IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v46y2019i1p13-27..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental science and policy: A meta-synthesis of case studies on boundary organizations and spanning processes

Author

Listed:
  • Danielle K Jensen-Ryan
  • Laura A German

Abstract

We conducted a meta-synthesis of published qualitative articles to better understand how features and strategies of boundary organizations and spanning processes influence whether environmental science was utilized in politically oriented outcomes. Meta-synthesis is a peer-reviewed research technique which is becoming more prolific as disciplines compare qualitative research studies and generalize qualitative knowledge. In this work, thirty-nine published case studies were analysed through a systematic grounded theory approach and thirty-nine structured interviews were performed with authors to validate the results. Overall, forty-seven boundary spanning variables were evaluated using disaggregated statistics to determine correlation with policy outcomes. Our results develop the possibility that successful boundary spanning linkages may be less about utilizing formal boundary organizations and more about fostering the process through which science and policy are intermingled.

Suggested Citation

  • Danielle K Jensen-Ryan & Laura A German, 2019. "Environmental science and policy: A meta-synthesis of case studies on boundary organizations and spanning processes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 13-27.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:46:y:2019:i:1:p:13-27.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scy032
    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.

    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:46:y:2019:i:1:p:13-27.. 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.