180
M. Pütz and R. Brassel
our findings. However, they specified mass media as an example of formal knowledge exchange. Our data revealed other examples of formal knowledge exchange that
emphasised the formality of the process more clearly, e.g. formal calls for proposals
or bilateral agreements regulating knowledge exchange.
9.6.2 Barriers to and Opportunities for Knowledge Exchange
Our data showed that diverging differences in philosophy and priorities, as well as
a lack of communication generally all impede knowledge exchange in Swiss spatial
planning, land use and soil management. These include divides in “culture” and
ways of thinking between scientists and policymakers, differences in the timeframes
they work in, differences in the way they express themselves and a lack of institutionalised links between them. The two communities thesis, “[f]irst elaborated by
Caplan (1979)… assumes that a fundamental gap exists between research and policy
which is held to be the result of cultural differences between these two communities”
(Nutley et al. 2014: 99). Referring to van Buuren and Edelenbos (2004); Wiltshire
(2001) and Strydom et al. (2010); van Enst et al. (2014: 9 et seq.) also pointed out that
differences in expression, timeframes and perceptions of reality between scientists
and policymakers created problems for the science/policy interface. However, our
data indicates that these divides, differences and lacking links that constrain knowledge exchange between science and policymaking are not limited to a gap between
science and policymaking as such. They also include different “ways of thinking” and
different concepts dominating in the different linguistic areas in Switzerland, administrative differences originating from Swiss federalism and a lack of communication
paths between soil and spatial planning experts.
Interviewees mentioned several barriers to knowledge exchange between science
and policymaking concerning the handling of scientific results. They criticised the
results for sometimes being in a language policymakers did not understand or for
being inapplicable or inaccessible. Hence, the interviewees called for adapting the
communication of scientific results to the language of the addressees, investing in
efforts to render the results applicable and providing open-access publications. The
first two of these aspects correspond to the findings of Reed et al. (2014: 341 et seq.)
whose interview partners suggested that an “effective” knowledge exchange would
provide tangible and useful outputs, and would include outside actors in the formulation of policy implications so that the communication of results would actually
reach the target audience. Referring to Sarawitz and Pielke (2007), van Enst et al.
(2014: 10) also identified “insufficient access to knowledge” as a problem of the
science/policy interface, which is in line with our findings.
Other barriers to knowledge exchange expressed in the interviews included the
reward system of scientists, which encourages them to concentrate more on writing
scientific publications, and less on providing guidance and ready-to-use tools; a lack
of financial resources and time for knowledge exchange; an overload of information; power struggles and competing interests constraining knowledge exchange;
M. Pütz and R. Brassel
our findings. However, they specified mass media as an example of formal knowledge exchange. Our data revealed other examples of formal knowledge exchange that
emphasised the formality of the process more clearly, e.g. formal calls for proposals
or bilateral agreements regulating knowledge exchange.
9.6.2 Barriers to and Opportunities for Knowledge Exchange
Our data showed that diverging differences in philosophy and priorities, as well as
a lack of communication generally all impede knowledge exchange in Swiss spatial
planning, land use and soil management. These include divides in “culture” and
ways of thinking between scientists and policymakers, differences in the timeframes
they work in, differences in the way they express themselves and a lack of institutionalised links between them. The two communities thesis, “[f]irst elaborated by
Caplan (1979)… assumes that a fundamental gap exists between research and policy
which is held to be the result of cultural differences between these two communities”
(Nutley et al. 2014: 99). Referring to van Buuren and Edelenbos (2004); Wiltshire
(2001) and Strydom et al. (2010); van Enst et al. (2014: 9 et seq.) also pointed out that
differences in expression, timeframes and perceptions of reality between scientists
and policymakers created problems for the science/policy interface. However, our
data indicates that these divides, differences and lacking links that constrain knowledge exchange between science and policymaking are not limited to a gap between
science and policymaking as such. They also include different “ways of thinking” and
different concepts dominating in the different linguistic areas in Switzerland, administrative differences originating from Swiss federalism and a lack of communication
paths between soil and spatial planning experts.
Interviewees mentioned several barriers to knowledge exchange between science
and policymaking concerning the handling of scientific results. They criticised the
results for sometimes being in a language policymakers did not understand or for
being inapplicable or inaccessible. Hence, the interviewees called for adapting the
communication of scientific results to the language of the addressees, investing in
efforts to render the results applicable and providing open-access publications. The
first two of these aspects correspond to the findings of Reed et al. (2014: 341 et seq.)
whose interview partners suggested that an “effective” knowledge exchange would
provide tangible and useful outputs, and would include outside actors in the formulation of policy implications so that the communication of results would actually
reach the target audience. Referring to Sarawitz and Pielke (2007), van Enst et al.
(2014: 10) also identified “insufficient access to knowledge” as a problem of the
science/policy interface, which is in line with our findings.
Other barriers to knowledge exchange expressed in the interviews included the
reward system of scientists, which encourages them to concentrate more on writing
scientific publications, and less on providing guidance and ready-to-use tools; a lack
of financial resources and time for knowledge exchange; an overload of information; power struggles and competing interests constraining knowledge exchange;