An Overview of Discourses on Knowledge in Policy: Thinking Knowledge, Policy and Conflict Together

• Authors: Michal Sedlačko , Katarína Staroňová
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Around the world, there is a growing interest among policy scholars and practitioners in the role of knowledge in relation to public policy. These debates are accompanied by some confusion about what is meant by knowledge or evidence, as well as controversies around the role of scientists and suspicions of increasingly technocratic decision making. Our aim is to provide a useful overview of the major debates in this paper, and to trace six dominant discourses in current research that address the role of scientific knowledge or expertise in the policy process. We distinguish evidence-based policy making, knowledge utilisation, policy learning, knowledge transfer, social construction of knowledge and boundaries, and knowing in practice as separate discourses. We show how they differ in their understanding of knowledge, of the problem to solve in terms of the role of knowledge in policy, of practical implications, as well as in their understanding of public policy and in their ontologies and epistemologies. A condensed and structured representation serves as a basis for conducting comparisons across discourses as well as to open ways for analysis of strategic associations between the discourses. We hope to contribute to extending the discussion of knowledge in policy into the realm of epistemic politics and we suggest several avenues for future research that can draw on a range of concepts from across all of the discourses.

Keywords

EN

knowledge and policy; evidence-based policy making; knowledge utilisation; policy learning; social learning; knowledge brokerage; boundary work; practical knowledge; epistemic politics

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Central European Journal of Public Policy
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 9
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 10-31

Dates

published

2015-12-01

online

2016-02-16

Contributors

author

Michal Sedlačko

• Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Institute of Public Policy and University of Applied Science FH Campus Wien, Public Management

