IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v31y2004i4p289-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why is joint knowledge production such a problem?

Author

Listed:
  • Arwin van Buuren
  • Jurian Edelenbos

Abstract

Analysing knowledge use in policy processes around contested topics requires a new research approach. Traditional research on knowledge for policy assumes a one-to-one relationship (which is often imperfect) between science and policy as two separate worlds. Science, technology and society studies teach us that knowledge for policy is a joint construct of the research and the policy community and is not produced in isolated worlds. This article argues that the main problem for knowledge use lies in the subdivision between different competing ‘knowledge coalitions’ of researchers and policy-makers. Conflicting knowledge is the result. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Arwin van Buuren & Jurian Edelenbos, 2004. "Why is joint knowledge production such a problem?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 289-299, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:31:y:2004:i:4:p:289-299
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154304781779967
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Susanne Wuijts & Peter P. J. Driessen & Helena F. M. W. Van Rijswick, 2018. "Towards More Effective Water Quality Governance: A Review of Social-Economic, Legal and Ecological Perspectives and Their Interactions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Annalisa Caloffi & Francesca Gambarotto, 2017. "Cognitive distance in public procurement and public–private partnerships: An analysis of the construction sector," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(5), pages 765-783, August.
    3. Arwin van Buuren & Jeroen Warner, 2014. "From Bypass to Bathtub: Backfiring Policy Labels in Dutch Water Governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(6), pages 1000-1016, December.
    4. Daniel Velden & Joost Dessein & Laurens Klerkx & Lies Debruyne, 2023. "Constructing legitimacy for technologies developed in response to environmental regulation: the case of ammonia emission-reducing technology for the Flemish intensive livestock industry," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 649-665, June.
    5. Garrett Ward Richards, 2019. "The Science–Policy Relationship Hierarchy (SPRHi) model of co-production: how climate science organizations have influenced the policy process in Canadian case studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 67-95, March.
    6. Rahel Laudien & Eva Boon & Hasse Goosen & Kim Nieuwaal, 2019. "The Dutch adaptation web portal: seven lessons learnt from a co-production point of view," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 509-521, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:31:y:2004:i:4:p:289-299. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.