IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fisidp/77.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures

Author

Listed:
  • Karaulova, Maria
  • Edler, Jakob

Abstract

This paper examines the influence of the institutional setting on knowledge brokering work in legislatures. We argue that legislative brokers face three specific challenges: heightened legitimacy requirements for the brokered knowledge, the need to cater for a wide range of topics and different audiences, and the need to compete with other suppliers of research. Based on the in-depth interpretive case study of the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, we develop a functional framework for productive in-house legislative knowledge brokering. We argue that in order to survive and strive in the challenging legislative science advisory ecosystems, knowledge brokers need to develop a broader range of competencies than brokers in government do, in particular, the ability to organise for impact of their work. This paper contributes to the view of knowledge brokering as the involved, strategic, context-dependent activity and offers lessons for practitioners to improve research utilization in legislatures.

Suggested Citation

  • Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fisidp:77
    DOI: 10.24406/publica-857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/269873/1/1838864563.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.24406/publica-857?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reetta Muhonen & Paul Benneworth & Julia Olmos-Peñuela, 2020. "From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 34-47.
    2. Christl A. Donnelly & Ian Boyd & Philip Campbell & Claire Craig & Patrick Vallance & Mark Walport & Christopher J. M. Whitty & Emma Woods & Chris Wormald, 2018. "Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy," Nature, Nature, vol. 558(7710), pages 361-364, June.
    3. Peter Gluckman & James Wilsdon, 2016. "From paradox to principles: where next for scientific advice to governments?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-4, December.
    4. Kogut, Bruce & Macpherson, J. Muir, 2011. "The mobility of economists and the diffusion of policy ideas: The influence of economics on national policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1307-1320.
    5. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Puay Tang, 2011. "Tracing ‘productive interactions’ to identify social impacts: an example from the social sciences," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 219-226, September.
    6. Karen Akerlof & Chris Tyler & Sarah Elizabeth Foxen & Erin Heath & Marga Gual Soler & Alessandro Allegra & Emily T. Cloyd & John A. Hird & Selena M. Nelson & Christina T. Nguyen & Cameryn J. Gonnella , 2019. "A collaboratively derived international research agenda on legislative science advice," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Abby S Haynes & Gemma E Derrick & Sally Redman & Wayne D Hall & James A Gillespie & Simon Chapman & Heidi Sturk, 2012. "Identifying Trustworthy Experts: How Do Policymakers Find and Assess Public Health Researchers Worth Consulting or Collaborating With?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, March.
    8. Peter Horton & Garrett W. Brown, 2018. "Integrating evidence, politics and society: a methodology for the science–policy interface," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-5, December.
    9. Bauer, Anja & Kastenhofer, Karen, 2019. "Policy advice in technology assessment: Shifting roles, principles and boundaries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 32-41.
    10. 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.
    11. Rob Hoppe & Anna Wesselink & Rose Cairns, 2013. "Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 283-300, July.
    12. Barry Bozeman & Daniel Sarewitz, 2005. "Public values and public failure in US science policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 119-136, April.
    13. Rudolf R. Sinkovics & Eva A. Alfoldi, 2012. "Progressive Focusing and Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 52(6), pages 817-845, December.
    14. Armin Grunwald, 2006. "Scientific independence as a constitutive part of parliamentary technology assessment," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 103-113, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Gagliardi, Anna R. & Fraser, Novlette & Wright, Frances C. & Lemieux-Charles, Louise & Davis, Dave, 2008. "Fostering knowledge exchange between researchers and decision-makers: Exploring the effectiveness of a mixed-methods approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 53-63, April.
    17. Delvenne, Pierre & Parotte, Céline, 2019. "Breaking the myth of neutrality: Technology Assessment has politics, Technology Assessment as politics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 64-72.
    18. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
    19. Hennen, Leonhard & Nierling, Linda, 2019. "The politics of technology assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 17-22.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kroll, Henning & Hansmeier, Hendrik & Hufnagl, Miriam, 2022. "Productive interactions in basic research an enquiry into impact pathways at the DESY synchrotron," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Christoph Kehl & Steffen Albrecht & Pauline Riousset & Arnold Sauter, 2021. "Goodbye Expert-Based Policy Advice? Challenges in Advising Governmental Institutions in Times of Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Kraus, Sascha & Kumar, Satish & Lim, Weng Marc & Kaur, Jaspreet & Sharma, Anuj & Schiavone, Francesco, 2023. "From moon landing to metaverse: Tracing the evolution of Technological Forecasting and Social Change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    4. Helka Kalliomäki & Sampo Ruoppila & Jenni Airaksinen, 2021. "It takes two to tango: Examining productive interactions in urban research collaboration [Generating Research Questions through Problematization]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 529-539.
    5. Bozeman, Barry & Rimes, Heather & Youtie, Jan, 2015. "The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 34-49.
    6. Rossi, Federica & Rosli, Ainurul & Yip, Nick, 2017. "Academic engagement as knowledge co-production and implications for impact: Evidence from Knowledge Transfer Partnerships," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1-9.
    7. Ahn, Sang-Jin & Yoon, Ho Young & Lee, Young-Joo, 2021. "Text mining as a tool for real-time technology assessment: Application to the cross-national comparative study on artificial organ technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Filippo Chiarello & Gualtiero Fantoni, 2021. "Impact for whom? Mapping the users of public research with lexicon-based text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1745-1774, February.
    10. D’Este, Pablo & Robinson-García, Nicolás, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    11. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban, 2022. "How universities influence societal impact practices: Academics’ sense-making of organizational impact strategies [Between Relevance and Excellence? Research Impact Agenda and the Production of Pol," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 609-620.
    12. Noam Obermeister, 2020. "Tapping into science advisers’ learning," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    13. Gaunand, A. & Hocdé, A. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M. & Turckheim, E.de, 2015. "How does public agricultural research impact society? A characterization of various patterns," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 849-861.
    14. Peter Horton & Garrett W. Brown, 2018. "Integrating evidence, politics and society: a methodology for the science–policy interface," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-5, December.
    15. Bentivoglio, Deborah & Bucci, Giorgia & Belletti, Matteo & Finco, Adele, 2022. "A theoretical framework on network’s dynamics for precision agriculture technologies adoption," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 60(4), January.
    16. Battaglia, Daniele & Landoni, Paolo & Rizzitelli, Francesco, 2017. "Organizational structures for external growth of University Technology Transfer Offices: An explorative analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 45-56.
    17. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    18. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    19. Nikki Funke & Dave Huitema & Arthur Petersen, 2024. "Boundary work to what end? Analysing the acid mine drainage case in Gauteng, South Africa," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 393-405.
    20. Yixin Dai & David Popp & Stuart Bretschneider, 2005. "Institutions and intellectual property: The influence of institutional forces on university patenting," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 579-598.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    knowledge brokering; parliamentary technology assessment; legislatures; science advice; boundary work; research utilization;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:fisidp:77. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isfhgde.html .

    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.