LIST OF WORKSHOPS

This workshop is about how scientific knowledge and advice produced in the field of public policy –  the common home field of scholars affiliated to the IPPA – are used by practitioners involved in the policy process, and what are the conditions at work. By scientific knowledge and advice on public policy we mean all fundamental and applied research in our domain, including political science, public administration and public policy. Practitioners involved in the policy process can work in two spheres. The first is that of practitioners in organizations with formal responsibility for public policy, such as the branches of government and agencies. The second sphere consists of actors trying to influence the policy process, such as stakeholders engaging in lobbying, advocacy or public affairs, and think tanks. These spheres involved in the policy process form two major categories of the ‘information professions’ (Abbott, 1988), a concept that covers all fields of practice where the production of information and its use are the main currency of the trade and add significant value. How do these types of information professions recognize and utilize scientific knowledge and advice on public policy, and what are the conditions for it?

            While there are several bodies of knowledge and literature connecting to this central question, the timeliness of the workshop theme is that still little is known about how the knowledge produced in our common field gets incorporated into politics and the policy-making process. Who uses scientific public policy knowledge, in which stage, with what purpose and function? What are the factors determining the utilization of public policy knowledge and advice by the two categories of information professions in the policy process? This underexplored territory includes the sources and providers of public policy knowledge, types of knowledge producing institutions such as universities, research centers, advisory bodies, think tanks, etc.. It also includes types of knowledge and the features of these types, such as fundamental or applied research, theory-driven or problem-driven, and commissioned or non-commissioned research.

            What we know from the general body of knowledge on ‘policy advisory systems’ is that scientific advice can flow from multiple sources, and also can be in competition. Here, research has focused on the policy advisory system at large or on specific activities of actors involved in advising. Influence in such systems comes from proximity to policymakers and control of the advice delivered (Halligan, 1995). Influence also is contingent to content and to the extent to which advice is ’cold’, long term and anticipatory, or ’hot’, short term and reactive (Craft and Howlett, 2012). Furthermore, a factor at play is whether advice produces problem-solving statements (Hassenteufel and Zittoun, 2017). Next to this, the literature on knowledge utilization focuses on the ‘boundary work’ at the science-policy nexus (Wittrock, 1991), and research in this corner has shifted from a linear and direct model of knowledge utilization towards more dispersed and symbolic forms of knowledge utilization (Weiss, 1979; Blum and Brans, 2017).

          What distinguishes our workshop proposal is that it focuses entirely on scientific knowledge on public policy, and goes further in addressing the conditions and behavior of actors who obtain, demand, select and utilize or deliberately discard this knowledge and advice based on it. It extends a recent major international research project on the Professionalization and Social Impact of European Political Science (PROSEPS) which has resulted in a comparative volume on the advisory roles of political science scholars in Europe (Brans and Timmermans, 2022). In this study, political science is broadly defined and includes public policy and public administration. The survey conducted for empirical analysis of advisory and related roles of academics comprised nearly 12,500 academics working at universities in 39 countries. The geographical scope in this project included all countries in Europe and some outside it, and at a panel at the ICPP5 in Barcelona in 2021 this scope was extended further. The main conclusion from this recent study on advisory roles is that academics in our field do engage: with a varying frequency and intensity they take advisory, opinionizing or advocacy roles. The study also shows that recipients of knowledge in our field range from domestic central or decentral branches of government to international organizations, from political parties to media, and from civil society  groups and NGOs to businesses and branch organizations seeking access and influence on the policy process.

