M. Pregernig
1
1
Institute of Forest, Environmental, and Natural Resource Policy, Department of
Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life
Sciences Vienna, Austria. e-mail: michael.pregernig@boku.ac.at
Linking substantive knowledge and authoritative political decision making has proven to be a chronically difficult task. This paper deals with the question of why this difficulty arises and what could be done to overcome barriers and to close gaps in the interactions between science and politics.
In theory, science-policy consultation is often framed in a simplistic way as the straightforward transfer of knowledge from science to policy. In light of recent scholarship, however, the naïve hopes of the ‘scientification of the non-scientific world’ (Beck & Bonß, 1984) turned out to be untenable, both in a theoretical and an empirical perspective. This paper proposes a new conceptual model, the so-called ‘boundary spanning model,’ which frames the science-policy interface not as a sharp line of demarcation but rather as a fuzzy, dynamically shifting boundary.
Two extensive science-policy consultation processes were used to empirically substantiate this model. The science-policy advice processes investigated were two bioregional assessments, which were carried out in the
United States of America in the mid-1990s. The case studies support the idea that science-policy interactions are best viewed as dynamic processes that evolve over time, occur sequentially and often iteratively, and typically involve long-term interactions between scientists, policy-makers, interest groups, and citizens.
science-policy interaction; knowledge transfer; boundary work; bioregional assessments; USA
Linking substantive knowledge and authoritative political decision making has proven to be a chronically difficult task (Guston, 2001). Barriers and gaps in the interaction between science and politics result in the problem of decision makers not obtaining the information that they need and scientists producing information that is not used (Cash et al ., 2002).
1

M. Pregernig Bridging the boundary between science and policy
In this paper, I want to critically discuss the opportunities and limits of effectively linking knowledge and action against the background of current theoretical reflections in the fields of political science and the social studies of science. I introduce and elaborate a new conceptual model, the so-called ‘ boundary spanning model ,’ that strives to better describe and understand the role of science and scientists in policy processes. This boundary spanning model is empirically substantiated with two extensive sciencepolicy consultation processes that were carried out in the United States of America in the mid-1990s.
The interaction between science and politics can be grasped theoretically in a number of ways. One of the classical conceptualizations of science-policy interaction is the socalled ‘ knowledge transfer model .’ Under this model scientists are brought into policy processes to impart their unique knowledge and wisdom to policy-makers. The transfer model is associated with a picture of spatial separation between a place of knowledge production, i.e., science, and knowledge use, i.e., politics. Thus, the main challenge is the way in which knowledge is ‘transported’ from one place to another.
In light of recent scholarship, many of the assumptions on which the linear model of knowledge transfer is based upon seem questionable. Scientists can no longer – and probably never could – simply do the science and hope that someone else uses the information to make good laws that provide – in this case – for the sustainable management of forests (Cortner et al ., 1999). Interestingly enough, this unilinear approach of science in policy-making to some extent still dominates perceptions among policy-makers and scientists alike.
This paper proposes a new conceptual model, the so-called ‘boundary spanning model,’ which frames the science-policy interface not as a sharp line of demarcation but rather as a fuzzy, dynamically shifting boundary (cf., Jasanoff, 1987; Gieryn 1995).
The boundary between science and politics is contested, negotiated, and ultimately constructed by scientists and policy-makers as they struggle to resolve the fundamental tensions of scientific advice in the policy arena, i.e. ‘ maintaining scientific credibility (by not politicizing the research) while assuring practical saliency (by producing information that is relevant and useful to decision makers) and doing so in a manner that secures political legitimacy (by being seen as fair and open to multiple participants) .’ (Cash & Clark, 2001)
Previous empirical research on science-policy consultation has frequently come to rather negative conclusions as to the impacts that science has in the application context. Often building upon the transfer model of knowledge use, those empirical studies were typically looking for an ideal situation where policy makers consider the findings of one particular study in the context of a specific pending decision and adopt the course of action derived from or recommended by the research (Weiss, 1980). In the ‘real world’, this kind of instrumental utilization seems in fact to be rare, particularly when the issues are complex, the consequences are uncertain, and a multitude of actors are engaged in the decision-making process – as is the case, for example, in sustainable forest management.
It would be wrong to conclude from those negative evaluations that research is ignored in any case. Knowledge use only does not come in the form of direct, instrumental use but rather in a more indirect way which is indicated with the term ‘boundary spanning.’
