Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning

Putting the recently adopted global Sustainable Development Goals or the Paris Agreement on international climate policy into action will require careful policy choices. Appropriately informing decision-makers about longer-term, wicked policy issues remains a considerable challenge for the scientific community. Typically, these vital policy issues are highly uncertain, value-laden and disputed, and affect multiple temporal and spatial scales, governance levels, policy fields, and socioeconomic contexts simultaneously. In light of this, science-policy interfaces should help facilitate learning processes and open deliberation among all actors involved about potentially acceptable policy pathways. For this purpose, science-policy interfaces must strive to foster some enabling conditions: (1) “representation” in terms of engaging with diverse stakeholders (including experts) and acknowledging divergent viewpoints; (2) “empowerment” of underrepresented societal groups by co-developing and integrating policy scenarios that reflect their specific knowledge systems and worldviews; (3) “capacity building” regarding methods and skills for integration and synthesis, as well as through the provision of knowledge synthesis about the policy solution space; and (4) “spaces for deliberation”, facilitating direct interaction between different stakeholders, including governments and scientists. We argue that integrated, multi-stakeholder, scientific assessment processes — particularly the collaborative assessments of policy alternatives and their various implications — offer potential advantages in this regard, compared with alternatives for bridging scientific expertise and public policy. This article is part of a collection on scientific advice to governments.

[1]  M. Hulme Why we disagree about climate change : understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity , 2009 .

[2]  J. Dewey,et al.  The Public and its Problems , 1927 .

[3]  Jan Christoph Steckel,et al.  Implications of climate change mitigation for sustainable development , 2016 .

[4]  Eve Fouilleux CAP Reforms and Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Another View on Discourse Efficiency , 2004 .

[5]  John E. Hunter,et al.  CUMULATIVE RESEARCH KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIAL POLICY FORMULATION: The Critical Role of Meta-Analysis , 1996 .

[6]  Antonio A R Ioris,et al.  Deliberative assessment in complex socioecological systems: recommendations for environmental assessment in drylands , 2011, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[7]  H. Nielsen Does Deliberative Democracy Work in Practice - Methodological Considerations , 2003 .

[8]  M. Ha-Duong,et al.  Climate change 2014 - Mitigation of climate change , 2015 .

[9]  Jasper Montana,et al.  IPBES and Biodiversity Expertise: Regional, Gender, and Disciplinary Balance in the Composition of the Interim and 2015 Multidisciplinary Expert Panel , 2016 .

[10]  John E. Hunter,et al.  CUMULATIVE RESEARCH KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIAL POLICY FORMULATION : The Critical Role of Meta-Analysis , 1996 .

[11]  J. Dryzek,et al.  The legitimacy of multilateral climate governance: a deliberative democratic approach , 2012 .

[12]  Tim Richardson,et al.  Power and environmental assessment: Introduction to the special issue , 2013 .

[13]  Maarten A. Hajer,et al.  Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalization of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Great Britain , 2002, The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning.

[14]  Louis Lebel,et al.  Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Scale and Cross-scale Dynamics Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World , 2006 .

[15]  Martin Kowarsch Policy assessments to enhance EU scientific advice , 2016 .

[16]  P. Gluckman The science–policy interface , 2016, Science.

[17]  M. McBeth,et al.  Policy Narratives and Policy Processes , 2011 .

[18]  Mark B. Brown Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation , 2009 .

[19]  Hans Wiklund,et al.  In search of arenas for democratic deliberation: a Habermasian review of environmental assessment , 2005 .

[20]  Stephen K. White,et al.  Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy@@@The Cambridge Companion to Habermas , 1997 .

[21]  Minghua Zhang,et al.  The current status of climate change research , 2011 .

[22]  Ronald B. Mitchell,et al.  Global environmental assessments : information and influence , 2006 .

[23]  J. Habermas,et al.  Die Einbeziehung des Anderen : Studien zur politischen Theorie , 1996 .

[24]  P. Chasek,et al.  The Roads from Rio : Lessons Learned from Twenty Years of Multilateral Environmental Negotiations , 2012 .

[25]  I. Røpke,et al.  Macroeconomic narratives in a world of crises: An analysis of stories about solving the system crisis , 2013 .

[26]  V. Murray,et al.  Ensuring science is useful, usable and used in global disaster risk reduction and sustainable development: a view through the Sendai framework lens , 2016, Palgrave Communications.

[27]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  M.B.A. van Asselt,et al.  Foresight in Action: Developing Policy-Oriented Scenarios , 2012 .

[29]  Paul Cairney,et al.  To Bridge the Divide between Evidence and Policy: Reduce Ambiguity as Much as Uncertainty , 2016 .

[30]  P. Sabatier Theories of the Policy Process , 1999 .

[31]  John S. Dryzek,et al.  Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science , 1992 .

[32]  S. Chambers,et al.  DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRATIC THEORY , 2003 .

[33]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. , 1991 .

[34]  P. Haas When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process , 2004 .

[35]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Bringing values and deliberation to science communication , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  P. Sabatier An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein , 1988 .

[37]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Cartography of pathways: A new model for environmental policy assessments , 2015 .

[38]  A. Kalfagianni,et al.  The representativeness of global deliberation : A critical assessment of civil society consultations for sustainable development , 2017 .

[39]  M. Svoboda Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity , 2011 .

[40]  Roger Few,et al.  Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[41]  Heather Douglas Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal , 2009 .

[42]  C. O’faircheallaigh,et al.  Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making , 2010 .

[43]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  A New Scientific Methodology for Global Environmental Issues , 1991 .