          This workshop proposal shifts the perspective to these types of users of academic knowledge and advice on public policy, on the side of policymakers and on the side of organizations or groups engaging in lobbying and public affairs or acting as a think tank. It thus specifies the knowledge utilization to scientific knowledge and advice produced in our field. What factors determine the recognition and utilization of knowledge on an object of study by those actors that often themselves are part of this object of study? The demarcation of scientific public policy knowledge is not limited to political and administrative structures, players and processes, but includes also more substantive policy domain knowledge as for example on international and EU affairs, social policy, economic policy, environment, civil rights, and immigration. On these and other major topics, specific public policy communities exist and for them questions about knowledge utilization are pertinent as the research work often done happens in proximity and at the boundary of science and practice, for example in official advisory bodies. Likewise, scholars on agenda setting, implementation, policy evaluation and administrative or democratic and electoral reform face knowledge utilization questions as the emphasis on social and other impact of their work becomes more pronounced (Eisfeld and Flinders, 2021). At the same time, science and advice have come under pressure because of politicization (Weingart, 1999) and populist tendencies of disqualification of academics and advisors and their work.

          Thus the main objective of this workshop is to better understand the utilization in practice of knowledge and advice on public policy and the conditions for this. The workshop seeks to unravel whether and how differences between types of users lead to different utilization patterns, and whether organizations where public policy knowledge is used develop and apply standards and competencies for professional use of this knowledge. Another objective is draw lessons from patterns observed, and get in this way an informed view of directions of further development of public policy as a relevant field of research and education. Given that in a growing number of areas of science, politicization is leading to a reversal of Wildavsky’s phrase ‘speaking truth to power’ into ‘speaking power to truth’, this is particularly important for the field that studies power itself.

References

Abbott, A. (1988). The System of Professions. An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Blum, S. and Brans, M. (2017). Academic policy analysis and research utilization for policymaking. In Brans, M., Geva-May, I. and M. Howlett (Eds.) Handbook of Comparative Policy Analysis. London: Routledge, 341-359.

Brans, M. and Timmermans, A. (Eds.) (2022). The Advisory Roles of Political Scientists in Europe. Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan.

Craft, J. and Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 22, part 2, August 2012.

Eisfeld, R. and Flinders. M. (Eds.) (2021). Political Science in the Shadow of the State: Research, Relevance & Deference. London: Macmillan.

Halligan J. (1995). Policy Advice and the Public Sector. In Peters G.B. and Savoie D. T. (eds.) Governance in a Changing Environment. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 138–172.

Hassenteufel, P. and Zittoun, P. (2017). From Policy Analytical Styles to Policymaking Styles. In Brans, M., Geva-May, I. and M. Howlett (eds.) Handbook of Comparative Policy Analysis. London: Routledge, 56-69.

Weingart, P. (1999). Scientific expertise and political accountability. Paradoxes of science in politics, Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 151-161.

Weiss, C.H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426-431.

Wittrock, B. (1991). Social knowledge and public policy. Eight models of interaction. In Wagner, P., Weiss, C.H., Wittrock, B. and Wollmann, H. (Eds.). Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 337- 339.

The papers we like to invite for this workshop can have one or more of the following focal points:

Ø  Perceptions and utilization of scientific public policy knowledge by practitioners working in policy-making institutions such as the different branches of government and political parties.

Ø  Perceptions and utilization of scientific public policy knowledge by practitioners in organizations or groups trying to influence the policy process, such as interest groups, civil society organizations, and lobbying and public affairs consultants.

Ø  Types and formats of scientific public policy knowledge preferred and used by practitioners, choice for commissioned research and advice or for ‘shopping’ for knowledge.

Ø  Ways in which scientific knowledge in the field of public policy is incorporated in policy learning by organizations, the degree to which this happens and the heuristics or systems used for this.

Ø  Established and ongoing relationships between organizations in practice and providers of scientific public policy knowledge, patterns that emerge.

Ø  Effects of organizational structure and culture such as mission and goals, size, information capacity, hierarchy, and public or private status on the utilization of public policy knowledge and advice.

Ø  Standards, relevant competencies or larger competency frameworks existing or emerging for specific occupational or professional groups that provide incentives (and enforcement) for utilizing scientific knowledge in their work, recruitment criteria or strategies for staff, such as educational background and scientific skills obtained.

Ø  Effects of polarization and politicization of issues on the use of public policy knowledge and advice.

Ø  Ways in which organizations or groups in practice in the policy process deal with the increasingly blurred boundary line between validated scientific knowledge and disinformation and alternative facts.