author

Katarína Staroňová

• Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Institute of Public Policy

References

• Adams, D. (2004). Usable knowledge in public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration 63(1): 29-42.[Crossref]
• Adler, E. and Haas, P. (1992). Epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organization 46(1): 367-390.[Crossref]
• Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In: W. Bijker and J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology, Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, (pp. 205-224), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Atkinson, M. and Coleman, W. (1989) Strong states and weak states: sectoral policy networks in advanced capitalist economies. British Journal of Political Science 19(1): 46-67.[Crossref]
• Bäckstrand, K. (2003). Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policymakers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 3(4): 24-41.[Crossref]
• Bader, V. (2014). Sciences, politics, and associative democracy: democratizing science and expertising democracy. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research. 27(4): 420-441.[Crossref]
• Badger, D., Nursten, J., Williams, P. and Woodward, M. (2000). Should all literature reviews be systematic? Evaluation and Research in Education 14(3/4): 220-230.
• Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy sciences 25(3): 275-294.[Crossref]
• Biegelbauer, P. (2007). Learning from abroad: the Austrian competence centre programme Kplus. Science and Public Policy, 34(9), 606-618.[Crossref]
• Biegelbauer, P. (2013). Wie lernt die Politik?: Lernen aus Erfahrung in Politik und Verwaltung. Springer-Verlag.
• Bielak, A. T., Campbell, A., Pope, S., Schaefer, K. and Shaxson, L. (2008). From science communication to knowledge brokering: the shift from “science push” to “policy pull.” In: D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele and S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices (pp. 201-226), Amsterdam: Springer.
• Boswell, Ch. (2009). The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge. Immigration Policy and Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brand, U. and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2013). Epistemic selectivities and the valorisation of nature: the cases of the Nagoya Protocol and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Law, Environment and Development Journal 9(2): 202-220.
• Cabinet Office (1999a). Modernizing Government: Green Paper. London: Stationary Office.
• Cabinet Office (1999b). Professional Policy Making for 21st Century. London: Stationary Office.
• Campbell, D. T. (1991). Methods for Experimenting Society. American Journal of Evaluation 12(3): 223-260.[Crossref]
• Canary, H. (2010). Constructing policy knowledge: contradictions, communication, and knowledge frames. Communication Monographs 77(2): 181-206.[Crossref]
• Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist 22(3): 459-470.[Crossref]
• Carden, F. (2005). Making the Most of Research: The Influence of IDRC-supported Research on Policy Processes. Paper for the international conference African Economic Research Institutions and Policy Development: Opportunities and Challenges, Dakar, 28-29 January 2005. URL: http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/11085518871Making_the_Most_of_Research.pdf
• Cash, D W., Clark, W C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N M., Eckley, N., Guston, D H., Jaeger, J. and Mitchell, R B. (2003). Knowledge Systems for sustainable development. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14): 8086-8091.
• Clark, R. and Holmes, J. (2010). Improving input from research to environmental policy: challenges of structure and culture. Science and Public Policy 37(10): 751-764.[Crossref]
• Clark, W. C., Tomich, T. P., van Noordwijk, M, Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N. M. and McNie, E. (2011). Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). PNAS www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0900231108.[Crossref]
• Cohen, D. K. and Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Solving problems of bureaucracy: limits on social science. In: C. H. Weiss and A. H. Barton (Eds.), Making Bureaucracies Work (pp. 125-138), Beverly Hills: Sage.
• Colebatch, H. K. (2006). What work makes policy? Policy Science 39: 309-321.[Crossref]
• Coleman, W. and Skogstad, G. (1990) Policy Communities and Public Policy in Canada: A Structural Approach. Ontario: Copp Clark Pitman.
• Coleman, W. and Skogstad, G. (1990). Policy Communities and Public Policy in Canada: A Structural Approach. Ontario: Copp Clark Pitman.
• Collins, H. M. and Pinch, T. J. (1982). Frames of Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Cook, S. D. N. and Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science 10(4): 381-400.[Crossref]
• Cortner, H. J. (2000). Making science relevant to environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy 3: 21-30.[Crossref]
• Davies P. (2004). Is Evidence-Based Government Possible? Jerry Lee Lecture 2004, presented to the Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Washington DC, 19 February 2004.
• Davies, H, Nutley, S. M. and Walter, I. (2005). Assessing the Impact of Social Science Research: Conceptual, Methodological and Practical Issues. A background discussion paper for ESRC Symposium on Assessing Non-Academic Impact of Research. St Andrews: University of St Andrews, Research Unit for Research Utilisation. URL: http://www.odi.org.uk/rapid/Meetings/ESRC/Index.html
• Davies, H., Nutley, S. and Walter, I. (2008). Why ‘knowledge transfer’ is misconceived for applied social research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 13(3): 188-190.[Crossref]
• Davies, H., Nutley, S. M. and Smith, P. C. (2000). Introducing evidence-based policy and practice in public services. In: H. Davies, S. M. Nutley and P.C. Smith (Eds.), What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services (pp. 1-12), Bristol: The Policy Press. de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Dobbins, M., Robeson, P., Ciliska, D., Hanna, S., Cameron, R., O’Mara, L., DeCorby, K. and Mercer, S. (2009). A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implementation Science 4(23).
• Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D. (1996). “Who learns what from whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature,” Political Studies, 44, 343-57.
• Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making. Governance 13 (1): 5-24.[Crossref]
• Donaldson, S. I., Christie, C. A. and Mark, M. M. (2009). What counts as Credible Evidence in Applied Research and Evaluation Practice? London: Sage.
• Dror, Y. (1979). Think tanks: a new invention in government. In: Weiss, C. H. and Barton, A. H. (Eds.), Making Bureaucracies Work (pp. 139-152), Beverly Hills: Sage.
• Dryzek, J. S. (1997). The Politics of the Earth. Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Estabrooks, C. (1999). The conceptual structure of research utilization. Research in Nursing & Health 22(3): 203-216.
• Etzioni, A. (1968). The Active Society: A Theory of Societal and Political Processes. New York, NY: The Free Press.
• European Commission (2001). European Governance: A White Paper. COM(2001) 428 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf.
• European Commission (2008). Scientific Evidence for Policy-making. EUR 22982 EN. Brussels: DG Research, Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/ssh/docs/20080619en.pdf.
• Eyestone, R. (1977) Confusion, diffusion and innovation. American Political Science Review 71: 441-447.[Crossref]
• Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newsbury Park: Sage.
• Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Fischer, F. and J. Forester (1993). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Foucault, M. (1978). Governmentality. In: P. Rabinow and N. Rose (Eds.), (2003) The Essential Foucault: Selections from Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984 (pp. 229-245), New York: The New Press.
• Freeman, R. (2006). Learning in public policy. In: M. Moran, M. Rein and R. E. Goodin (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 367-388
• Freeman, R. and Sturdy, S. (2014). Introduction: knowledge in policy - embodied, inscribed, enacted. In: R. Freeman and S. Sturdy (Eds.), Knowledge in Policy: Embodied, Inscribed, Enacted. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Gabbay J. and le May, A. C. (2004). Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines”? Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ 329: 1013.
• Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from nonscience: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48(6): 781-795.[Crossref]
• Glasbergen, P. (1996). “Learning to manage the environment,” Democracy and the environment: Problems and prospects, 175-193.
• Glaser, G. and Bates, P. (2011). Enhancing Science-Policy Links for Global Sustainability. Report for the Stakeholder Forum.
• Gray, J. A. M. (1997). Evidence-based healthcare: How to make health policy and management decisions. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
• Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organisations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, Technology, and Human Values 26(4): 399-408.
• Haas, P. M. (1989). Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization 43(3): 377-403 [Crossref]
• Haas, P. M. (1992). Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46: 1-35.[Crossref]
• Haddow, G. and Klobas, E. (2004). Communication of research to practice in library and information science: closing the gap. Library & Information Science Research 26: 29-43.[Crossref]
• Hajer, M. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Clarendon Press.
• Hajer, M. and Laws, D. (2006). Ordering through discourse. In: M. Moran, M. Rein and R. E. Goodin (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 251-268.
• Hall, P. A. (1993). “Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policy-making in Britain,” Comparative Polics 25: 275-296.
• Hall, P. A. (ed.) (1989). The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Havelock, R. (1969). Planning for Innovation through the Dissemination and Utilization of Scientific Knowledge. Ann Arbor, MI: CRUSK, Institute for Social Research.
• Head, B. W. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges. Policy and Society 29: 77-94.
• Healey, P. (2007). Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times. London: Routledge.
• Heclo, H. (1974). Modern Social policies in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Heclo, Hugh. (1974). Modern Social Policy in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance. New Haven.
• Higging, P. T. and Green, S. (Eds.), (2008). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley.
• Holmes, J. and Lock, J. (2010). Generating the evidence for marine fisheries policy and management. Marine Policy 34: 29-35.[Crossref]
• Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Science and Public Policy 26(3): 201-210.[Crossref]
• Hoppe, R. (2005). Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis & Praxis 3(3): 199-215.
• Hoppe, R. (2009). Scientific advice and public policy: expert advisers’ and policymakers’ discourses on boundary work. Poiesis and Praxis 6: 235-263.
• Hoppe, R., Wesselink, A. and Cairns, R. (2013). Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4(4): 283-300.
• Hughes, M., Kroehler, C. J. and Vander, J. W. (2002). Sociology: The Core. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers. Harvard University Press.
• Jasanoff, S. (1996) Science and norms in global environmental regimes. In: F. Osler Hampson and J. Reppy (Eds.): Earthly Goods: Environmental Change and Social Justice, (pp. 173-197), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Jasanoff, S. (1997). Social Learning in the Risk Society. Committee for the Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Jasanoff, S. (Ed.) (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. Routledge.
