Bridging the gap between policy and science

    The “coproduction of knowledge” is a concept that is relatively new to me, and pretty exciting!  According to Meadow et al., the “coproduction of knowledge is the process of producing usable, or actionable, science through collaboration between scientists and those who use science to make policy and management decisions,” (2015).  This concept is exciting because it is one of the few attempts I have seen that seems to bridge the policy-science gap with some success.  Boundary organizations attempt to bridge this gap as well, with limited success, by producing outputs/products for both scientists and policy makers.  Coproduction of knowledge bridges this gap by including policy makers in the scientific creation process, lending it legitimacy as well as creating a buy-in from both sides. 

    All said and done, the coproduction of knowledge seems like a perfect solution, however, there are a few aspects that concern me.  The first is the heightened possibility of the inclusion of bias in the creation of this knowledge.  Policy makers and scientists are often at odds, and this can very easily show up in the results of the research.  Another aspect that concerns me is the speed at which this knowledge will be created.  More people involved will slow the process down, especially if the policy maker involved has to wade through the bureaucratic process that the scientist can easily side step.  Climate science is becoming increasingly important, and slowing down the rate that it is being produced can be detrimental overall.  However, despite these concerns, I think that the coproduction of knowledge, if done correctly as Meadow et al. lays out, can be a wonderful bridge between science and policy.

Question: What other ways can we bridge the gap between science and policy?

Comments

[Harsha Maragh]

I completely agree with your post. Coproduction of climate knowledge is something that we need presently with the increased amount of stakeholders involved. The only way to include everyone’s perspective into an environmental issue is to create useful dialogue. One other method that we learned about in “Collaboration” that involves coproduction is the joint fact finding (JFF) process. This is when experts, decision makers and stakeholders from opposing sides get together to form a common knowledge base and facts that can be agreed upon. This process can be time consuming and expensive and can be difficult to use when there are power imbalances. I think that in general, coproduction processes are difficult but are necessary.

[Carly Snider]

Great post, Alec and insights Harsha! Similarly, in my blog post, I discussed the communication gap in science and policy especially concerning underrepresented stakeholders involvement in the decision-making process. This idea of a joint fact-finding (JFF) process, was foreign to me but I am really interested in learning more about this process. In the policy realm, we discussed the process of negotiated rulemaking or regulatory negotiation. This process involves bring together affected stakeholder groups (business, organizations, underserved communities), government agency, and a neutral facilitator to build a decision on a new regulation that is based on common ground/understanding. This process is comparable to joint fact finding (JFF) process as it cannot withstand power imbalances resulting in silencing or underrepresenting various stakeholders. Bringing this back to the week's readings, developing interdisciplinary research is an important step in helping address power structures, however empowering stakeholders to have continuous involvement in decision making and policy change is even more crucial.