Scientific advice and public policy: Expert advisers' and policymakers' discourses on boundary work

84Citations
Citations of this article
175Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This article reports on considerable variety and diversity among discourses on their own jobs of boundary workers of several major Dutch institutes for science-based policy advice. Except for enlightenment, all types of boundary arrangements/work in the Wittrock-typology (Social knowledge and public policy: eight models of interaction. In: Wagner P (ed) Social sciences and modern states: national experiences and theoretical crossroads. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991) do occur. 'Divergers' experience a gap between science and politics/ policymaking; and it is their self-evident task to act as a bridge. They spread over four discourses: 'rational facilitators', 'knowledge brokers', 'megapolicy strategists', and 'policy analysts'. Others aspire to 'convergence'; they believe science and politics ought to be natural allies in preparing collective decisions. But 'policy advisors' excepted, 'postnormalists' and 'deliberative proceduralists' find this very hard to achieve. © The Author(s) 2008.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hoppe, R. (2009). Scientific advice and public policy: Expert advisers’ and policymakers’ discourses on boundary work. Poiesis Und Praxis, 6(3–4), 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-008-0053-3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free