Investigating stakeholder rationales for participating in collaborative interactions at the policy–science nexus

Author:
Helena Seibicke University of Oslo, Norway

Search for other papers by Helena Seibicke in
Current site
Google Scholar Close
Article Category:
Research Article
Copyright:
© Policy Press 2024
Online Publication Date:
04 Jan 2024
Pages:
477–500
Publisher:
Policy Press
Volume/Issue:
Volume 52: Issue 3
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000010
Restricted access
Get eTOC alerts
Rights and permissions Cite this article
Buy article/chapter (
GBP  £25.00
)

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 has emerged as a possible way forward. On both sides of the policy–science nexus, collaborative interactions are extended to include ‘stakeholders’ to improve the impact of knowledge (that is, its usability and applicability). 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. To address this gap, this article 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. In this way, 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.

  • Agger, A. and Lund, D. (2017) Collaborative innovation in the public sector - new perspectives on the role of citizens?, Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 21(3): 17–37. doi: 10.58235/sjpa.v21i3.11557

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ahrweiler, P., Gilbert, N., Schrempf, B., Grimpe, B. and Jirotka, M. (2019) The role of civil society organisations in European responsible research and innovation, Journal of Responsible Innovation, 6(1): 25–49. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2018.1534508

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Alford, J. and O’Flynn, J. (2009) Making sense of public value: concepts, critiques and emergent meanings, International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4): 71–91. doi: 10.1080/01900690902732731

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Alvesson, M. and Ashcraft, K. (2012) Interviews, in G. Symon and C. Cassell (eds) Qualitative Organizational Research, London: Sage.

  • Arter, D. (2008) Scandinavian Politics Today, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

  • Bach, T., Jugi, M., Köhler, D. and Wegrich, K. (2022) Regulatory agencies, reputational threats, and communicative responses, Regulation & Governance, 16(4): 1042–57.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bandola-Gill, J., Flinders, M. and Anderson, A. (2021) Co-option, control and criticality: the politics of relevance regimes for the future of political science, European Political Science, 20: 218–36. doi: 10.1057/s41304-021-00314-0

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Beesley, C., Hawkins, D. and Moffitt, N. (2022) What leads government officials to use impact evidence?, Journal of Public Policy, 42: 20–42. doi: 10.1017/s0143814x21000015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Beierle, T. (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions, Risk Analysis, 22(4): 739–49. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00065

  • Bell, D. and Pahl, K. (2018) Co-production: towards a utopian approach, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(1): 105–117. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2017.1348581

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Benington, J. and Moore, M. (2010) Public Value: Theory and practice, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Boaz, A., Borst, R., Kok, M. and O’Shea, A. (2021) How far does an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and co-production in research present a threat to academic identity and autonomy? A prospective case study across five European countries, Research Evaluation, 30(3): 361–69. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvab013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bogenschneider, K. and Corbett, T. (2021) Evidence-based Policymaking: Envisioning a New Era of Theory, Research and Practice, London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Boswell, C. (2008) The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Boswell, C. and Smith, K. (2017) Rethinking policy ‘impact’: four models of research–policy relations, Palgrave Communications, 3(44): 1–10. doi: 10.1057/s41599-017-0042-z

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. (2019) Definitions of co-production and co-creation, in T. Brandsen, B. Verschuere and T. Steen (eds) Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services, New York: Routledge, pp 9–17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Brandsen, T., van de Donk, W. and Putters, K. (2005) Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector, International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9–10): 749–65. doi: 10.1081/pad-200067320

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bryson, J., Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. (2007) Putting the resource-based view of strategy and distinctive competencies to work in public organizations, Public Administration Review, 67(4): 702–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00754.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Buonomo, I., Benevene, P., Barbieri, B. and Cortini, M. (2020) Intangible assets and performance in non-profit organizations: a systematic literature review, Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00729

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Burns, J. (2010) Cross-case synthesis and analysis, Encyclopedia of Case Studies, London: Sage.

  • Carpenter, D. (2010) Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Checkel, J. (1997) Ideas and International Political Change, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Christensen, J. and Holst, C. (2017) Advisory commissions, academic expertise and democratic legitimacy: the case of Norway, Science and Public Policy, 44(6): 821–33. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scx016

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Coen, D. and Katsaitis, A. (2021) Business Lobbying in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Collier, D., Laporte, J. and Seawright, J. (2008) Typologies: forming concepts and creating categorical variables, in J. Box-Steffensmeier, H. Brady and D. Collier (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (2001) The case for participation as tyranny, in B. Cooke and U. Kothari (eds) Participation, the New Tyranny?, London: Zed Books.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dahl, R. (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Dartington, T. (1998) From altruism to action: primary task of the not-for-profit organization, Human Relations, 51(12): 1421–64. doi: 10.1177/001872679805101204

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • De Jong, S., Wardenaar, T. and Horlings, E. (2016) Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: a quantitative study of two climate research programmes, Research Policy, 45: 1397–409. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Delli Carpini, M.X., Cook, F.L. and Jacobs, L. (2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature, Annual Review of Political Science, 7: 315–44. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications, Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91. doi: 10.2307/258887

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dong, L. (2016) Instrumental and value rationalities of public administration, in Public Administration Theories, New York: Palgrave.

