Knowledge Brokering Repertoires: Academic Practices at Science-Policy Interfaces as an Epistemological Bricolage

被引:5
|
作者
Bandola-Gill, Justyna [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, Dept Social Policy Sociol & Criminol, Birmingham B15 2TT, W Midlands, England
关键词
Knowledge brokering; Research impact; Co-production; Mode-2; REF; Science policy; Science-policy interface; ORGANIZATIONS; EXCHANGE;
D O I
10.1007/s11024-022-09478-5
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
With the rise of research impact as a 'third' space (next to research and teaching) within the universities in the United Kingdom and beyond, academics are increasingly expected to not only produce research but also engage in brokering knowledge beyond academia. And yet little is known about the ways in which academics shape their practices in order to respond to these new forms of institutionalised expectations and make sense of knowledge brokering as a form of academic practice. Drawing on 51 qualitative interviews with researchers and research users involved in two large knowledge brokering initiatives in the UK, this study identifies four repertoires of co-production practices: (i) Challenge to the existing policy framework, (ii) Deliberation between diverse stakeholders, (iii) Evidence intervention producing of actionable knowledge, and (iv) Advocacy for specific evidence-based options. By exploring knowledge brokering as navigation of different knowledge production regimes - traditionally academic and policy-oriented - the paper contributes to the existing debates by providing insights into the nature of navigating science-policy interactions as a process of epistemological bricolage, requiring an assemblage of different meanings, values and practices into new repertoires of practice. Importantly, the choice of a repertoire is not limited to the individual choice of a researcher but rather, it is shaped by the broader institutional context of higher education, risking instrumental bias in which practices oriented towards practical solutions are incentivised over critical or participatory forms of engagement.
引用
收藏
页码:71 / 92
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A tale of two panels: learning and coordinating across IPCC, IPBES, and other science-policy interfaces
    Mcelwee, Pamela
    CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2025, 178 (03)
  • [42] Reconceiving science and policy: Academic, fiducial and bureaucratic knowledge
    Hunt, J
    Shackley, S
    MINERVA, 1999, 37 (02) : 141 - 164
  • [43] Rethinking the science-policy interface in South Africa: Experiments in knowledge co-production
    Swilling, Mark
    SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, 2014, 110 (5-6)
  • [44] Reconceiving Science and Policy: Academic, Fiducial and Bureaucratic Knowledge
    Jane Hunt
    Simon Shackley
    Minerva, 1999, 37 : 141 - 164
  • [45] The Geopolitics of Climate Knowledge Mobilization: Transdisciplinary Research at the Science-Policy Interface(s) in the Americas
    Meehan, Katie
    Klenk, Nicole L.
    Mendez, Fabian
    SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, 2018, 43 (05) : 759 - 784
  • [46] Science-Policy Interface and Traditional Knowledge in Social Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)
    Kohsaka, Ryo
    JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 2015, 20 (05) : 421 - 422
  • [47] Facilitating professional normative judgement through science-policy interfaces: the case of anthropogenic land subsidence in the Netherlands
    Hegger, Dries
    Driessen, Peter
    Stouthamer, Esther
    Mees, Heleen
    LEGAL ETHICS, 2023, 26 (01) : 144 - 162
  • [48] Shaping flood risk governance through science-policy interfaces: Insights from England, France and the Netherlands
    Hegger, Dries
    Alexander, Meghan
    Raadgever, Tom
    Priest, Sally
    Bruzzone, Silvia
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2020, 106 : 157 - 165
  • [49] Adding 'Iterativity' to the credibility, relevance, legitimacy: A novel scheme to highlight dynamic aspects of science-policy interfaces
    Sarkki, Simo
    Tinch, Rob
    Niemela, Jari
    Heink, Ulrich
    Waylen, Kerry
    Timaeus, Johannes
    Young, Juliette
    Watt, Allan
    Nesshoever, Carsten
    van den Hove, Sybille
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2015, 54 : 505 - 512
  • [50] Governance options for science-policy interfaces on biodiversity and ecosystem services: comparing a network versus a platform approach
    Goerg, Christoph
    Wittmer, Heidi
    Carter, Caitriona
    Turnhout, Esther
    Vandewalle, Marie
    Schindler, Stefan
    Livorell, Barbara
    Lux, Alexandra
    BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2016, 25 (07) : 1235 - 1252