IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i11p1962-d116714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Working at the Boundary: An Empirical Study into the Goals and Strategies of Knowledge Brokers in the Field of Environmental Governance in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Wynanda I. Van Enst

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Environmental Governance Group, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3584 CS, The Netherlands)

  • Peter P. J. Driessen

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Environmental Governance Group, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3584 CS, The Netherlands)

  • Hens A. C. Runhaar

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Environmental Governance Group, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3584 CS, The Netherlands
    Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen 6700 AA, The Netherlands)

Abstract

There is a broad range of literature on individuals who mediate at the boundaries between science and policy. However, there seems to be little empirical evidence on the goals and strategies of knowledge brokers, even though they appear to be becoming increasingly important in the field of environmental science and policy. This paper aims to improve the understanding of why and how knowledge brokers operate through an analysis of 27 in-depth interviews. It demonstrates that they see themselves as (strategically) sensitive to all stakes and stakeholders involved, possess a large network, and act without interests. They appear to act strategically in two different settings: on stage, where the collaboration of all stakeholders is needed, and backstage, where the knowledge broker steers the process on his/her own. Furthermore, our research suggests that the (perceived) credibility and legitimacy of the knowledge broker is more important to the process than the degree of credibility and legitimacy of the knowledge used in the decision-making process, and that it would be advisable to deploy knowledge brokers proactively, instead of reactively, which could lead to ‘incident politics’.

