Negotiated Knowledge: The Shifting Boundaries between Science and Policy

Abstract

This panel aims to reflect on the concept of negotiated knowledge – a form of knowledge that already goes through a process of adjustment, consolidation and reconfiguration even before it enters the policy process. In doing so, it addresses two assumptions that are still commonly held in existing research on knowledge and policy. First, existing literature assumes that science and policy, or knowledge and policy, are separated and belong to two distinct spheres with different logics and modes of legitimation (Caplan, 1979). Second, existing research holds that knowledge is produced within delimited scientific communities, the kind of the epistemic communities described by Peter Haas (1992). These two assumptions need examination on two grounds. First, any knowledge that is produced often incorporates more than the output of scientific investigation, because the terms of the discussion are fundamentally politicized. Policy controversies can, for their part, be resolved through the design of pragmatic policy solutions, which can be presented as purely scientific (Shackley and Wynne, 1995). Thus, expertise is often produced at the junction of policy and science, and this can have two sorts of consequences. First, knowledge actors themselves may adjust their ‘outputs’ to the requirements of the political debate. Aware of the political impact of what they say, experts and scientists may calibrate the presentation of their findings and adjust it to the contours and criteria of a given policy debate. Second, because scientific knowledge and technical expertise need to be deemed acceptable, usable and legitimate, this may lead to attempts to negotiate knowledge by embedding it in some discursive setting that includes other types of non-accredited actors or local knowledge. The second assumption we examine is that of knowledge being produced by distinct scientific or expert communities. Knowledge, we argue, is increasingly produced by knowledge holders who belong to loose and informal collaborative networks (Biersteker, 2014). Knowledge in a given issue domain might be produced by experts and scientists who gather and meet via informal contacts and belong to distinct disciplines and professions. As a result, knowledge is often negotiated between different branches of scientific knowledge or expertise, across epistemological, theoretical and/or methodological boundaries. Sometimes such processes are even triggered by policy-makers, such as in the case science-ethic panels or ethics committees. Based on these observations, the panel gathers papers that speak to the changing nature of policy knowledge. The panel asks how far the notion of scientific expertise in policy-making can be stretched, if it is increasingly asked to be reflective of outside considerations and political perceptions. Does negotiated knowledge undermine the integrity of science in the policy process by asking it to consolidate incomplete evidence and incommensurable perspectives? Or does it produce more legitimate and applicable forms of policy knowledge at a time when scientific expertise surges in relevance as policy makers are expected to address ever more intricate policy problems?