2

M. Pregernig Bridging the boundary between science and policy
Part of the deficiencies of science-policy advice is attributable to an excessively narrow conceptual and empirical focus. Many of the case studies that critically analysed specific consultation processes have taken a predominantly project -oriented view, i.e. their unit of analysis was a specific research project, with clearly defined start and end dates. My guiding hypothesis is that many of the characteristics that make up a
‘successful’ science-policy consultation exercise cannot be determined empirically by just looking at ‘the project’ itself, but it rather needs a broader conceptual framework.
This paper tries to substantiate the above-mentioned methodological meta-hypothesis by reporting on two in-depth case studies from the field of environmental and natural resource policy. The processes I have investigated are two so-called ‘ bioregional assessments’ which were carried out in the United States of America in the mid-1990s.
My empirical work is based on document analyses, participatory observations and more than 40 semi-structured expert interviews.
Bioregional assessments are large-scale efforts to integrate a broad range of information about the social, economic, and ecological conditions within a larger region in order to provide a basis for making decisions and taking policy action (Herring,
1999). Assessments are important forums for political negotiation and interaction between scientists, natural resource managers, policy-makers, and the public (Miller et al ., 1997).
The following empirical analysis is based on two bioregional assessments which have both dealt with large-scale mountain ranges: the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project
(SNEP) and the Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAA). SNEP is an assessment of the Sierra Nevada ecoregion which is located between California and Nevada in the
Southwest of the United States. In 1992, there was growing public concern about the ecological health of the Sierra. A flashy newspaper story and strong lobbying by environmental interest groups led Congress to authorize a scientific review. The
University of California was requested to coordinate the study. Some 130 scientists participated in the assessment. Three years and 6.5 million dollars later a 4 volumes,
3.200 pages long report was submitted to Congress (Erman, 1999). SAA dealt with the six-state Southern Appalachian mountain area in the Southeastern part of the United
States. Similar to SNEP, the project grew from concerns about the state of the environment in the area. The final impetus for the assessment came from the upcoming revision of forest plans in several National Forests of the US Forest Service.
So once again, it was not science which elicited the assessment but social – or in this case: agency – needs. More than 150 scientists participated in the assessment. Most of them came from management agencies. One and a half years and relatively meagre
1.8 million dollars later, SAA published four technical documents and one summary report (Meidinger & Shannon, 1996; van Sickle, 2001).
Science-policy assessments are not designed to produce new, cutting-edge knowledge, but they primarily serve the development of concrete solutions for practice.
So when evaluating a specific assessment process, a central question is whether and to what extent the assessment has led to changes in the way public and private policies are formulated, i.e., what policy impact it had.
An ad-hoc appraisal shows rather poor results. For the Sierra Nevada an inside analyst has come to the conclusion that ‘[a]s yet, there has been no fundamental shift of
3

M. Pregernig Bridging the boundary between science and policy national, state, or local policy or significant change in operations, because of the SNEP report .’ (Machida, 1999: 332) A critical appraisal of SAA would probably come to similar conclusions.
Does this mean that science-policy assessments can easily be dismissed as nothing but l’art pour l’art exercises? My investigations produced some counter-evidence to such a flatly negative evaluation. One possibly comes to less sobering conclusions when taking a longer-term perspective. I found numerous evidence of SNEP and SAA results influencing policies, though often in very indirect and tortuous ways.
To come to a more realistic – and probably also more positive – picture of how bioregional assessments influence policy, a broader frame of evaluation is needed.
While previously, assessments have often been viewed as documents that convey information from scientists to policy makers, more recent definitions regard assessments as ‘ the entire social process by which expert knowledge related to a policy problem is organized, evaluated, integrated and presented in documents to inform policy or decision-making .’ (Clark et al ., 1997: 53)
Also the two bioregional assessments may be analysed most productively by taking a process-oriented view. The assessments were highly interactive processes among various scientific disciplines and policy actors. The processes took years from the first preparatory arrangements to the publication of the final reports. Beyond that, SNEP and SAA were only one of multiple channels through which knowledge about the two bioregions was communicated among various actors at that time. If I had just looked at the two assessment processes themselves I would have missed a lot of contextual information and would have come to wrong conclusions as regards the degree of interconnectedness of the problems at hand.