Suggested Citation

  • Wynanda I. Van Enst & Peter P. J. Driessen & Hens A. C. Runhaar, 2017. "Working at the Boundary: An Empirical Study into the Goals and Strategies of Knowledge Brokers in the Field of Environmental Governance in the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:11:p:1962-:d:116714
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/1962/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/1962/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee Fleming & David M. Waguespack, 2007. "Brokerage, Boundary Spanning, and Leadership in Open Innovation Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 165-180, April.
    2. Lori Rosenkopf & Atul Nerkar, 2001. "Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 287-306, April.
    3. Wynanda I. Van Enst & Peter P. J. Driessen & Hens A. C. Runhaar, 2014. "Towards Productive Science-Policy Interfaces: A Research Agenda," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 1-25.
    4. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    5. Runhaar, Hens A.C. & van der Windt, Henny J. & van Tatenhove, Jan P.M., 2016. "Productive science–policy interactions for sustainable coastal management: Conclusions from the Wadden Sea area," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P3), pages 467-471.
    6. Katharina Schlierf & Morgan Meyer, 2013. "Situating knowledge intermediation: Insights from science shops and knowledge brokers," Post-Print hal-00850563, HAL.
    7. Esther Turnhout & Marian Stuiver & Judith Klostermann & Bette Harms & Cees Leeuwis, 2013. "New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 354-365, February.
    8. Landry, Rejean & Amara, Nabil & Lamari, Moktar, 2001. "Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 333-349, February.
    9. Morgan Meyer & Matthew Kearnes, 2013. "Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and the market," Post-Print hal-00850565, HAL.
    10. Susan Owens & Judith Petts & Harriet Bulkeley, 2006. "Boundary Work: Knowledge, Policy, and the Urban Environment," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(5), pages 633-643, October.
    11. Katharina Schlierf & Morgan Meyer, 2013. "Situating knowledge intermediation: Insights from science shops and knowledge brokers," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 430-441, May.
    12. Morgan Meyer & Matthew Kearnes, 2013. "Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and the market," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 423-429, July.
    13. van Enst, Wynanda I. & Runhaar, Hens A.C. & Driessen, Peter P.J., 2016. "Boundary organisations and their strategies: Three cases in the Wadden Sea," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P3), pages 416-423.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pierre Squevin & Valérie Pattyn & Jens Jungblut & Sonja Blum, 2024. "There, across the border – political scientists and their boundary-crossing work," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 437-457, June.
    2. Leena Jokinen & Tuire Palonen & Helka Kalliomäki & Oana Apostol & Katariina Heikkilä, 2020. "Forward-Looking Sustainability Agency for Developing Future Cruise Ships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Francisca Mutwa Kilonzi & Takahiro Ota, 2023. "Application of the 4Rs framework towards effective co-management of protected forests: case of aberdare forest in central Kenya," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8561-8584, August.
    4. Riikka Kangas & Timo Aarrevaara, 2020. "Higher Education Institutions as Knowledge Brokers in Smart Specialisation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-15, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mónica Ramos-Mejía & Alejandro Balanzo, 2018. "What It Takes to Lead Sustainability Transitions from the Bottom-Up: Strategic Interactions of Grassroots Ecopreneurs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Taheri, Mozhdeh & van Geenhuizen, Marina, 2016. "Teams' boundary-spanning capacity at university: Performance of technology projects in commercialization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 31-43.
    3. Dieuwke Lamers & Marc Schut & Laurens Klerkx & Piet van Asten, 2017. "Compositional dynamics of multilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(6), pages 739-752.
    4. Ronlyn Duncan & Melissa Robson-Williams & Sarah Edwards, 2020. "A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Miriam Dunn & Mark D. Rounsevell & Henrik Carlsen & Adis Dzebo & Tiago Capela Lourenço & Joseph Hagg, 2017. "To what extent are land resource managers preparing for high-end climate change in Scotland?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 141(2), pages 181-195, March.
    6. Nicola Francesco Dotti & André Spithoven, 2017. "Spatial perspectives on knowledge brokers: Evidence from Brussels," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(10), pages 2203-2222, October.
    7. Gallo, Julie Le & Plunket, Anne, 2020. "Regional gatekeepers, inventor networks and inventive performance: Spatial and organizational channels," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    8. Ogink, Ruben H.A.J. & Goossen, Martin C. & Romme, A. Georges L. & Akkermans, Henk, 2023. "Mechanisms in open innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    9. Marina Van Geenhuizen & Pieter Stek, 2015. "Mapping innovation in the global photovoltaic industry: a bibliometric approach to cluster identification and analysis," ERSA conference papers ersa15p697, European Regional Science Association.
    10. Svenja Keele, 2019. "Consultants and the business of climate services: implications of shifting from public to private science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 9-26, November.
    11. Miller, Fiona A. & Lehoux, Pascale, 2020. "The innovation impacts of public procurement offices: The case of healthcare procurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    12. Florence Gignac & Anne-Sophie Gresle & Valeria Santoro Lamelas & Montserrat Yepes-Baldó & Leonardo de la Torre & Maria-Jesus Pinazo & the InSPIRES Consortium, 2021. "Self-evaluating participatory research projects: A content validation of the InSPIRES online impact evaluation tool [Content Validity and Reliability of Single Items or Questionnaires]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 500-513.
    13. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    14. Lopez-Vega, Henry & Tell, Fredrik & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2016. "Where and how to search? Search paths in open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 125-136.
    15. Jiang, Lin & Clark, Brent B. & Turban, Daniel B., 2023. "Overcoming the challenge of exploration: How decompartmentalization of internal communication enhances the effect of exploration on employee inventive performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    16. Borst, Robert A.J. & Wehrens, Rik & Bal, Roland & Kok, Maarten Olivier, 2022. "From sustainability to sustaining work: What do actors do to sustain knowledge translation platforms?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    17. Valentina Tudisca & Adriana Valente, 2016. "(English) Design and implementation of an online Delphi study to develop indicators for evidenceinformed policy making (Italiano) Ideazione e implementazione di uno studio Delphi online per lo svilupp," IRPPS Working Papers 88:2016, National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies.
    18. Paul Benneworth, 2017. "The role of research to shape local and global engagement," CHEPS Working Papers 201706, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    19. Simeth, Markus & Mohammadi, Ali, 2017. "The impact of open innovation on employee mobility and entrepreneurship," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 449, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    20. Albats, Ekaterina & Alexander, Allen T. & Cunningham, James A., 2022. "Traditional, virtual, and digital intermediaries in university-industry collaboration: exploring institutional logics and bounded rationality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:11:p:1962-:d:116714. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.