IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v26y1999i3p185-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Dialogues of the deaf’ on science in policy controversies

Author

Listed:
  • M J G van Eeten

Abstract

This paper discusses the role of science in policy controversies. Policy analysis has found that some of the most intractable controversies are trapped in a ‘dialogue of the deaf’. In the dialogues of the deaf on ‘wicked problems’ the boundaries between science and politics are blurred. Thus, they pose a clear empirical corroboration of the scientification of politics and the politicisation of science. Policy analysis needs to go beyond these claims however, as its raison d'être lies in the improvement of policy-making. How can we deal with these dialogues of the deaf and what role has science to play in this? Should we not focus more on democratic or market-like approaches, as science apparently cannot come to grips with these issues? This paper concludes by connecting these insights from policy analysis to the paradoxes of science in politics. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • M J G van Eeten, 1999. "‘Dialogues of the deaf’ on science in policy controversies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 185-192, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:26:y:1999:i:3:p:185-192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154399781782491
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:scippl:v:26:y:1999:i:3:p:185-192. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.