IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v42y2015i5p676-689..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: Challenges and opportunities

Author

Listed:
  • Ulrich Heink
  • Elisabeth Marquard
  • Katja Heubach
  • Kurt Jax
  • Carolin Kugel
  • Carsten Neßhöver
  • Rosmarie K. Neumann
  • Axel Paulsch
  • Sebastian Tilch
  • Johannes Timaeus
  • Marie Vandewalle

Abstract

Credibility, relevance and legitimacy are often cited as determinants of the effectiveness of interfaces between science and environmental policy and serve as criteria for their evaluation. However, these concepts are hazy and have a variety of meanings. In practice, the systematic evaluation of science–policy interfaces according to credibility, relevance and legitimacy is subject to a number of difficulties and is rarely done. In this paper we offer some clarification of these concepts and show how they influence the perception and evaluation of science–policy interfaces. Our findings reveal that, while the attributes of credibility, relevance and legitimacy are helpful when reflecting on the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces, they are difficult to apply as criteria when evaluating these interfaces. To apply these concepts in a meaningful way to the task of evaluation they need to be defined specifically for the particular context of the science–policy interface concerned.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulrich Heink & Elisabeth Marquard & Katja Heubach & Kurt Jax & Carolin Kugel & Carsten Neßhöver & Rosmarie K. Neumann & Axel Paulsch & Sebastian Tilch & Johannes Timaeus & Marie Vandewalle, 2015. "Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: Challenges and opportunities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 676-689.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:42:y:2015:i:5:p:676-689.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scu082
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521727327, September.
    2. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521898690, September.
    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. Karin M. Gustafsson, 2019. "Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Timothy R. Petty & John B. Gongwer & William Schnabel, 2018. "Bridging policy and science action boundaries: information influences on US congressional legislative key staff decision making in natural resources," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(1), pages 77-96, March.
    3. Jax, Kurt & Furman, Eeva & Saarikoski, Heli & Barton, David N. & Delbaere, Ben & Dick, Jan & Duke, Guy & Görg, Christoph & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Harrison, Paula A. & Maes, Joachim & Pérez-Soba, Mart, 2018. "Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 415-427.
    4. Dhanush Dinesh & Robert B. Zougmore & Joost Vervoort & Edmond Totin & Philip K. Thornton & Dawit Solomon & Paresh B. Shirsath & Valerien O. Pede & Isabel Lopez Noriega & Peter Läderach & Jana Körner &, 2018. "Facilitating Change for Climate-Smart Agriculture through Science-Policy Engagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, July.
    5. Lihua Yang, 2018. "Collaborative knowledge-driven governance: Types and mechanisms of collaboration between science, social science, and local knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 53-73.
    6. Heikki Tuomenvirta & Hilppa Gregow & Atte Harjanne & Sanna Luhtala & Antti Mäkelä & Karoliina Pilli-Sihvola & Sirkku Juhola & Mikael Hildén & Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio & Ilkka T. Miettinen & Mikko Halonen, 2019. "Identifying Policy Actions Supporting Weather-Related Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-15, July.
    7. Tantau Adrian D. & Khorshidi Mohammadreza & Mojarad Ali Asghar Sadeghi, 2017. "International Oil Companies Sustainability after Oil Price decline," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 157-167, July.
    8. Andrew Tracy & Amy Javernick-Will, 2020. "Credible Sources of Information Regarding Induced Seismicity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P., 2018. "Community Operational Research and Citizen Science: Two icons in need of each other?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1111-1124.

    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. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    2. Janet Judy McIntyre‐Mills, 2013. "Anthropocentrism and Well‐being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 136-155, March.
    3. Friederike Hartz, 2024. "“We are not droids”– IPCC participants’ senses of responsibility and affective experiences across the production, assessment, communication and enactment of climate science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(6), pages 1-21, June.
    4. Hall, C. Michael & Amelung, Bas & Cohen, Scott & Eijgelaar, Eke & Gössling, Stefan & Higham, James & Leemans, Rik & Peeters, Paul & Ram, Yael & Scott, Daniel & Aall, Carlo & Abegg, Bruno & Araña, Jorg, 2015. "No time for smokescreen skepticism: A rejoinder to Shani and Arad," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 341-347.
    5. Nancy Menning, 2018. "Narrating climate change as a rite of passage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 343-353, March.
    6. Mercedes Bleda & Elisabeth Krull & Jonatan Pinkse & Eleni Christodoulou, 2023. "Organizational heuristics and firms' sensemaking for climate change adaptation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 6124-6137, December.
    7. Chhetri, Netra & Ghimire, Rajiv & Wagner, Melissa & Wang, Meng, 2020. "Global citizen deliberation: Case of world-wide views on climate and energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    8. Hochachka, Gail, 2021. "Integrating the four faces of climate change adaptation: Towards transformative change in Guatemalan coffee communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    9. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    10. George Ferns & Kenneth Amaeshi & Aliette Lambert, 2019. "Drilling their Own Graves: How the European Oil and Gas Supermajors Avoid Sustainability Tensions Through Mythmaking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 201-231, August.
    11. Shaw, Christopher & Nerlich, Brigitte, 2015. "Metaphor as a mechanism of global climate change governance: A study of international policies, 1992–2012," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 34-40.
    12. Kattirtzi, Michael & Winskel, Mark, 2020. "When experts disagree: Using the Policy Delphi method to analyse divergent expert expectations and preferences on UK energy futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    13. Nena Vukelić & Nena Rončević & Sven Toljan, 2022. "Student Teachers’ Willingness to Act in the Climate Change Context," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    14. Zeigermann, Ulrike & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Challenges for bridging the gap between knowledge and governance in sustainability policy – The case of OECD ‘Focal Points’ for Policy Coherence for Development," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    15. Elisabeth Eide & Risto Kunelius, 2021. "Voices of a generation the communicative power of youth activism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-20, November.
    16. Martin Bohle & Cornelia E. Nauen & Eduardo Marone, 2019. "Ethics to Intersect Civic Participation and Formal Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.
    17. Kevin Raaphorst & Gerben Koers & Gerald Jan Ellen & Amy Oen & Bjørn Kalsnes & Lisa van Well & Jana Koerth & Rutger van der Brugge, 2020. "Mind the Gap: Towards a Typology of Climate Service Usability Gaps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, February.
    18. Joshua Ettinger & Peter Walton & James Painter & Thomas DiBlasi, 2021. "Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-19, January.
    19. de Chazal, Jacqueline, 2010. "A systems approach to liveability and sustainability: Defining terms and mapping relationships to link desires with ecological opportunities and constraints," Research Reports 95056, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    20. Sanjay Chaturvedi, 2013. "China and India in the ‘Receding’ Arctic," Jadavpur Journal of International Relations, , vol. 17(1), pages 41-68, June.

    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:42:y:2015:i:5:p:676-689.. 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: 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.