In many settings there is an increasing tendency to appoint academics to key advisory functions in government – what has been called the ‘expertization’ or ‘scientization’ of policy advice. Yet to what extent has the increasing reliance on academics led to an increase in the use of evidence in policy advice? Existing arguments provide different answers to this question. On the one hand, an instrumental model of knowledge utilization implies a close relationship between the appointment of academics and actual knowledge use. Arguments that academics have a particular scientific ethos and take behavioral cues from the academic community would point in the same direction. On the other hand, symbolic and strategic models of knowledge utilization imply that academics are appointed to advisory functions merely to increase the legitimacy of decision-making or to support predetermined political preferences – meaning that the link between appointments and evidence use may be tenuous. Also, academics on advisory bodies may adopt other behavioral logics that are seen as more appropriate in the advisory setting.
The paper examines this question empirically by analyzing the relationship between the appointment of academics to advisory commissions and use of evidence in commission reports. It does so based on a large-N dataset of Norwegian ad hoc advisory commissions, which includes data on commission composition and citations in commission reports. The paper argues that the relationship between appointment of academic and knowledge use depends on the position of academics on the commission (chair vs. regular member), on academic discipline and on appointing ministry.
