9 Knowledge Exchange at Science-Policy Interfaces …
179
Type 2 (knowledge transfer support) and Type 4 (knowledge exchange support)
characterise one-way transfer processes and reciprocal exchange processes, respectively. However, in these types of knowledge exchange, transfer and exchange are
encouraged by boundary organisations or by individual knowledge advocates, rather
than by the scientists and policymakers producing or possessing the knowledge.
Boundary organisations and individual knowledge advocates supporting knowledge
transfer and exchange in our typology correspond to the individual science/policy
mediators and boundary organisations identified by van Enst et al. (2014: 13–16)
in their typology of science/policy interaction, who conceptualised them as individuals or formal institutions operating as a bridge between science and policymaking
(van Enst et al. 2014: 13–16). In our typology, individual knowledge advocates and
boundary organisations also function as connecting elements between science and
policymaking. However, we additionally distinguish between the knowledge transfer
and the knowledge exchange that these third parties support.
Type 3, “knowledge exchange”, characterises reciprocal exchange processes
where interaction, dialogue or learning takes place. The exchanged knowledge does
not necessarily have to be the same kind of knowledge: while scientists introduce
scientific knowledge into the exchange, policymakers introduce practical knowledge
and presumably also tactical knowledge for scientists (e.g. about funding opportunities). Fazey et al. (2013: 20) described knowledge exchange as reciprocal two-way or
multiple-path processes, including learning, which is exactly how we conceptualise
it.
Type 5, “participatory knowledge development and use”, is characterised by the
involvement of actors in policymaking processes. van Enst et al. (2014: 15) classified
processes of participatory knowledge development as a third type in their typology
of science-policy interfaces. However, they focused on participatory coproduction
of knowledge, which only corresponds to one of our subtypes, 5.1—“the coproduction of knowledge through participation”. We have demonstrated that participation
can also be perceived in a more unidirectional way of simply retrieving knowledge (Subtype 5.2), where knowledge is not coproduced, but instead requested and
received from actors; it may also be understood as mutual learning or individual
learning within a collective body (Subtype 5.3). Apart from the Subtypes 5.1–5.3
that explain how participation operates, we also included four subtypes (5.4–5.7) that
focus on why participation is organised. van Enst et al. (2014: 5–9) also discussed
how knowledge is “strategically” used and produced. Our Subtype 5.7, “strategic
participation” corresponds with that of van Enst et al. (2014) in terms of the strategic
use of knowledge by policy of “knowledge being used selectively”, which includes
“politicians ask[ing] for advice only to legitimize their pre-formed decisions” (Hoppe
2005: 201 in van Enst et al. 2014: 7).
Type 6, “formal and informal knowledge exchange”, focuses on the setting
(formal, informal) in which knowledge exchange takes place. The Swiss respondents identified the informal component of knowledge exchange to be particularly
important. Reed et al. (2013: 313) argued that “[k]nowledge exchange and transfer
often take place through informal networks as well as through formalised and depersonalised forms of communication such as the mass media.” This corresponds with
179
Type 2 (knowledge transfer support) and Type 4 (knowledge exchange support)
characterise one-way transfer processes and reciprocal exchange processes, respectively. However, in these types of knowledge exchange, transfer and exchange are
encouraged by boundary organisations or by individual knowledge advocates, rather
than by the scientists and policymakers producing or possessing the knowledge.
Boundary organisations and individual knowledge advocates supporting knowledge
transfer and exchange in our typology correspond to the individual science/policy
mediators and boundary organisations identified by van Enst et al. (2014: 13–16)
in their typology of science/policy interaction, who conceptualised them as individuals or formal institutions operating as a bridge between science and policymaking
(van Enst et al. 2014: 13–16). In our typology, individual knowledge advocates and
boundary organisations also function as connecting elements between science and
policymaking. However, we additionally distinguish between the knowledge transfer
and the knowledge exchange that these third parties support.
Type 3, “knowledge exchange”, characterises reciprocal exchange processes
where interaction, dialogue or learning takes place. The exchanged knowledge does
not necessarily have to be the same kind of knowledge: while scientists introduce
scientific knowledge into the exchange, policymakers introduce practical knowledge
and presumably also tactical knowledge for scientists (e.g. about funding opportunities). Fazey et al. (2013: 20) described knowledge exchange as reciprocal two-way or
multiple-path processes, including learning, which is exactly how we conceptualise
it.
Type 5, “participatory knowledge development and use”, is characterised by the
involvement of actors in policymaking processes. van Enst et al. (2014: 15) classified
processes of participatory knowledge development as a third type in their typology
of science-policy interfaces. However, they focused on participatory coproduction
of knowledge, which only corresponds to one of our subtypes, 5.1—“the coproduction of knowledge through participation”. We have demonstrated that participation
can also be perceived in a more unidirectional way of simply retrieving knowledge (Subtype 5.2), where knowledge is not coproduced, but instead requested and
received from actors; it may also be understood as mutual learning or individual
learning within a collective body (Subtype 5.3). Apart from the Subtypes 5.1–5.3
that explain how participation operates, we also included four subtypes (5.4–5.7) that
focus on why participation is organised. van Enst et al. (2014: 5–9) also discussed
how knowledge is “strategically” used and produced. Our Subtype 5.7, “strategic
participation” corresponds with that of van Enst et al. (2014) in terms of the strategic
use of knowledge by policy of “knowledge being used selectively”, which includes
“politicians ask[ing] for advice only to legitimize their pre-formed decisions” (Hoppe
2005: 201 in van Enst et al. 2014: 7).
Type 6, “formal and informal knowledge exchange”, focuses on the setting
(formal, informal) in which knowledge exchange takes place. The Swiss respondents identified the informal component of knowledge exchange to be particularly
important. Reed et al. (2013: 313) argued that “[k]nowledge exchange and transfer
often take place through informal networks as well as through formalised and depersonalised forms of communication such as the mass media.” This corresponds with