  • Egeberg, M. (1995) Bureaucrats as public policy-makers and their self-interests, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 7(2): 157–67. doi: 10.1177/0951692895007002003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Elman, C. (2005) Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies in international politics, International Organization, 59(2): 293–326. doi: 10.1017/S0020818305050101

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T. and Balogh, S. (2011) An integrative framework for collaborative governance, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1): 1–29. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mur011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Frederickson, H.G. (1997) The Spirit of Public Administration, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

  • Friedland, R. and Alford. R. (1991) Bringing society back in: symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions, in W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp 232–63.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Frumkin, P. and Galaskiewicz, J. (2004) Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3): 283–307. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muh028

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • George, A.L. and Bennet, A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Greenhalgh, T., Raftery, J., Hanney, S. and Glover, M. (2016) Research impact: a narrative review, BMC Medicine, 14: 2–16. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0620-8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Greenwood, S., Singer, L. and Willis, W. (2021) Collaborative Governance. Principles, Processes, and Practical Tools, London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Haas, P. (1992) Epistemic communities and international policy coordination, International Organization, 46: 1–35. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300001442

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hansson, S. and Polk, M. (2018) Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: the usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact, Research Evaluation, 27(2): 132–44. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvy004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Head, B. (2013) Evidence-based policymaking – speaking truth to power?, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72(4): 397–403. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12037

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hessels, L. and van Lente, H. (2008) Re-thinking new knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda, Research Policy, 37(4): 740–60. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hoppe, R. (2011) Institutional constraints and practical problems in deliberative and participatory policymaking, Policy and Politics, 39(2): 163–84. doi: 10.1332/030557310X519650

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Knutsen, W. L. (2012) Adapted institutional logics of contemporary nonprofit organizations, Administration and Society, 44(8): 985–1013. doi: 10.1177/0095399712438371

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kong, E. (2007) The strategic importance of intellectual capital in the non‐profit sector, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4): 721–31. doi: 10.1108/14691930710830864

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Krasner, S. (1977) US commercial and monetary policy: unravelling the paradox of external strength and internal weakness, International Organization, 31: 635–71. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300018646

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Krick, E. (2015) Negotiated expertise in policymaking: how governments use hybrid advisory committees, Science and Public Policy, 42(4): 487–500. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scu069

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lane, J. and Wallis, J. (2009) Non-profit organizations in public policy implementation, Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 1(7): 141–49.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lindblom, C. and Cohen, D. (1979) Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Littoz-Monnet, A. (2017) The Politics of Expertise in International Organizations, London: Routledge.

  • Manzano, A. (2016) The craft of interviewing in realist evaluation, Evaluation, 22(3): 342–60. doi: 10.1177/1356389016638615

  • March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York: The Free Press.

  • March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1998) The institutional dynamics of international political orders, International Organization, 52: 943–69. doi: 10.1162/002081898550699

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Margerum, R. and Robinson, C. (2015) Collaborative partnerships and the challenges for sustainable water management, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12: 53–58. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.09.003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McCabe, A., Parker, R., Osegowitsch, T. and Cox, S. (2023) Overcoming barriers to knowledge co-production in academic-practitioner research collaboration, European Management Journal, 41(2): 212–22.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McNamara, K. (1998) The Currency of Ideas: Monetary Politics in the European Union, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  • Miles, M., Huberman, A. and Saldaña, J. (2018) Qualitative Data Analysis, London: Sage.

  • Mitchell, G. (2018) Modalities of managerialism: the ‘double bind’ of normative and instrumental non-profit management imperatives, Administration & Society, 50(7): 1037–68.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Moore, M. (1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Moore, M. (2013) Recognizing Public Value, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Nonaka, I. (1991) The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review, 69(6): 96–104.

