9 Knowledge Exchange at Science-Policy Interfaces …
169
by more recent concepts of knowledge exchange or related terms, such as knowledge
interaction or transaction (see Stone 2001; Keeley and Scoones 2003; Jasanoff 2004;
Roux et al. 2006; Turnout et al. 2007; Kamelarczyk and Gamborg 2014; Böcher and
Krott 2014; Prager and McKee 2015).
Theories and concepts of knowledge transfer and exchange draw on wider debates
on science/policy or science/practice interaction. Following Sybille van den Hove,
we define science/policy interaction
as social processes which encompass relations between scientists and other actors in the
policy process, and which allow for exchanges, co-evolution, and joint construction of
knowledge with the aim of enriching decision-making. (van den Hove, 2007: 807).
In fact, van Enst et al. (2014: 13–16) used this same definition to develop a typology
of science/policy interaction, specifying different ways of handling knowledge.
1. The first type, “individual science-policy mediation”, focuses on individual scientists and experts that link science and policymaking by mediating between the
two groups and thus help to make knowledge available and utilisable.
2. The second type concentrates on the process of “participatory knowledge
development”, in particular transdisciplinary and participatory coproduction of
knowledge and common understandings. It includes all actors—from scientists,
policymakers and other professionals to laypeople (van Enst et al. 2014: 16).
3. The third type includes “boundary organisations”, which van Enst et al. described
as “formal institutions, often having a legal basis, which serve as an institutional
bridge between the worlds of science and policy” (van Enst et al. 2014: ibid.).
For our article, we interviewed actors representing one or more of these three
types of science/policy interfaces in an effort to demonstrate examples of who can
provide knowledge and who needs it.
9.3 Methods
We conducted 16 qualitative expert interviews with actors representing
science/policy interfaces in Switzerland, including individual science/policy mediators and boundary organisations. The interviews, which took between 50 minutes
and 2 hours, were generally conducted at the actors’ work. We recorded these interviews, took minutes, and prepared transcripts. In the questionnaire, we asked the
actors to describe how they exchange knowledge themselves, and how knowledge is
exchanged in spatial planning, land use and soil management in Switzerland more
generally. We thus used “knowledge exchange” as a superordinate concept. Insofar
as this concept characterises a two- or multiple-path exchange process, we made
clear to the interviewees that knowledge exchange might be understood in many
different ways, and thus also asked what other kinds of knowledge exchange they
had experienced.
169
by more recent concepts of knowledge exchange or related terms, such as knowledge
interaction or transaction (see Stone 2001; Keeley and Scoones 2003; Jasanoff 2004;
Roux et al. 2006; Turnout et al. 2007; Kamelarczyk and Gamborg 2014; Böcher and
Krott 2014; Prager and McKee 2015).
Theories and concepts of knowledge transfer and exchange draw on wider debates
on science/policy or science/practice interaction. Following Sybille van den Hove,
we define science/policy interaction
as social processes which encompass relations between scientists and other actors in the
policy process, and which allow for exchanges, co-evolution, and joint construction of
knowledge with the aim of enriching decision-making. (van den Hove, 2007: 807).
In fact, van Enst et al. (2014: 13–16) used this same definition to develop a typology
of science/policy interaction, specifying different ways of handling knowledge.
1. The first type, “individual science-policy mediation”, focuses on individual scientists and experts that link science and policymaking by mediating between the
two groups and thus help to make knowledge available and utilisable.
2. The second type concentrates on the process of “participatory knowledge
development”, in particular transdisciplinary and participatory coproduction of
knowledge and common understandings. It includes all actors—from scientists,
policymakers and other professionals to laypeople (van Enst et al. 2014: 16).
3. The third type includes “boundary organisations”, which van Enst et al. described
as “formal institutions, often having a legal basis, which serve as an institutional
bridge between the worlds of science and policy” (van Enst et al. 2014: ibid.).
For our article, we interviewed actors representing one or more of these three
types of science/policy interfaces in an effort to demonstrate examples of who can
provide knowledge and who needs it.
9.3 Methods
We conducted 16 qualitative expert interviews with actors representing
science/policy interfaces in Switzerland, including individual science/policy mediators and boundary organisations. The interviews, which took between 50 minutes
and 2 hours, were generally conducted at the actors’ work. We recorded these interviews, took minutes, and prepared transcripts. In the questionnaire, we asked the
actors to describe how they exchange knowledge themselves, and how knowledge is
exchanged in spatial planning, land use and soil management in Switzerland more
generally. We thus used “knowledge exchange” as a superordinate concept. Insofar
as this concept characterises a two- or multiple-path exchange process, we made
clear to the interviewees that knowledge exchange might be understood in many
different ways, and thus also asked what other kinds of knowledge exchange they
had experienced.