IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v46y2019i2p244-253..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perfecting the ‘Elevator Pitch’? Expert advice as locally-situated boundary work

Author

Listed:
  • James Palmer
  • Susan Owens
  • Robert Doubleday

Abstract

Conventional accounts of expert authority frequently over-simplify relations between science and politics, and presume the existence of a singular ‘interface’ between these domains. In contrast, this article draws on semi-structured interviews to document how the authority of UK Chief Scientific Advisers emerges from their engagement in the construction and bridging of several distinct but interrelated boundaries. Building on co-productionist accounts of science–policy interactions, the paper moreover contends that these various boundaries are themselves constituted within place-specific contexts. The locally-situated, material conditions of advice-giving, in short, fundamentally shape the hybridisation and mutual alignment of science and politics around specific governance objectives. Further analytical work on expert advisory processes and expert authority should, we contend, be more closely attuned to the roles played by discursive, social, and material factors in facilitating boundary bridging and co-production in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • James Palmer & Susan Owens & Robert Doubleday, 2019. "Perfecting the ‘Elevator Pitch’? Expert advice as locally-situated boundary work," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 244-253.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:46:y:2019:i:2:p:244-253.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scy054
    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:2:p:244-253.. 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.