Although the two assessment projects were formally finished almost a decade ago, processes of ‘disseminating’ and ‘using’ the outcomes are still going on today. A first example of where and how SNEP and SAA influenced policies is the reorientation of planning activities towards a more ‘regionalized ’ approach. Before the assessments, each National Forest – of which there are 11 in the Sierra Nevada and 5 in the
Southern Appalachians – independently prepared its forest plan. Years of intensive research, communication, and negotiation as part of the assessment processes eventually led to greater visibility and strengthened perception of the Sierra Nevada and the Southern Appalachians as distinct bioregions. With the introduction of a novel ontological entity, namely the entity of ‘bioregions,’ land managers seemingly recognized that for many of the problems a range-wide, multi-forest planning approach was needed. The new generation of forest plans is based on a more ‘bioregional look.’
Another example of the slow build-up of scattered impacts is the changing role of environmental NGOs (eNGOs). In both case studies, the initiation of a large-scale bioregional assessment stirred up the eNGO community and soon led to the formation of region-wide NGO alliances. These alliances helped to develop or maintain involvement with the assessment initiatives. After the assessments were finished, they published citizens’ guides, small booklets summarizing the assessments and providing perspectives on alternative views. They also created new GIS resources and easy-tounderstand maps in order to facilitate work with grassroots groups and local
4

M. Pregernig Bridging the boundary between science and policy communities. With these citizens’ guides, GIS maps and local workshops, NGOs made assessment results accessible to and understandable for a broader public.
These examples show that assessments can provide new policy actors the resources and opportunity to interact and develop common ground with respect to policy choices.
While policies had been dominated by resource-extraction interests for decades, the more comprehensive, bird-eye view that comes with the idea of bioregionalism provided the environmental community with strong arguments for more resource protection. So in the end, the assessments, to some extent, altered the prevailing power structures in the two regions.
The paper started out with the methodological hypothesis that many of the characteristics which make up a ‘successful’ science-policy consultation exercise cannot be determined empirically by just looking at ‘the project’ itself but it rather needs a broader conceptual framework. The two case studies have shown that the impacts of science-policy assessments can be found in many places but that assessments may not produce direct and immediate results. Before that background, empirical studies that just focus on the projects themselves must, more or less predictably, overlook many impacts and thus underestimate potential effects. The methodological consequences of these insights are clear and can be summarized in the advice: take a distanced look at science-policy consultation processes (Pregernig, in press).
Finally, what does this mean for the practice of science-policy consultation? While the transfer model introduced above assumes that what policy-makers want is just what researchers are best qualified to supply, namely detailed data, the experience of bioregional assessments indicates that the less tangible outcomes associated with such assessments are at least as important as the more tangible outcomes. The principal measurement of success is not whether a political counselling process has amassed an impressive collection of scientific reports, but rather whether it has contributed to improved mental models of the problem (Keating & Farrell, 1999; Cortner et al.
1999). Frameworks, more than data, are the key to successful science-policy consultation (Johnson & Herring, 1999).
The two case studies support the idea that science-policy interactions are best viewed as dynamic processes that evolve over time, occur sequentially and often iteratively, and typically involve long-term interactions between scientists, policy-makers, interest groups, and citizens. So when designing an advice process, sufficient resources, both money and time, should be provided to stimulate cooperation and communication. To build up professional networks, increase technical capacity, and ensure respect and credibility, all that takes repeated personal interactions over a longer period of time.
Compared with this, advice processes organised as single events have a very limited chance to affect policy decisions in any particular way.
Some of the most important and positive outcomes associated with scientific advice processes are also the most short-lived. The benefits of an increased knowledge base, improved technical capacity, and extended professional networks all accrue to the participants themselves. As these participants change jobs or leave the field, the benefits of the assessment begin to erode. To preserve the technical capacity and the professional relationships, it may be appropriate to create new institutions. Such new institutions may include standing advisory committees, periodic workshops to share information, or simply the creation of an electronic mail list server. As participants in the original assessment process leave the community, these institutions provide a
5

M. Pregernig Bridging the boundary between science and policy mechanism to integrate new individuals into the network and to continue to build upon the existing knowledge and capabilities (Keating & Farrell, 1999).