This workshop focuses on how and under which conditions scientific knowledge produced in the field of public policy is incorporated and used by practitioners involved in the policy process. These practitioners comprise two categories of information professions: on the one hand all government branches and agencies with formal responsibilities in the policy process; on the other all those actors trying to influence the policy process, such as stakeholders engaging in lobbying or advocacy and think tanks. How do these types of information professions recognize and utilize scientific knowledge on public policy, and what are the conditions for it? In what way do these categories of practitioners obtain, demand, select and utilize or deliberately discard this knowledge? The workshop specifies knowledge utilization to scientific knowledge produced in the field of public policy. The demarcation of scientific public public policy knowledge is not limited to political and administrative structures, players and processes, but includes also more substantive policy domain knowledge as for example on international and EU affairs, social policy, economic policy, environment, civil rights, and immigration. This underexplored territory includes the sources and providers of public policy knowledge, types of knowledge producing institutions such as universities, research centres, advisory bodies, think tanks, etc.. It also includes types of knowledge and the features of these types, such as fundamental or applied research, theory-driven or problem-driven, and commissioned or non-commissioned research. The workshops invites contributions on the utilization of various kinds of scientific public policy knowledge and advice by information professions within and outside government. It explores the perceptions and behavior towards knowledge and advice and the cultural and organizations conditions for this.

Arco Timmermans is public affairs analyst, writer and speaker and works at Leiden University, The Netherlands. He obtained his PhD in the Social and Political Sciences at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy and has worked at several universities in the Netherlands as a visiting professor abroad. He was Research Director of the Montesquieu Institute in The Hague and has held a Chair by Special Appointment in Public Affairs. His research and writing are on public affairs, coalition politics, the nexus between science and practice, and agenda setting in a comparative perspective. In 2022 he edited with Marleen Brans the open access volume The advisory roles of political scientists in Europe. Comparing engagements in policy advisory systems (Palgrave Macmillan). His latest book is the Research and Strategy Handbook of Public Affairs, which appears with Edward Elgar in the spring of 2014. On these different topics he gives courses at the graduate level. He designed and coordinates a Public Affairs Master Track at Leiden University. Next to his academic work he also is a professional trainer, speaker, and commentator on news items. He has some 200 academic and professional publications, among which four books, and has over 250 media appearances.

José Real-Dato is associate professor of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of Almería (Spain). How expert knowledge is incorporated into the public policy process is one of his research interests. He collaborated closely with Marleen Brans, Arco Timmermans and others in the COST project on the Professionalization and Social Impact of European Political Science. On this topic, he also directed the CONESPOL-PUB project (Impact of specialized knowledge and politicization at the higher levels of the Administration on the design and adoption of public policies in Spain, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, 2019-2022), and is currently directing the PANCRAS-MAX project (Policy analytic capacities in regional public administration in Spain: mapping, assessing, and explaining, Department of University, Research and Innovation, Junta de Andalucía). He has been visiting scholar at several universities, among which Leiden and Bologna.

Marleen Brans (PhD EUI, Firenze) is professor at the KU Leuven Public Governance Institute and visiting professor Université Catholique de Louvain. She conducts research on the production and use of policy advice by actors in and outside government. The reconciliation of expert advice with political control has been a recurrent theme in this research. Recently, within Cost-action CA15207, she contributed to the design and implementation of both large N and qualitative comparative research on advisory roles of academics, one of the collaborative results of which is the open access volume co-edited with Arco Timmermans: The advisory roles of political scientists in Europe. Comparing engagements in policy advisory systems (Palgrave MacMillan, 2022). Expert advice is just one input in the formulation of policies, next to interest-based and political considerations that are advanced by other advisory actors. A particularly powerful group, ministerial advisers (who act both as advisers and gatekeepers to advice from others to executive ministers) are at the heart of Brans’ recent research. Also the roles of advisory bodies and policy analysts in government have recurrently featured in the applicant’s research on policy advisory systems. Her current research on the science-policy nexus focuses on the survival of expert arguments in Covid-19 policy-making.