A new typology for comparing scientific advisory committees. Evidence from the Italian response to the Covid ‐19 pandemic
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7367790 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Giliberto Capano (0000-0003-3533-7407, University of Bologna, corresponding author), Mattia Casula (0000-0002-7081-8153, University of Bologna), Anna Malandrino (0000-0002-3643-9600, University of Bologna), Andrea Terlizzi (0000-0003-4417-2405, University of Florence), Federico Toth (0000-0002-1596-6460, University of Bologna) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 41 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 740-769 |
| Publication date | 2023-07-18 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Review of Policy Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1541-132X • E-ISSN: 1541-1338 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/ropr.12568 |
| OpenAlex | W4384695851 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 13 |
| References cited | 44 |
The study of scientific advisory committees (SACs) is a recurrent topic of research in public policy and public administration. Scholars are increasingly interested in analyzing the scientization of policy advice as well as the role played by knowledge‐based policymaking processes. Despite recent developments in the field, SACs studies continue to face an analytical and empirical gap due to the lack of parsimonious conceptualizations of the characteristics that enable them to be both theoretically relevant and effective in driving comparative analysis. To fill this research gap, this article proposes a novel typology of SACs based on a specific conceptualization of the motivations of policymakers that allows the selection of two classificatory criteria: the origin of the members and the degree to which their expertise is homogeneous. The theoretical relevance of this typology is illustrated by applying it to the SACs established in the Italian regions to address the COVID‐19 pandemic. The article highlights the relevance of the typology to the theory underlying the empirical analysis. In doing so, it provides relevant insights into the composition and nature of SACs that is useful not only for the academic debate on evidence‐based policymaking but also for both practitioners and decision‐makers
Conceptualization · Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 · Empirical evidence · Empirical research · Epistemology · Face (sociological concept · Field (mathematics · Homogeneous · Pandemic · Political science · Public relations · Relevance (law · Social science · Sociology · Typology · Computer Science · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Law · Policy Transfer and Learning · Public Policy and Administration Research
Network evolution in subnational epistemic learning during crises
Introduction to the special issue
The politics of expertise
On the shoulders of giants
Information and expertise in public policy
Expert legitimacy and competing legitimation in Italian school reforms
Policy advisory system quality under multilevel governance
Who Gives Expert Advice? Empirical Evidence From Swedish Policy‐Making
Covid-19 Vaccination Policy Compliance in Italy and Switzerland
Crisis management across Europe
Policy learning governance
When narratives fail (and why)
The Problem of Fit and National Leadership Needs in Transboundary Crises
Social science and public policy
Using social research in public policy making
The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making
Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries
Policy Advice and the Public Service
Social Policy in Hard Times
Experts in emergencies
Assessing the Multi-level Government Response to the Covid-19 Crisis
Corona-regionalism? Differences in regional responses to Covid-19 in Italy
The use of research in public health policy
Conflict in decision making and variation in public administration outcomes in Italy during the Covid‐19 crisis
Pandemic responses at the subnational level
How the health services of Emilia-Romagna, Lombardy and Veneto handled the Covid-19 emergency
Towards a new era of regionalism in Italy? A comparative perspective on autonomy referendums
Making evidence and policy in public health emergencies
How does the European Commission use scientific expertise? Results from a survey of scientific members of the Commission’s expert committees
The dual dynamics of policy advisory systems
Reconsidering evidence-based policy
Policy design and state capacity in the Covid-19 emergency in Italy
Assessing Policy Analytical Capacity
Policy Analysis and Governance
Three Lenses of Evidence‐Based Policy
Comparing policy advisory systems beyond the OECD
Political demand and policy advice
Municipal Pathways in Response to Covid-19
Professional expertise in policy advisory systems
Mapping the use of knowledge in policymaking
Assessing 30 years of Westminster policy advisory system experience
Italy, the Sick Man of Europe
Covid-19 and Territorial Policy Dynamics in Western Europe
The political functions of expert knowledge
Decentralization, policy capacities, and varieties of first health response to the Covid-19 outbreak
Politicians in white coats? Scientific advisory committees and policy in Britain
Catching a Second Wave
Expert knowledge and policymaking
Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence
| Unique citing works | 13 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 4,33 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 13 |