Finally, as comprehensive processes of science-policy advice become more common in the field of environmental management and policy, it is important that the lessons that have been learned are identified and applied in future processes (Keating &
Farrell, 1999). To this end, each process should conclude with an explicit evaluation of what worked and what did not. Such evaluations can serve two ends: first, they can provide the participants an opportunity to reflect on their experience and, second, they can enable researchers to accumulate cases which can serve as the basis for serious comparative analysis. Both reflexive practices and systematic research should contribute to a more effective linking of substantive knowledge and authoritative political decision making in the future.
Beck, U. and Bonß, W.
(1984) Soziologie und Modernisierung: Zur Ortsbestimmung der Verwendungsforschung. Soziale Welt 35 : 381-406.
Cash, D.W. and Clark, W.C.
(2001) From Science to Policy: Assessing the
Assessment Process . KSG Faculty Research Working Paper 01-045. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA.
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N. and Jäger, J.
(2002)
Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and
Decision Making . KSG Faculty Research Working Paper 02-046. Kennedy School of
Government, Cambridge, MA.
Clark, W.C., McCarthy, J.J. and Shea, E.
(1997) A critical evaluation of global environmental assessments . Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Cortner, H.J., Wallace, M.G. and Moote, M.A.
(1999) A Political Context Model for
Bioregional Assessments. K.N. Johnson, F. Swanson, M. Herring, & S. Greene (Eds).
Bioregional Assessments: Science at the Crossroads of Management and Policy .
Island Press, Washington, DC 71-82.
Erman, D.C.
(1999) Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Case Study. K.N. Johnson, F.
Swanson, M. Herring, & S. Greene (Eds). Bioregional Assessments: Science at the
Crossroads of Management and Policy . Island Press, Washington, DC 304-320.
Gieryn, T.F.
(1995) Boundaries of Science. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Peterson &
T.J. Pinch (Eds). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies . Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA 393-443.
Guston, D.H.
(2001) Toward a ‘Best Practice’ of Constructing ‘Serviceable Truths’. M.
Hisschemöller, R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn & J.R. Ravetz (Eds). Knowledge, Power, and
Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis . Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick
97-118.
Herring, M.
(1999) Introduction. K.N. Johnson, F. Swanson, M. Herring, & S. Greene
(Eds). Bioregional Assessments: Science at the Crossroads of Management and
Policy . Island Press, Washington, DC 1-8.
Jasanoff, S.
(1987) Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science. Social Studies of Science 17 : 195-230.
Johnson, K.N. and Herring, M.
(1999) Understanding Bioregional Assessments.
K.N. Johnson, F. Swanson, M. Herring, & S. Greene (Eds). Bioregional Assessments:
Science at the Crossroads of Management and Policy . Island Press, Washington, DC
341-376.
6

M. Pregernig Bridging the boundary between science and policy
Keating, T.J. and Farrell, A.
(1999) Transboundary Environmental Assessment:
Lessons from the Ozone Transport Assessment Group . Technical Report NCEDR/99-
02. NCEDR, Knoxville, TN.
Machida, D.T.
(1999) Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Policy Review. K.N.
Johnson, F. Swanson, M. Herring, & S. Greene (Eds). Bioregional Assessments:
Science at the Crossroads of Management and Policy . Island Press, Washington, DC
330-338.
Meidinger, E. and Shannon, M.
(1996) The Southern Appalachian Ecosystem
Assessment : Overview case study prepared for the Rennsalaerville Science and Policy
Seminar, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, June 4-6, 1996. mimeo, Buffalo, NY.
Miller, C.A., Jasanoff, S., Long, M., Clark, W.C., Dickson, N., Iles, A. and Parris,
T.M.
(1997) Shaping knowledge, defining uncertainty: The dynamic role of assessments. W.C. Clark, J.J. McCarthy & E. Shea (Eds). A critical evaluation of global environmental assessments . Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA 79-113.
Pregernig, M.
(in press) Transdisciplinarity in the making: Science-policy assessments as forums for the creation of trandisciplinary knowledge. In Special
Issues of Science & Public Policy.
van Sickle, C.
(2001) Southern Appalachian Case Study. M.E. Jensen & P.S.
Bourgeron (Eds). A Guidebook for Integrated Ecological Assessments . Springer, New
York, NY 472-488.
Weiss, C.H.
(1980) Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion. Knowledge: Creation,
Diffusion, Utilization 1 : 381-404.
7