IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v40y2013i3p354-365.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering

Author

Listed:
  • Esther Turnhout
  • Marian Stuiver
  • Judith Klostermann
  • Bette Harms
  • Cees Leeuwis

Abstract

It has been suggested that in order to address current complex problems, scientists have to take on new roles that link the production and use of knowledge. However, what exactly these new roles mean is often not clearly identified. This paper contributes to this by discussing relevant literature related to different roles of science in society and by presenting the results of a study on the perspectives and activities of knowledge brokering. We identify three knowledge brokering repertoires: supplying, bridging and facilitating, which differ with respect to whether they maintain clear boundaries between knowledge production and use or set out to blur them. Based on our findings, we conclude that new roles of science not only afford, but may even strengthen traditional disciplinary scientific ideals. Thus, it is crucial to look beyond the intentions and ideals of new roles of science to how they are taken up in practice. Copyright The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:40:y:2013:i:3:p:354-365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scs114
    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.

    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:40:y:2013:i:3:p:354-365. 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.