Weeknotes 5 - The Boundary Between Evidence and Decisions

Contents

1. The Science-Policy Gap
2. Characterising the structure of evidence-decisions
3. Discussion around objectivity v usability
4. Roles in the evidence-decisions interface
5. Climate psychology and communication of evidence
6. TL;DR Time to put away the scattergun
7. References

Weeknotes are my way of revisiting my readings, research and general notes from the week. They are reflections that link and contrast experiences and observations that happen to have occurred in a short period of time. I am writing these notes quickly, doing my best to correctly represent the sources, but I would love to learn if I am mistaken in my understanding in any way. You can contact me on https://climatejustice.social/@PenguinJunk.

The Science-Policy Gap

“if you had studied politics, you would know that science is often privileged [in policy making], but it’s just not as central to the discussion as someone who is ensconced in science might think” Paul Cairney in Montana and Wilsdon (2021)

“The decision maker’s lament” by Bisbal (2024), published next month, expresses strongly the disappointment, frustration and even prejudice present in the relationship between decision-makers and scientists. This arises from perceived deficiencies. On the one hand, in actionable science and on the other, support to produce actionable science.

Characterising the structure of evidence-decisions

I spent a little time this week reviewing my notes on policy theory from last year’s Power, Politics and Systems’ Change module. An excellent paper that critically reviews a range of policy process theories is Kern and Rogge (2018). The different theories provide different lenses for understanding what happens in policy. I previously considered policy entrepreneurs that Kingdon described in the Multiple Stream Approach (Kingdon, 1993). I reminded myself of another lens, the advocacy coalition framework, described in Dowding (2018), which finds that individuals have a range of beliefs, some of which are more flexible than others.

A different, perhaps more purely descriptive, perspective are the Discourse Coalitions described by Hajer (2005), in which each coalition shares a set of storylines regarding how they understand an issue. From interviews with evidence and policy professionals, mainly in UK, Montana and Wilsdon (2021) identify 3 discourses around the relationship between evidence and policy: analytical (explaining the relationship, such as in “evidence-based policy”), advocacy (refining and prescribing the relationship, such as in improving methodologies for connecting evidence to policy) and application (adapting the relationship based on the context, such as drawing on a range of tools to connect evidence with policy).

Different discourses reflect and construct how an issue is understood. Across society, these play out in disagreements that Geuijen et al. (2017) explicate along lines of different philosophies (utilitarianism and deotological), which can be evaluated at individual and collective levels, creating a framework that permits the holding of the multiple public values that are at play - and can appear to conflict - in wicked problems. Wesselink and Hoppe (2020) divide issue along dimensions that describe the evidence perspective (“puzzling”: the certainty of our knowledge) and political perspective (“powering”: the agreement on our goals), finding that wicked problems emerge when knowledge is uncertain and there is little agreement on goals. Both Geuijen et al. (2017) and Wesselink and Hoppe (2020) set their frameworks in a wider context societal levels, which create further complexity by having varied and, particularly at supra-national level, little governance.

I find these different lenses highly salient. I will need to choose a very narrow lens for my research and it is useful to understand the different way the pie of science-policy can be sliced. Further, there is some nesting of some of these different perspectives. For instance, Wesselink and Hoppe (2020) find that different structuring of problems (i.e. along puzzling and powering dimensions) results in different political approaches (advocacy coalitions which goals are agreed versus discourse coalitions when means are agreed). This may also link with the actors identified in the Multiple Streams Framework, such as the Policy Entrepreneur, who seems to often advocate for a particular solution (means) and the Problem Broker, who is more concerned about raising the profile of the issue (goal). In the case of wicked problems, it is possible that both these actors are clashing.

Discussion around objectivity v usability

One reason for such a clash is the nature of beliefs around the separation of work at the science-policy boundary. The “linear model” argues for a separation between the discovery of evidence and its use, so that the process of discovery/research is unbiased by the political and decision perspective. In reality, this demarcation is lacking and instead there is a constant “balancing act between scientific credibility and policy usefulness” (Wesselink and Hoppe, 2020). Both Wesselink and Hoppe (2020) and Gluckman, Bardsley, and Kaiser (2021), acknowledge that the scientist’s perspective intrinsically influences their research. Peer review and, what Popper called “friendly-hostile cooperation of scientists” (Rapley and De Meyer, 2014), are practices that counter these biases.

