on four decades of knowledge utilisation research to propose four types of ‘possible expert’ who might be influential on ecosystems services. Broad findings of a literature review on knowledge use in public policy are reported, and the four-fold conceptualisation pioneered by Carol Weiss that defines the literature is outlined. The field is then systematised by placing these four modes of knowledge use within an explanatory typology of policy learning. With how, when, and why experts and their knowledge are likely to show up in policy outcomes established, the paper then proposes the boundaries of the possible in how the ecosystems services epistemic community might navigate the challenges associated with each learning mode. Four possible experts emerge: with political antenna and epistemic humility; with the ability to speak locally and early to the hearts and minds of citizens; with a willingness to advocate policy; and, finally, with an enhanced institutional awareness and peripheral policy vision. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the utility of the analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire A Dunlop, 2014. "The Possible Experts: How Epistemic Communities Negotiate Barriers to Knowledge Use in Ecosystems Services Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 208-228, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:32:y:2014:i:2:p:208-228
    DOI: 10.1068/c13192j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c13192j
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c13192j?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacopo Torriti, 2010. "Impact Assessment and the Liberalization of the EU Energy Markets: Evidence-Based Policy-Making or Policy-Based Evidence-Making?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48, pages 1065-1081, September.
    2. Roy T. Meyers, 1996. "If policy analysts are depressed, what should they do about it?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 438-443.
    3. Richard P. Eales & William R. Sheate, 2011. "Effectiveness Of Policy Level Environmental And Sustainability Assessment: Challenges And Lessons From Recent Practice," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(01), pages 39-65.
    4. Gerry Stoker & Peter John, 2009. "Design Experiments: Engaging Policy Makers in the Search for Evidence about What Works," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(2), pages 356-373, June.
    5. David R. Beam, 1996. "If public ideas are so important now, why are policy analysts so depressed?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 430-437.
    6. Pierre-Olivier Bédard & Mathieu Ouimet, 2012. "Cognizance and Consultation of Randomized Controlled Trials among Ministerial Policy Analysts," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(5), pages 625-644, September.
    7. Nancy Shulock, 1999. "The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 226-244.
    8. Boezeman, Daan & Leroy, Pieter & Maas, Rob & Kruitwagen, Sonja, 2010. "The (limited) political influence of ecological economics: A case study on Dutch environmental policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1756-1764, July.
    9. Ian Sanderson, 2009. "Intelligent Policy Making for a Complex World: Pragmatism, Evidence and Learning," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(4), pages 699-719, December.
    10. Gerry Stoker & Peter John, 2009. "Design Experiments: Engaging Policy Makers in the Search for Evidence about What Works," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57, pages 356-373, June.
    11. Ian Sanderson, 2009. "Intelligent Policy Making for a Complex World: Pragmatism, Evidence and Learning," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57, pages 699-719, December.
    12. Collins, Patricia A. & Abelson, Julia & Eyles, John D., 2007. "Knowledge into action?: Understanding ideological barriers to addressing health inequalities at the local level," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 158-171, January.
    13. James P Evans, 2006. "Lost in Translation? Exploring the Interface between Local Environmental Research and Policymaking," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(3), pages 517-531, March.
    14. Andrea Collins & Andrew Flynn & Thomas Wiedmann & John Barrett, 2006. "The Environmental Impacts of Consumption at a Subnational Level," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 10(3), pages 9-24, July.
    15. Claire A. Dunlop & Claudio M. Radaelli, 2013. "Systematising Policy Learning: From Monolith to Dimensions," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(3), pages 599-619, October.
    16. Måns Nilsson & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny & Julia Hertin & Björn Nykvist & Duncan Russel, 2008. "The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 335-355, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    2. Beery, Thomas & Stålhammar, Sanna & Jönsson, K. Ingemar & Wamsler, Christine & Bramryd, Torleif & Brink, Ebba & Ekelund, Nils & Johansson, Michael & Palo, Thomas & Schubert, Per, 2016. "Perceptions of the ecosystem services concept: Opportunities and challenges in the Swedish municipal context," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 123-130.
    3. Andrew J. Jordan & John R. Turnpenny (ed.), 2015. "The Tools of Policy Formulation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15898.
    4. Edwards, David M. & Collins, Timothy M. & Goto, Reiko, 2016. "An arts-led dialogue to elicit shared, plural and cultural values of ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 319-328.
    5. Stucki, Iris, 2018. "Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 148-156.

    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. Ansell, Christopher K. & Bartenberger, Martin, 2016. "Varieties of experimentalism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 64-73.
    2. Stucki, Iris, 2018. "Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 148-156.
    3. Pierre-Olivier Bédard, 2015. "The Mobilization of Scientific Evidence by Public Policy Analysts," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    4. O’Connor John, 2022. "Strengthening the science–policy interface in Ireland," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 70(4), pages 29-52, December.
    5. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Policy Advice in Multi-Level Governance Systems: Sub-National Policy Analysts and Analysis," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.
    6. Crabolu, Gloria & Font, Xavier & Eker, Sibel, 2023. "Evaluating policy complexity with Causal Loop Diagrams," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    7. Claire A. Dunlop & Martino Maggetti & Claudio M. Radaelli & Duncan Russel, 2012. "The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta‐analysis of EU and UK cases," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 23-45, March.
    8. Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi & Shona Hilton & Chris Bonell & Lyndal Bond, 2014. "Understanding the Development of Minimum Unit Pricing of Alcohol in Scotland: A Qualitative Study of the Policy Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10, March.
    9. Laurent Hazard & Nathalie Couix & Camille Lacombe, 2022. "From evidence to value-based transition: the agroecological redesign of farming systems," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 405-416, March.
    10. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.
    11. Jessica H. Phoenix & Lucy G. Atkinson & Hannah Baker, 2019. "Creating and communicating social research for policymakers in government," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Eva Sørensen & Jacob Torfing, 2021. "Accountable Government through Collaborative Governance?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Walton, Mat, 2014. "Applying complexity theory: A review to inform evaluation design," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 119-126.
    14. Greenhalgh, Trisha & Engebretsen, Eivind, 2022. "The science-policy relationship in times of crisis: An urgent call for a pragmatist turn," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    15. Gerry Stoker, 2010. "Translating Experiments into Policy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 628(1), pages 47-58, March.
    16. Deas, L. & Mattu, L. & Gnich, W., 2013. "Intelligent policy making? Key actors' perspectives on the development and implementation of an early years' initiative in Scotland's public health arena," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 1-8.
    17. Gates, Emily F., 2016. "Making sense of the emerging conversation in evaluation about systems thinking and complexity science," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 62-73.
    18. Gerry Stoker, 2010. "Exploring the Promise of Experimentation in Political Science: Micro‐Foundational Insights and Policy Relevance," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(2), pages 300-319, March.
    19. Duncan Russel & John Turnpenny & Andrew Jordan, 2018. "Mainstreaming the environment through appraisal: Integrative governance or logics of disintegration?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(8), pages 1355-1370, December.
    20. Nguyen, Sun V. & Langston, Nancy & Wellstead, Adam & Howlett, Michael, 2020. "Mining the evidence: Public comments and evidence-based policymaking in the controversial Minnesota PolyMet mining project," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).

    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:sae:envirc:v:32:y:2014:i:2:p:208-228. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.