by Helena Seibicke
Contemporary politics has become increasingly reliant on scientific knowledge. In evidence-based policymaking, science is invoked to address complex, ‘wicked’ problems. Yet, policymakers do not necessarily base decisions on the best-available evidence, and models of knowledge used in policymaking have long been criticised as simplistic.
Therefore, collaboration with non-scientific actors (so called ‘stakeholders’) has emerged as a possible way forward. The increasing emphasis on prolonged and formalised engagement of stakeholders in research projects is subjected to public expenditure justifications, improvement of the input, throughput and output of funded research to inform policymaking processes and address societal challenges. It also reflects the view that an effective response to these challenges requires multi-partner collaborations between academic experts and various interests and perspectives.
On both sides of the policy–science nexus, collaborative interactions are extended to include stakeholders to improve the impact (i.e. the usability and applicability) of knowledge. And while stakeholder involvement often follows this overarching justification, the question of stakeholder rationales for participating in these processes has previously received little scholarly attention. The scarce literature that does exist largely focuses on improving the transfer of knowledge outcomes of collaborative innovation, and knowledge production, rather than the involved actors’ interactions.
To address this gap, this article just published in Policy & Politics analyses stakeholder rationales, asking why organisations get involved in collaborative research. The theoretical expectations about divergent organisational rationales, drawing on theories of institutional and organisational logics, are investigated through an exploratory case study of stakeholders engaged in collaborative research projects in Norway. The theoretical and empirical analysis form the basis for a proposed new typology of stakeholder rationales.
The analysis presented here offers three important insights. Firstly, it demonstrates the importance of focusing on the stakeholder perspective in any analysis of transdisciplinary scientific projects. Secondly, it advances a better understanding of stakeholder rationales through the theoretical and empirical work. And thirdly, it proffers a new typology of stakeholder rationales, which can help explain the inputs, throughputs and outputs of collaborative research in a variety of empirical settings. The theoretical framework developed in this paper includes epistemic rationales for participation, such as improving the quality and ‘usability’ of co-produced knowledge, but also takes into consideration that stakeholders might have more strategic reasons for participation.
The results indicate that most stakeholder rationales for research participation can be categorised as instrumental and driven by self-interest. This is particularly the case for private organisations, but is equally the case for non-profit organisations and public sector entities. Moreover, the analysis shows that the proposed collaborative endeavour needs to align with or compliment organisational goals and overarching strategies, be cost-efficient and not present too much of a burden in terms of time and resources spent.
In summary, the article contributes towards the development of better tools for understanding and assessing the sources and potential pathways of knowledge, shaped by self-interested actors, making its way into policymaking processes, often as ‘neutral’ evidence.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at
Seibicke, H. (2024). Investigating stakeholder rationales for participating in collaborative interactions at the policy–science nexus. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024) from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000010
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read:
Aula, V. (2023). Evidence-based policymaking in the legislatures: timeliness and politics of evidence in Finland. Policy & Politics, 51(4), 673-694 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16873376680333
Bates, G., Ayres, S., Barnfield, A., & Larkin, C. (2023). What types of health evidence persuade policy actors in a complex system?. Policy & Politics, 51(3), 386-412 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16814103714008
MacAulay, M., Fafard, P., Cassola, A., & Palkovits, M. (2023). Analysing the ‘follow the science’ rhetoric of government responses to COVID-19. Policy & Politics, 51(3), 466-485 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16831146677554
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 