IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v6y2020i1d10.1057_s41599-020-0448-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Ronlyn Duncan

    (Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research)

  • Melissa Robson-Williams

    (Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research)

  • Sarah Edwards

    (Lincoln University)

Abstract

Knowledge brokers are often portrayed as neutral intermediaries that act as a necessary conduit between the spheres of science and policy. Conceived largely as a task in packaging, brokers are expected to link knowledge producers and users and objectively translate science into policy-useable knowledge. The research presented in this paper shows how brokering can be far more active and precarious. We present findings from semi-structured interviews with practitioners working with community-based groups involved in collaborative water planning in New Zealand’s South Island region of Canterbury. Working in a highly conflicted situation, our brokers had to navigate different knowledges and epistemic practices, highly divergent values and grapple with uncertainties to deliver recommendations for regional authorities to set water quality and quantity limits. Conceiving science and policy as interlinked, mutually constitutive and co-produced at multiple levels, rather than as separate domains, shows how the brokers of this study were not only bridging or blurring science policy boundaries to integrate and translate knowledges. They were also building boundaries between science and policy to foster credibility and legitimacy for themselves as scientists and the knowledge they were brokering. This research identifies further under-explored aspects of brokering expertise, namely, the multiple dimensions of brokering, transdisciplinary skills and expertise, ‘absorptive’ uncertainty management and knowledge translation practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronlyn Duncan & Melissa Robson-Williams & Sarah Edwards, 2020. "A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:6:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-0448-x
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-0448-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-0448-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-020-0448-x?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
    ---><---

    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. Jahn, Thomas & Bergmann, Matthias & Keil, Florian, 2012. "Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-10.
    2. Peter Gluckman, 2014. "Policy: The art of science advice to government," Nature, Nature, vol. 507(7491), pages 163-165, March.
    3. Morgan Meyer & Matthew Kearnes, 2013. "Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and the market," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 423-429, July.
    4. Morgan Meyer & Matthew Kearnes, 2013. "Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and the market," Post-Print hal-00850565, HAL.
    5. van Kerkhoff, Lorrae & Pilbeam, Victoria, 2017. "Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making: A knowledge governance approach," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-37.
    6. Rob Hoppe & Anna Wesselink & Rose Cairns, 2013. "Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 283-300, July.
    7. Duncan, Ronlyn, 2016. "Ways of knowing – out-of-sync or incompatible? Framing water quality and farmers’ encounters with science in the regulation of non-point source pollution in the Canterbury region of New Zealand," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P1), pages 151-157.
    8. Esther Turnhout & Marian Stuiver & Judith Klostermann & Bette Harms & Cees Leeuwis, 2013. "New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 354-365, February.
    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. Kaplan, Leah R. & Farooque, Mahmud & Sarewitz, Daniel & Tomblin, David, 2021. "Designing Participatory Technology Assessments: A Reflexive Method for Advancing the Public Role in Science Policy Decision-making," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Ilias Krystallis & Sarah Jasim, 2023. "Charting the path towards a long-term knowledge brokerage function: an ecosystems view," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Silje Maria Tellmann & Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2022. "The other side of the boundary: Productive interactions seen from the policy side [Rethinking Policy ‘Impact’: Four Models of Research-Policy Relations]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 621-631.
    4. Bianca Vienni-Baptista & María Goñi Mazzitelli & María Haydeé García Bravo & Inta Rivas Fauré & Daniel Felipe Marín-Vanegas & Cecilia Hidalgo, 2022. "Situated expertise in integration and implementation processes in Latin America," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Bianca Vienni-Baptista & Isabel Fletcher & Catherine Lyall & Christian Pohl, 2022. "Embracing heterogeneity: Why plural understandings strengthen interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity [Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 865-877.
    6. Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).

    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. Mónica Ramos-Mejía & Alejandro Balanzo, 2018. "What It Takes to Lead Sustainability Transitions from the Bottom-Up: Strategic Interactions of Grassroots Ecopreneurs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Dieuwke Lamers & Marc Schut & Laurens Klerkx & Piet van Asten, 2017. "Compositional dynamics of multilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(6), pages 739-752.
    3. Wynanda I. Van Enst & Peter P. J. Driessen & Hens A. C. Runhaar, 2017. "Working at the Boundary: An Empirical Study into the Goals and Strategies of Knowledge Brokers in the Field of Environmental Governance in the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-14, October.
    4. Nicola Francesco Dotti & André Spithoven, 2017. "Spatial perspectives on knowledge brokers: Evidence from Brussels," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(10), pages 2203-2222, October.
    5. Taheri, Mozhdeh & van Geenhuizen, Marina, 2016. "Teams' boundary-spanning capacity at university: Performance of technology projects in commercialization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 31-43.
    6. Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    7. Honeck, Erica & Gallagher, Louise & von Arx, Bertrand & Lehmann, Anthony & Wyler, Nicolas & Villarrubia, Olga & Guinaudeau, Benjamin & Schlaepfer, Martin A., 2021. "Integrating ecosystem services into policymaking – A case study on the use of boundary organizations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    8. Melissa Robson-Williams & Bruce Small & Roger Robson-Williams & Nick Kirk, 2021. "Handrails through the Swamp? A Pilot to Test the Integration and Implementation Science Framework in Complex Real-World Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, May.
    9. Svenja Keele, 2019. "Consultants and the business of climate services: implications of shifting from public to private science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 9-26, November.
    10. Miller, Fiona A. & Lehoux, Pascale, 2020. "The innovation impacts of public procurement offices: The case of healthcare procurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    11. Albats, Ekaterina & Alexander, Allen T. & Cunningham, James A., 2022. "Traditional, virtual, and digital intermediaries in university-industry collaboration: exploring institutional logics and bounded rationality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    12. Holloway, Kelly & Miller, Fiona A., 2022. "The Consultant's intermediary role in the regulation of molecular diagnostics in the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    13. Peltomaa, Juha & Hildén, Mikael & Huttunen, Suvi, 2016. "Translating institutional change - forest journals as diverse policy actors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 172-180.
    14. Paula Kivimaa & Wouter Boon & Riina Antikainen, 2017. "Commercialising university inventions for sustainability—a case study of (non-)intermediating ‘cleantech’ at Aalto University," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 631-644.
    15. Noam Obermeister, 2020. "Tapping into science advisers’ learning," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Marina van Geenhuizen, 2018. "A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(7), pages 1280-1298, November.
    17. Xie Kaiji & Antonio Crupi & Alberto Minin & Fabrizio Cesaroni, 2022. "Team boundary-spanning activities and performance of technology transfer organizations: evidence from China," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 33-62, February.
    18. Stefan Liehr & Julia Röhrig & Marion Mehring & Thomas Kluge, 2017. "How the Social-Ecological Systems Concept Can Guide Transdisciplinary Research and Implementation: Addressing Water Challenges in Central Northern Namibia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-19, June.
    19. Shiji Chen & Clément Arsenault & Yves Gingras & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Exploring the interdisciplinary evolution of a discipline: the case of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1307-1323, February.
    20. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.

    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:pal:palcom:v:6:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-0448-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.