Most science-policy issues that matter (because they remain unsolved) are complex and they have values intrinsically embedded. Further, as Cairney suggests in the quote above, decisions are made on a plurality of knowledge, not just science. Indigenous and Local Knowledge, personal experience and anecdotes are also drawn on, to a greater or lesser extent (depending on the policy actor, Piddington, MacKillop, and Downe (2024)). In the 1990s, the concept of “post-normal science” was proffered by Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993), calling for new approaches to peer review that draws on the wider experience of stakeholders and all those affected (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993;Jasanoff, 2003). Such peer review (Jasanoff’s “Technologies of Humility”) would occur at Wesselink and Hoppe (2020)’s meso-level (policy problem network), suggesting again that their influence may struggle to reach the macro-level political cultural sphere that is needed to address global issues such as climate change.

Falling at a tangential boundary, a letter from B ̈untgen (2024), caused an amused stir this week in scientist-activist communities. The letter expressed concern that the objectivity of science is damaged by the “commingling of climate science, climate activism, climate communication and climate policy, whereby scientific insights are adopted to promote pre-determined positions”. This is interesting as a “friendly-hostile cooperation” but is unlikely to influence existing scientist-activists.

Roles in the evidence-decisions interface

In 1998 Jane Lubchenco called for scientists to engage with society and policy through research, communicaton and co-creation of science that can be immediately used (Lubchenco and Rapley, 2020). Building on this, and noting the dichotomy between the risk of compromising impartiality, and the obligation of state-funded scientists to share their specialist knowledge, Rapley and De Meyer (2014) suggest a set of roles that sit at the climate-science-policy boundary, as do Gluckman, Bardsley, and Kaiser (2021). These are based on roles identified in “The Honest Broker”: Pure scientist, Science artbiter, Science communicator, Honest broker of policy alternatives, and Issue advocate. Within these roles, I note that the “issue advocate” (Pielke apparently also suggested a “stealth advocate”) who appears much like a “Policy Entrepreneur”. Considering boundary organisations, MacKillop et al. (2023) finds that knowledge brokering organisations can act like Policy Entrepreneurs or Problem Brokers. It seems there is still plenty of work to close this gap. Lubchenco and Rapley (2020) particularly call out the lack of incentives, indeed to workload deterrents, within research institutions for strong engagement of scientists in policy.

Climate psychology and communication of evidence

I revisited the three habits of a Policy Entrepreneur in Cairney (2018): a good story, having a pre-softened solution, and surfing - or creating - political waves. It seems to me that the pre-softening possibly relates to the psychology of decisions based heuristics, specifically those using analogy, metaphor and recognition-priming (Klein, 2017).

Returning to the hope and fear discussion around individuals’ actions, Nabi, Gustafson, and Jensen (2018) find (somewhat obscurely to a non-specialist) that hope responses are more likely than fear to lead to climate change advocacy behaviour, particularly if that hope-inducing message is presented after a fear-inducing message. In this study the hope-inducing message is gain-framed information about a policy initiative - and so it may be the hope-framed efficacy, rather than hope alone, that is persuasive. I note there is quite a lot of follow up work related to this, including considering other emotions.

Regarding efficacy, Hampton and Whitmarsh (2023) identify 7 sources of influence over individuals and recognise that these are highly interconnected (again highlighting another aspect of how decisions are made): psychological, demographic, cultural, social capital, material, spatial, governance/democracy.

TL;DR Time to put away the scattergun

The literature I’ve read and other sources that I’ve drawn on has been fairly wide. I believe I can start to define a slightly tighter scope in this work now, but wish to continue to maintain a cross- maybe trans-disciplinary perspective. Thus, the work that is of relevance to my ongoing research falls into four groups:

• Science-policy gap literature - case studies exemplifying the nature of the gap in climate and nature science
• Policy theory literature - theory about how policy is made, the actors and their methods such as multiple streams framework, advocacy coalitions framework
• Policy theory-aligned case studies - case studies in climate and nature science applying policy theory frameworks such as those identifying policy entrepreneurs, advocacy coalitions and discourse coalitions
• Decision-psychology literature - studies identifying the cognitive approaches, behaviours and emotions that influence decision-making

References

Gustavo A. Bisbal. “The decision maker’s lament: If I only had some science!” In: Ambio 53 (6 June 1, 2024), pp. 898–906. 10.1007/s13280-024-01986-w. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-01986-w.