[44]  Robert V. Bartlett,et al.  From rationality to reasonableness in environmental administration , 1999 .

[45]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Principles or Pathways? Improving the Contribution of Philosophical Ethics to Climate Policy , 2016 .

[46]  Ryan Holifield,et al.  Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions and representation , 2012 .

[47]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  Social Development Needs Analysis as a tool for SIA to guide corporate-community investment: Applications in the minerals industry , 2009 .

[48]  James G. McGann,et al.  How Think Tanks Shape Social Development Policies , 2014 .

[49]  D. Victor Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy , 2015, Nature.

[50]  Randolph R. Thaman,et al.  The contribution of indigenous and local knowledge systems to IPBES: building synergies with science , 2013 .

[51]  Erik Stokstad Dueling Visions for a Hungry World , 2008, Science.

[52]  J. Dryzek Deliberative democracy and beyond : liberals, critics, contestations , 2000 .

[53]  Claudio M. Radaelli,et al.  Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and Methodological Issues , 2004 .

[54]  Dale S. Rothman,et al.  Participatory scenario construction in land use analysis: An insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the Northern Mediterranean , 2007 .

[55]  D. Sarewitz How science makes environmental controversies worse , 2004 .

[56]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  2 °C and SDGs: united they stand, divided they fall? , 2016 .

[57]  Jill Jäger,et al.  Assessments of regional and global environmental risks : designing processes for the effective use of science in decisionmaking , 2006 .

[58]  T. Christiano Deliberative Systems: Rational deliberation among experts and citizens , 2012 .

[59]  A. Fenna,et al.  Wicked Problems in Public Policy , 2009 .

[60]  R. Gottlieb Radical Philosophy: Tradition, Counter-Tradition, Politics , 1993 .

[61]  The IPCC at a crossroads: Opportunities for reform , 2015, Science.

[62]  Clark A. Miller The Dynamics of Framing Environmental Values and Policy: Four Models of Societal Processes , 2000, Environmental Values.

[63]  Gustavo Leyva,et al.  El universalismo y la nunca acabada inclusión del otro. RESEÑA de : HABERMAS, J. Die Einbeziehung des Anderen. Studien zur poliüschen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp, 1996. , 1998 .

[64]  Paul Cairney,et al.  Complexity Theory in Political Science and Public Policy , 2012 .

[65]  J. Z. Bonilla Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal , 2010 .

[66]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[67]  J. D. Wulfhorst,et al.  Bridges and Barriers to Developing and Conducting Interdisciplinary Graduate-Student Team Research , 2007 .

[68]  Ruth Garside,et al.  Sustainability: Map the evidence , 2015, Nature.

[69]  J. Dryzek Transnational Democracy in an Insecure World , 2006 .

[70]  Andrew Jordan,et al.  Managing Sustainable Development , 1994 .

[71]  B. Head Wicked Problems in Public Policy , 2008 .

[72]  Jürgen Habermas,et al.  Toward A Rational Society , 1970 .

[73]  John Turnpenny,et al.  Noisy and definitely not normal: responding to wicked issues in the environment, energy and health , 2009 .

[74]  Gerrit Hansen,et al.  Chapter scientists in the IPCC AR5 — experience and lessons learned , 2015 .

[75]  H. Putnam The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays , 2002 .

[76]  Michael Pregernig,et al.  Transdisciplinarity viewed from afar: science-policy assessments as forums for the creation of transdisciplinary knowledge , 2006 .

[77]  Daniel H. Cole,et al.  Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy , 2015 .

[78]  Dieter Gerten,et al.  Ethical aspects in the economic modeling of water policy options , 2015 .

[79]  P. Stern,et al.  Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making , 2008 .

[80]  W. Clark,et al.  Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[81]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Democracy and Disagreement , 1996 .

[82]  Ottmar Edenhofer,et al.  Mapmakers and navigators, facts and values , 2014, Science.

[83]  M. Reed Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review , 2008 .

[84]  Stanley T. Asah,et al.  The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people , 2015 .

[85]  S. Chambers,et al.  Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse , 1996 .

[86]  J. Pielke The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics , 2007 .

[87]  Steve Rayner,et al.  Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making , 2003 .

[88]  Richard B Norgaard,et al.  Finding Hope in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[89]  Wendy L. Schultz,et al.  The cultural contradictions of managing change: using horizon scanning in an evidence‐based policy context , 2006 .

[90]  S. Niemeyer Scaling up Deliberation to Mass Publics: Harnessing Minipublics in a Deliberative System , 2014 .

[91]  Martin Kowarsch A Pragmatist Orientation for the Social Sciences in Climate Policy: How to Make Integrated Economic Assessments Serve Society , 2016 .

[92]  Philip Pettit,et al.  Democracy, Electoral and Contestatory , 2000 .

[93]  Kasper Kok,et al.  Methods for Developing Multiscale Participatory Scenarios: Insights from Southern Africa and Europe , 2007 .

[94]  Thomas J. Wilbanks,et al.  Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment , 2006 .

[95]  C. Ansell,et al.  Pragmatist Democracy: Evolutionary Learning as Public Philosophy , 2011 .

[96]  J. Dryzek Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance , 2011 .

[97]  B. Sweetman Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , 1997 .

[98]  C. Dunlop,et al.  Systematising Policy Learning: From Monolith to Dimensions , 2013 .

[99]  K. Arrow Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[100]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[101]  S. Biggs,et al.  The Politics of International Assessments: The IAASTD Process, Reception and Significance , 2012 .

[102]  Joshua Cohen,et al.  DELIBERATION AND DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY , 2005, Philosophy, Politics, Democracy.