  • Nonaka, I. (1994) The dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science, 5(1): 14–37. doi: 10.1287/orsc.5.1.14

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2003) Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: the new production of knowledge, Minerva, 41(3): 179–94. doi: 10.1023/A:1025505528250

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Nutley, S., Walter, I. and Davies, H. (2007) What does it mean to ‘use’ research evidence, in Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services, Bristol: Bristol University Press, pp 33–60.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Oliver, K., Kothari, A. and Mays, N. (2019) The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?, Health Research Policy Systems, 17(33). doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • O’Kane, P., Smith, A. and Lerman, M. (2021) Building transparency and trustworthiness in inductive research through computer-aided qualitative data analysis software, Organizational Research Methods, 24(1): 104–39.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • O’Shea, A., Boaz, A., Hanney, S., Kok, M., Borst, R., Pokhrel, S. and Jones, T. (2021) Expect the unexpected? Challenges of prospectively exploring stakeholder engagement in research, Humanities and Social Science Communication, 8(99), doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00770-5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Park, H. and Rethemeyer, P. (2012) The politics of connections: assessing the determinants of social structure in policy networks, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24: 349–79. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mus021

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Parker, C., Scott, S. and Geddes, A. (2019) Snowball sampling, Sage Research Methods Foundations, London: Sage.

  • Paylor, J. and McKevitt, C. (2019) The possibilities and limits of ‘co-producing’ research, Frontiers in Sociology, 4: 23. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00023

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Radaelli, C. (1995) The role of knowledge in the policy process, Journal of European Public Policy, 2(2): 159–83. doi: 10.1080/13501769508406981

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • RCN (Research Council of Norway) (2022) Collaborative project to meet societal and industry-related challenges – guide for applicants, https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/apply-for-funding/who-can-apply-for-funding/research-organisations/collaborative-knowledge-building-project/collaborative-project/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sartori, G. (1984) Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis, London: Sage.

  • Schmidt, L., Falk, T., Siegmund-Schultze, M. and Spangenberg, J. (2020) The objectives of stakeholder involvement in transdisciplinary research. a conceptual framework for a reflective and reflexive practice, Ecological Economics, 176: 1–8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schmitter, P. and Streeck, W. (1999) The organization of business interests: studying the associative action of business in advanced industrial societies, MPIfG Discussion Paper, No. 99/1, Köln: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Scholz, R. and Steiner, G. (2015) Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads, Sustainability Science, 10: 521–26. doi: 10.1007/s11625-015-0338-0

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Skelcher, C. and Smith, S.R. (2015) Theorizing hybridity: institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: the case of non-profits, Public Administration, 93(2): 433–48. doi: 10.1111/padm.12105

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sivertsen, G. and Meijer, I. (2020) Normal vs extraordinary societal impact: how to understand, evaluate and improve research activities in their relations to society?, Research Evaluation, 29(1): 66–70. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvz032

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Spaapen, J. and van Drooge, L. (2011) Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment, Research Evaluation, 20: 211–18. doi: 10.3152/095820211x12941371876742

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tamtik, M. and Sá, C. (2012) The role of experts in the European union’s research policy, Review of Policy Research, 29(4): 449–66.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Teece, D. (1981) The market for know-how and the efficient international transfer of technology, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 458(1): 81–96. doi: 10.1177/000271628145800107

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tellman, S. and Gulbrandsen, M. (2022) The other side of the boundary: productive interactions seen from the policy side, Science and Public Policy, 49(4): 621–31. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scac013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Turner, S. (2003) The Politics of Expertise, London: Routledge.

  • Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. and Louder, E. (2020) The politics of co-production: participation, power and transformation, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42: 15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Van Eijk, C. and Gasco, M. (2018) Unravelling the co-producers: who are they and what motivations do they have?, in T. Brandsen, B. Verschuere and T. Steen (eds) Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services, New York: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Voorberg, W., Bekkers, V. and Tummers, L. (2015) A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey, Public Management Review, 17: 1333–57. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2014.930505

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Weber, M. and Treibe, K. (1978, 2019) Economy and Society: A New Translation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Weichselgartner, J. and Truffer, B. (2015) From knowledge co-production to transdisciplinary research: lessons from the quest to produce socially robust knowledge, in B. Werlen (ed) Global Sustainability, London: Springer, pp 89–106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Weiss, C. (1979) The many meanings of research utilization, Public Administration Review, 39: 426–31. doi: 10.2307/3109916

  • Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O. and Renn, O. (2011) Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners’ perspectives, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 43(11), 2688–704. doi: 10.1068/a44161

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wickson, F., Carew, A. and Russell, A. (2006) Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality, Futures, 38(9): 1046–59. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Williams, K. (2020) Playing the fields: theorizing research impact and its assessment, Research Evaluation, 29(2): 191–202. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvaa001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wæraas, A. and Moar, M. (2015) Organizational Reputation in the Public Sector, London: Routledge.

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary_AppendixS1.docx (DOC 41 KB)
Helena Seibicke University of Oslo, Norway

Search for other papers by Helena Seibicke in
Current site
Google Scholar Close

helena.seibicke@stv.uio.no

Content Metrics

May 2022 onwards Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 2751 1570 430
Full Text Views 281 136 6
PDF Downloads 297 155 3

Altmetrics

Dimensions

Cover Policy & Politics
Policy & Politics
Advancing knowledge in public and social policy