Scientific Credibility, Disagreement, and Error Costs in 17 Biotechnology Policy Subsystems
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6329026 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Éric Montpetit (0000-0003-3470-0657, Université de Montréal, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2011 |
| Volume | 39 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 513-533 |
| Publication date | 2011-08-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Policy Studies Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0190-292X • E-ISSN: 1541-0072 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00419.x |
| OpenAlex | W1603102344 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 38 |
| References cited | 35 |
One of the original objectives of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) was to shed light on the role of science in policymaking. The ACF depicts subsystem scientists as political actors just like any other. Unfortunately, science has never become a major theme of research within the framework and, as a consequence, its role in policymaking remains under‐theorized, leaving ample room for interpretation. This article seeks to explore the validity of three propositions about the role of science in policy. The first two are derived from the ACF: (i) the capacity of scientists to provide credible advice is affected by the harshness of the political debates dividing the policy subsystem; and (ii) agreement among scientists is just as common as among other groupings of policy actors. The third is derived from an “error costs” argument: (iii) Disagreements among scientists are even more pronounced than disagreements among other policy actors. Using the results of a survey of policy actors in 17 biotechnology subsystems, this article finds support for the first and third propositions. Indeed, scientists' participation in political divisions might even be underestimated by the ACF. The article concludes with attempts to clarify the role of scientists within the ACF, including discussions of ambiguity regarding the role of professional forums and of scientists in between‐coalition learning within policy subsystems
Ambiguity · Argument (complex analysis · Credibility · Economics · Evidence-based policy · Interpretation (philosophy · Policy Sciences · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Public relations · Science policy · Sociology · Theme (computing · Computer Science · Law · Policy Transfer and Learning · Public Administration · Risk Perception and Management · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
The Role of Science in the Policy Subsystem
Mudança de larga escala na política ambiental
Large-scale environmental policy change
Why do experts disagree? The development of a taxonomy
Seeing the same evidence differently
Shifting tides
Examining experts' discourse in South Korea's nuclear power policy making
Mobilization in the European Public Sphere
A Comparative Analysis of Drivers of Collaborative Governance in Front-of-Pack Food Labelling Policy Processes
Dialogues or polemics
Narrative policy framework at the macro level—cultural theory-based beliefs, science-based narrative strategies, and their uptake in the Canadian policy process for genetically modified salmon
Policy-Oriented Learning among National Forest Stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest
Information exchange under uncertainty
Neutral’ experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations
Information, values and expert decision-making
Expert knowledge use and deliberation in local policy making
Between Detachment and Responsiveness
The Links Among Contested Knowledge, Beliefs, and Learning in European Climate Governance
A Quarter Century of the Advocacy Coalition Framework
Theorizing the functions and patterns of agency in the policymaking process
Why did the influence of experts erode during the Covid-19 pandemic
Science in Policy-Making
Does Holding Beliefs with Conviction Prevent Policy Actors from Adopting a Compromising Attitude
Theories of the Policy Process
The Advocacy Coalition Framework and Nascent Subsystems
Credibility in Policy Expertise
The Roles of Experts and Expert‐Based Information in the Advocacy Coalition Framework
Network Location and Policy‐Oriented Behavior
Salience, Scientific Uncertainty, and the Agenda‐Setting Power of Science
There and Back Again
Public Perceptions of Expert Credibility on Policy Issues
The messenger matters
How to win friends and influence people
Issue expertise in policymaking
Freezing deliberation through public expert advice
The future might be female
Doing What Others Do
Can policy actors learn from academic scientists
Democratic politics and policy analysis
The Embryo Research Debate
Designs on Nature
Theories of the Policy Process
The Advocacy Coalition Framework
Policy change and learning
Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit
Hearing the Other Side
Expert‐Based Information and Policy Subsystems
Harnessing expert-based information for learning and the sustainable management of complex socio-ecological systems
Mediating risk
Competitive Governance and the Quest for Legitimacy in the EU
Stakeholder attitudes toward GMOs in the Philippines, Mexico, and South Africa
Culture and the Democratization of Risk Management
The Many Meanings of Research Utilization
Policy Design for Legitimacy
Policy networks and the GM crops issue
An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein
Governance and policy learning in the European Union
Understanding Interaction Models
Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change
Beyond Subsystems
Politics versus Professionalism
The Usage of Scientific Knowledge by Independent Regulatory Agencies
Cultural cognition of scientific consensus
To Trust an Adversary
| Unique citing works | 38 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,53 |
| Citation span | 2011 - 2026 (16) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 38 |