Terese Thoni
Utbildningskoordinator
Going beyond science-policy interaction? : An analysis of views among intergovernmental panel on climate change actors
Författare
Summary, in English
Scholarly literature on science-policy interaction is typically divided
between advocating that science and policy need to be brought
closer together or separated. In a recent article in this journal,
Sundqvist and colleagues [Sundqvist et al. (2018) Oneworld or
two? Science–policy interactions in the climate field, Critical Policy
Studies, 12:4, 448–468] proposed a typology that structures this
debate. We use their typology to conduct a text analysis on empiri-
cal material from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
(IPCC) internal consultation on its future. We find that science-policy
practitioners are not as divided as the scholarly debate. Moreover,
while the typology is a powerful tool in unearthing differences in
opinion regarding science-policy interaction, it comes at the price of
reductionism. We suggest that a continuum, instead of separate
boxes, helps visualize the large spectrum of ideas. However, regard-
less of type of typology, it is important that the discussion goes
beyond the relationship between science and policy, and beyond
an unconstructive battle between extremes. It is neither possible
nor normatively desirable to demarcate ‘science’, ‘policy’ and other
actors. Whilst this discussion is of central importance to the IPCC,
greater focus should be put on its relationship with society.
between advocating that science and policy need to be brought
closer together or separated. In a recent article in this journal,
Sundqvist and colleagues [Sundqvist et al. (2018) Oneworld or
two? Science–policy interactions in the climate field, Critical Policy
Studies, 12:4, 448–468] proposed a typology that structures this
debate. We use their typology to conduct a text analysis on empiri-
cal material from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
(IPCC) internal consultation on its future. We find that science-policy
practitioners are not as divided as the scholarly debate. Moreover,
while the typology is a powerful tool in unearthing differences in
opinion regarding science-policy interaction, it comes at the price of
reductionism. We suggest that a continuum, instead of separate
boxes, helps visualize the large spectrum of ideas. However, regard-
less of type of typology, it is important that the discussion goes
beyond the relationship between science and policy, and beyond
an unconstructive battle between extremes. It is neither possible
nor normatively desirable to demarcate ‘science’, ‘policy’ and other
actors. Whilst this discussion is of central importance to the IPCC,
greater focus should be put on its relationship with society.
Avdelning/ar
- Centrum för miljö- och klimatvetenskap (CEC)
- MERGE: ModElling the Regional and Global Earth system
- BECC: Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in a Changing Climate
Publiceringsår
2021
Språk
Engelska
Sidor
37-54
Publikation/Tidskrift/Serie
Critical Policy Studies
Volym
15
Issue
1
Dokumenttyp
Artikel i tidskrift
Förlag
Routledge
Ämne
- Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Nyckelord
- science-policy interaction
- climate regime
- expertise
- IPCC
- policy-relevant knowledge
Status
Published
ISBN/ISSN/Övrigt
- ISSN: 1946-0171