TY - JOUR
T1 - Going beyond science-policy interaction?
T2 - An analysis of views among intergovernmental panel on climate change actors
AU - Thoni, Terese
AU - Livingston, Jasmine
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Scholarly literature on science-policy interaction is typically dividedbetween advocating that science and policy need to be broughtcloser together or separated. In a recent article in this journal,Sundqvist and colleagues [Sundqvist et al. (2018) Oneworld ortwo? Science–policy interactions in the climate field, Critical PolicyStudies, 12:4, 448–468] proposed a typology that structures thisdebate. 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-policypractitioners are not as divided as the scholarly debate. Moreover,while the typology is a powerful tool in unearthing differences inopinion regarding science-policy interaction, it comes at the price ofreductionism. We suggest that a continuum, instead of separateboxes, helps visualize the large spectrum of ideas. However, regard-less of type of typology, it is important that the discussion goesbeyond the relationship between science and policy, and beyondan unconstructive battle between extremes. It is neither possiblenor normatively desirable to demarcate ‘science’, ‘policy’ and otheractors. Whilst this discussion is of central importance to the IPCC,greater focus should be put on its relationship with society.
AB - Scholarly literature on science-policy interaction is typically dividedbetween advocating that science and policy need to be broughtcloser together or separated. In a recent article in this journal,Sundqvist and colleagues [Sundqvist et al. (2018) Oneworld ortwo? Science–policy interactions in the climate field, Critical PolicyStudies, 12:4, 448–468] proposed a typology that structures thisdebate. 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-policypractitioners are not as divided as the scholarly debate. Moreover,while the typology is a powerful tool in unearthing differences inopinion regarding science-policy interaction, it comes at the price ofreductionism. We suggest that a continuum, instead of separateboxes, helps visualize the large spectrum of ideas. However, regard-less of type of typology, it is important that the discussion goesbeyond the relationship between science and policy, and beyondan unconstructive battle between extremes. It is neither possiblenor normatively desirable to demarcate ‘science’, ‘policy’ and otheractors. Whilst this discussion is of central importance to the IPCC,greater focus should be put on its relationship with society.
KW - science-policy interaction
KW - climate regime
KW - expertise
KW - IPCC
KW - policy-relevant knowledge
U2 - 10.1080/19460171.2019.1665564
DO - 10.1080/19460171.2019.1665564
M3 - Article
SN - 1946-0171
VL - 15
SP - 37
EP - 54
JO - Critical Policy Studies
JF - Critical Policy Studies
IS - 1
ER -