IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v45y2018i1p53-73..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collaborative knowledge-driven governance: Types and mechanisms of collaboration between science, social science, and local knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Lihua Yang

Abstract

Knowledge plays an important role in modern public governance characterized by complexity, but collaboration between different types of knowledge in public governance has not been systematically studied. Increasingly, literature has stressed the importance of the application of science, social science, and local knowledge in public governance, whereas it has paid little attention to the types and mechanisms of collaboration between these three fields. The aims of this study were to explore the influence of collaboration between the three types of knowledge on governance performance, the major types of collaboration, and the major institutional design principles for successful collaboration. Based on a combined field study including surveys, interviews, observations, and archive data as well as a meta-analysis study on desertification control in northern China, the largest developing country in the world, this study made the following three key findings: (1) Although natural science was the most widely applied area of knowledge and social science was least applied, the order of the correlation coefficients of the three types of knowledge with governance performance from the highest to the lowest was social science, local knowledge, and natural science. (2) Collaboration between these three types of knowledge influenced governance performance. The types of collaboration with low levels of all three types of knowledge always had low governance performance, and the types of collaboration with high levels of social science and local knowledge often had high performance. (3) Successful collaboration among different types of knowledge shared nine significant institutional design principles. These principles stressed the integration of three types of knowledge, the collaboration among knowledge possessors and other social actors, and reliable and sustainable external support (government, financial, and institutional). These findings shed new light on collaboration between science, social science, and local knowledge in public and environmental governance in China as well as in other countries around the world.

Suggested Citation

  • Lihua Yang, 2018. "Collaborative knowledge-driven governance: Types and mechanisms of collaboration between science, social science, and local knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 53-73.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:1:p:53-73.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scx047
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lasswell, Harold D., 1956. "The Political Science of Science: An Inquiry into the Possible Reconciliation of Mastery and Freedom," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 961-979, December.
    2. Abbasi, Alireza & Hossain, Liaquat & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2012. "Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 403-412.
    3. Mark Lubell, 2004. "Collaborative environmental institutions: All talk and no action?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 549-573.
    4. Hurwicz,Leonid & Reiter,Stanley, 2008. "Designing Economic Mechanisms," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521724104, September.
    5. Vernon W. Ruttan, 1984. "Social Science Knowledge and Institutional Change," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(5), pages 549-559.
    6. Daniel R. Meyer & Maria Cancian & Kisun Nam, 2007. "Welfare and child support program knowledge gaps reduce program effectiveness," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 575-598.
    7. William D. Leach & Neil W. Pelkey & Paul A. Sabatier, 2002. "Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(4), pages 645-670.
    8. Ulrich Heink & Elisabeth Marquard & Katja Heubach & Kurt Jax & Carolin Kugel & Carsten Neßhöver & Rosmarie K. Neumann & Axel Paulsch & Sebastian Tilch & Johannes Timaeus & Marie Vandewalle, 2015. "Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: Challenges and opportunities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 676-689.
    9. Poteete, Amy R. & Ostrom, Elinor, 2008. "Fifteen Years of Empirical Research on Collective Action in Natural Resource Management: Struggling to Build Large-N Databases Based on Qualitative Research," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 176-195, January.
    10. Eugene Bardach, 1987. "From practitioner wisdom to scholarly knowledge and back again," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 188-199.
    11. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    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. Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.

    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. Krzysztof Klincewicz, 2016. "The emergent dynamics of a technological research topic: the case of graphene," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 319-345, January.
    2. Janmaat, Johannus A., 2007. "Stakeholder Engagement in Land Development Decisions: A Waste of Effort?," MPRA Paper 6147, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Stefano Scarazzati & Lili Wang, 2019. "The effect of collaborations on scientific research output: the case of nanoscience in Chinese regions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 839-868, November.
    4. Anahita Hajibabaei & Andrea Schiffauerova & Ashkan Ebadi, 2023. "Women and key positions in scientific collaboration networks: analyzing central scientists’ profiles in the artificial intelligence ecosystem through a gender lens," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1219-1240, February.
    5. Liliana Arroyo Moliner & Eva Gallardo-Gallardo & Pedro Gallo de Puelles, 2017. "Understanding scientific communities: a social network approach to collaborations in Talent Management research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1439-1462, December.
    6. Sameer Kumar & Jariah Mohd. Jan, 2014. "Research collaboration networks of two OIC nations: comparative study between Turkey and Malaysia in the field of ‘Energy Fuels’, 2009–2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 387-414, January.
    7. Lili Wang & Xianwen Wang & Niels J. Philipsen, 2017. "Network structure of scientific collaborations between China and the EU member states," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 765-781, November.
    8. Frederick Owusu-Nimo & Nelius Boshoff, 2017. "Research collaboration in Ghana: patterns, motives and roles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1099-1121, March.
    9. Florence Metz & Karin Ingold, 2017. "Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 721-743, December.
    10. Eli Rudinow Saetnan & Richard Philip Kipling, 2016. "Evaluating a European knowledge hub on climate change in agriculture: Are we building a better connected community?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1057-1074, November.
    11. Šubelj, Lovro & Fiala, Dalibor & Ciglarič, Tadej & Kronegger, Luka, 2019. "Convexity in scientific collaboration networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 10-31.
    12. Limei Zhao & Qingpu Zhang & Liang Wang, 2014. "Benefit distribution mechanism in the team members’ scientific research collaboration network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 363-389, August.
    13. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Jürgen Lerner, 2021. "The coauthorship networks of the most productive European researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 201-224, January.
    14. Mark Lubell & Adam Douglas Henry & Mike McCoy, 2010. "Collaborative Institutions in an Ecology of Games," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 287-300, April.
    15. Manuel Fischer & Philip Leifeld, 2015. "Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 363-382, September.
    16. Porter, Madeleine & Franks, Daniel M. & Everingham, Jo-Anne, 2013. "Cultivating collaboration: Lessons from initiatives to understand and manage cumulative impacts in Australian resource regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 657-669.
    17. Sergi Lozano & Xosé-Pedro Rodríguez & Alex Arenas, 2014. "Atapuerca: evolution of scientific collaboration in an emergent large-scale research infrastructure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1505-1520, February.
    18. Hugo Confraria & Fernando Vargas, 2019. "Scientific systems in Latin America: performance, networks, and collaborations with industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 874-915, June.
    19. Janmaat, John, 2008. "Playing monopoly in the creek: Imperfect competition, development, and in-stream flows," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 455-473, August.
    20. Jing Tu, 2019. "What connections lead to good scientific performance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 587-604, February.

    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:45:y:2018:i:1:p:53-73.. 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: 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.