Ulf B ̈untgen. “The importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism”. In: npj Climate Action 3.36 (1 May 8, 2024). 10.1038/s44168-024-00126-0. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-024-00126-0.

Paul Cairney. “Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs”. In: Policy & Politics 46.2 (Apr. 16, 2018), pp. 199–215. 10.1332/030557318X15230056771696. https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/pp/46/2/article-p199.xml.

Keith Dowding. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework”. In: Handbook on Policy, Process and Governing. Dec. 28, 2018. Chap. 13, pp. 220–231. 10.4337/9781784714871.00020. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/edcoll/9781784714864/9781784714864.00020.xml

Silvio O. Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz. “The Emergence of Post-Normal Science”. In: Science, Politics and Morality: Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making. Ed. by Ren ́e Von Schomberg. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1993, pp. 85–123. isbn: 978-94-015-8143-1. 10.1007/978-94-015-8143-1_6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8143-1_6.

Karin Geuijen et al. “Creating public value in global wicked problems”. In: Public Management Review 19.5 (2017), pp. 621–639. 10.1080/14719037.2016.1192163. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192163.

Peter D. Gluckman, Anne Bardsley, and Matthias Kaiser. “Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance”. In: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8.84 (1 Mar. 19, 2021). 10.1057/s41599-021-00756-3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00756-3.

Maarten A. Hajer. “Coalitions, practices, and meaning in environmental politics: From acidrain to BSE”. In: Discourse theory in European politics: Identity, policy and governance. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2005, pp. 297–315. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230523364_13.

Sam Hampton and Lorraine Whitmarsh. “Choices for climate action: A review of the multiple roles individuals play”. In: One Earth 6 (9 Sept. 15, 2023), pp. 1157–1172. 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.08.006. https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(23)00354-8 (visited on 05/16/2024).

Sheila Jasanoff. “Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science”. In: Minerva 41 (2003), pp. 223–244. 10.1023/A:1025557512320. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1025557512320.

Florian Kern and Karoline S. Rogge. “Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: A critical survey”. In: Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions (2018). 10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.001. https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/270502/1-s2.0-S2210422418X00033/1-s2.0-S2210422417301089/main.pdf. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422417301089.

John W. Kingdon. “How do issues get on public policy agendas?” In: Sociology and the Public Agenda. Vol. 8. 1. 1993. Chap. 3, pp. 40–53. 10.4135/9781483325484.https://sk.sagepub.com/books/sociology-and-the-public-agenda/n3.xml.

Gary A. Klein. Sources of Power. How People Make Decisions. The MIT Press, 2017. 10.7551/mitpress/11307.001.0001. https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/3647/Sources-of-PowerHow-People-Make-Decisions.

Jane Lubchenco and Chris Rapley. “Our Moment of Truth: The Social Contract Realized?” In: Environmental Research Letters 15.11 (Oct. 2020), p. 110201. 10.1088/1748-9326/abba9c. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abba9c.

Eleanor MacKillop et al. “Making sense of knowledge-brokering organisations: boundary organisations or policy entrepreneurs?” In: Science and Public Policy 50.6 (2023), pp. 950–960. issn: 0302-3427. 10.1093/scipol/scad029. https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-pdf/50/6/950/54252849/scad029.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad029.

Jasper Montana and James Wilsdon. “Analysts, advocates and applicators: three discourse coalitions of UK evidence and policy”. In: evidence & Policy 18 (3 Feb. 16, 2021), pp. 456–472. 10.1332/174426421X16112601473449. https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/evp/18/3/article-p456.xml.

Robin L. Nabi, Abel Gustafson, and Risa Jensen. “Framing Climate Change: Exploring the Role of Emotion in Generating Advocacy Behavior”. In: Science Communication 40.4 (2018), pp. 442–468. 10.1177/1075547018776019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018776019.

Grace Piddington, Eleanor MacKillop, and James Downe. “Do policy actors have different views of what constitutes evidence in policymaking?” In: Policy & Politics 52.2 (2024), pp. 239–258. 10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000032. https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/pp/52/2/article-p239.xml.

Chris Rapley and Kris De Meyer. “Climate Climate Science Reconsidered”. In: Nature Climate Change 4 (Sept. 2014), pp. 745–746. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2352.

Anna Wesselink and Robert Hoppe. Boundary Organizations: Intermediaries in Science–Policy Interactions. Oxford University Press, Aug. 27, 2020. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1412. https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1412.