• Jasanoff, S. and Wynne, B. (1998). Science and decision-making. In: S. Rayner and E. Malone (Eds.): Human choice and climate change: an international assessment. Vol. 1: The Societal Framework (pp. 1-112), Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
• Jenkins-Smith, H. C. and P. A. Sabatier (1993). “The dynamics of policy-oriented learning,” In: Jenkins-Smith, H. C. and P. A. Sabatier (Eds.) Policy Change and Learning: The Advocacy Coalition Framework. Pp. 41-56.
• Jessop, B. (1990). State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in Its Place. Penn State University Press.
• Keller, A. C. (2009). Science in Environmental Policy: The Politics of Objective Advice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agenda, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins College.
• Knorr-Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 32(4): 361-375.[Crossref]
• Knott, J. and Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1(4): 537-578.
• Kothari, A., MacLean, L. and Edwards, N. (2009). Increasing capacity for knowledge translation: understanding how some researchers engage policy-makers. Evidence and Policy 5(1): 33-51.
• Lahsen, M. (2004). Transnational locals: Brazilian experiences of the climate regime. In: S. Jasanoff and M. L. Martello (eds.): Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance, (pp. 151-172), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Latour, B. (1986). Visualisation and cognition: drawing things together. In H. Kuklick and E. Long (eds.): Knowledge and Society Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present 6: 1-40.
• Latour, B. (1988). Mixing humans and non-humans together: the sociology of a doorcloser. Social Problems 35(3): 298-310.[Crossref]
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Likens, G. E. (2010). The role of science in decision making: does evidence-based science drive environmental policy? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8(6): e1-e9.
• Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review 19(2): 79-88.[Crossref]
• Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage.
• Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. Macmillan: London.
• May, P. (1992). Policy learning and failure. Journal of Public Policy 12(4): 331-354.[Crossref]
• Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication 32(1): 118-127.[Crossref]
• Meyer, M. and Molyneux-Hodgson, S. (2010). Introduction: the dynamics of epistemic communities. Sociological Research Online 15(2): 14.[Crossref]
• Michaels, S. (2009). Matching knowledge brokerage strategies to environmental problems and settings. Environmental Science and Policy 12: 994-1011.[Crossref]
• Mikulskiene, B. (2013). Research-based Knowledge for Policy Decision Making: Maximizing the Opportunities of Impact. European Integration Studies 7: 35-41. Miller, C. A. (2004). Climate science and the making of a global political order. In: Jasanoff, S. (ed.): States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. Routledge.
• Montpetit, E. (2007) Policy Learning in the Midst of Controversy: A Comparative Survey of Biotechnology Policy Actors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hyatt Regency Chicago and the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers, Chicago, IL, Aug 30, 2007.
• Nassehi, A., von der Hagen-Demszky, A. and Mayr, K. (2007). The Structures of Knowledge and of Knowledge Production. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework Report (Part 8). Know & Pol project. URL: http://knowandpol.eu/IMG/pdf/lr.tr.nassehi_al.eng.pdf
• Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S. and Yanow, D. (2003). Introduction: Toward a Practice-Based View of Knowing and Learning in Organizations. In: D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi and D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach (pp. 3-31), Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
• Nowotny H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41: 179-194.[Crossref]
• Nutley, S. M. and Webb, J. (2000). Evidence and the policy process. In: H. Davies, S. M. Nutley and P.C. Smith (Eds.), What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services (pp. 13-41), Bristol: The Policy Press.
• Nutley, S. M., Walter, I. and Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Bristol: The Policy Press.
• Oldham, G. and McLean, R. (1997). Approaches to Knowledge-Brokering. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg: IISD. URL: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2001/networks_knowledge_brokering.pdf
• Ottoson, J. M. (2009). Knowledge-for-action theories in evaluation: knowledge utilization, diffusion, implementation, transfer, and translation. New Directions for Evaluation 124 (Winter): 7-20.
• Owens, S., Petts, J. and Bulkeley, H. (2006). Boundary work: knowledge, policy, and the urban environment. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24: 633-643.
• Page, E. C. and Wright, V. (2007). Introduction: from the active to the enabling state. In: Page, E. C. & Wright, V. (Eds.), From the Active to the Enabling State: The Changing Role of Top Officials in European Nations (pp. 1-14), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy: an introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Edward Elgar Pub.
• Parsons, W. (2002). “From Muddling Through to Muddling Up - Evidence Based Policy Making and the Modernization of the British Government. Public Policy and Administration 17 (3): 43-60.[Crossref]
• Parsons, W. (2004). Not just steering but weaving: relevant knowledge and the craft of building policy capacity and coherence. Australian Journal of Public Administration 63(1): 43-57.[Crossref]
• Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-Based Policy. A Realistic Perspective. London: Sage Petts J. and Brooks, C. (2006) Expert conceptualisations of the role of lay knowledge in environmental decisionmaking: challenges for deliberative democracy. Environment and Planning A 38: 1045-1059.
• Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Pons, X., and van Zanten, A. (2007). Knowledge Circulation, Regulation and Governance. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework Report (Part 6). Know & Pol project. URL: http://knowandpol.eu/IMG/pdf/lr.tr.pons_vanzanten.eng.pdf
• Pregernig, M. (2004). Linking knowledge and action: the role of science in NFP processes. In: P. Glück and J. Voitleithner (Eds.), NFP Research: Its Retrospect and Outlook (pp. 195-215), Vienna: Institute for Forest Sector Policy and Economics.
• Reckwitz, A. (2003). Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken: Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 32(4): 282-301.
• Rice, J. L., Burke, B. J. and Heynen, N. (2015). Knowing climate change, embodying climate praxis: experiential knowledge in Southern Appalachia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105(2): 1-10.
• Rose, R. (1991). “What is lesson-drawing?” Journal of Public Policy, 11, (1), 3-30.[Crossref]
• Rose, R. (1993). Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy. A Guide to Learning Across Time and Space, Chatham NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
• Rosenberg, W. and Donald, A. (1995). Evidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem-solving. BMJ 310(6987): 1122-1126.
• Rutherford, P. (1999). The entry of life into history. In: É. Darier (Ed.), Discourses of the Environment, (pp. 37-62), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Sabatier, P. A. 1988. Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change an advocacy coalition framework. Science Communication 8(4): 649-692.[Crossref]
• Sabatier, P. and H. C. Jenkins-Smith. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment, In: Sabatier, P. (Ed.) Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press.
• Sager, F. (2007). Making transport policy work: polity, policy, politics and systematic review. Policy & Politics, 35(2), 269-288.
• Sanderson, I. (2000). Evaluation in Complex Policy Systems. Evaluation 6(4): 433-454.
• Schatzki T. R. (2012). A primer on practices. In: J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billett, M. Hutchings and F. Trede (Eds.): Practice-based Education: Perspectives and Strategies, (pp. 13-26) Rotterdam: Sense.
• Schön, D. A. and Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
• Shanley, P. and López, C. (2009). Out of the loop: why research rarely reaches policy makers and the public and what can be done. Biotropica 41(5): 535-544.[Crossref]
• Sherman, L. W. and Strang, H. (2007). Restorative Justice: The Evidence. London: Smith Institute.
• Shulock, N. (1999). The Paradox of policy analysis: if it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18(2): 226-244.
• Sidney, M. S. (2007). Policy formulation: design and tools. In: F. Fischer, G. J. Miller and M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods (pp. 79-87), Boca Raton: CRC Press.
• Smith, A. F. (1996). Mad cows and ecstasy: chance and choice in an evidence-based society. Royal Statistical Society Series, 159, 367-384.Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J.R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387-420. Stevens, A. (2011). Telling policy stories: an ethnographic study of the use of evidence in policy-making in the UK. Journal of Social Policy 40(2): 237-255.
• Stone, D. (1997). Policy Paradox. The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton & Company.
• Stone, D. (2001). Learning Lessons, Policy Transfer and the International Diffusion of Policy Ideas. CSGR Working Paper No. 69/01.
• Stone, D. (2002). Using knowledge: the dilemmas of “bridging research and policy”. Compare 32(3): 285-296.
• Task Force (1996). Connecting with the World: Priorities for Canadian Internationalism in the 21st Century. Report of a Task Force led by Maurice F. Strong, tasked the IDRC, IISD and NSI. Ottawa. URL: http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/14538/1/105111_e.pdf
• Tingling, P. M. and Brydon, M. J. (2010). Is decision-based evidence making necessarily bad? MIT Sloan Management Review 51(4): 70-76. van den Hove, S. (2007). A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures 39: 807-826.
• Wagenaar, H. (2004). ‘Knowing’ the rules: administrative work as practice. Public Administration Review 6: 643-655.[Crossref]
• Wagenaar, H. (2007). Interpretation and intention in policy analysis. In: Fischer, F., Miller, G. J., and Sidney, M. S. (eds.) Handbook of Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 429-441.
• Ward, V., House, A. and Hamer, S. (2009). Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evidence and Policy 5(3): 267-279.
• Weber, M. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. In H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills (Eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.
• Weible, C. M. (2008). Expert‐based information and policy subsystems: a review and synthesis. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 615-635.[Crossref]
• Weingart, P. (2001). Die Stunde der Wahrheit: Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Weilerswilst: Velbrück Wissenschaft.
• Weiss, C. (1977). “Research for Policy’s Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Science Research”. Policy Analysis, 3 (4): 531-545.
• Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of knowledge utilization. Public Administration Review 39 (September/October): 426-431.[Crossref]
• Weiss, C. H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1(3): 381-404.
• Weiss, C. H. (1999). The interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation 5(4): 468-486.
• Weiss, C. H., Murphy G. E., Petrosino, A. and Ghandi, A. G. (2008). The fairy godmother and her warts: making the dream of evidence-based policy come true. American Journal of Evaluation 29(1): 29-47.[Crossref]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.
• Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledge in Context. Science, Technology and Human Values 16: 111-121.
• Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds.): Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. London: Sage, 44-83.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/cejpp-2016-0011