{"id":342,"date":"2020-10-16T08:58:57","date_gmt":"2020-10-16T08:58:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kalkinmaguncesi.izka.org.tr\/?p=342"},"modified":"2020-10-16T08:59:37","modified_gmt":"2020-10-16T08:59:37","slug":"the-importance-of-the-science-policy-interface-concept-for-regional-development-agencies-in-turkey","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kalkinmaguncesi.izka.org.tr\/index.php\/2020\/10\/16\/the-importance-of-the-science-policy-interface-concept-for-regional-development-agencies-in-turkey\/","title":{"rendered":"The Importance of the Science-Policy Interface Concept for Regional Development Agencies in Turkey"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Mehmet ERO\u011eLU<\/strong>
Istanbul Technical University – Graduate of the Science, Technology, and Society Master\u2019s Program
eroglumeh@itu.edu.tr<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In recent years, the scientific\nknowledge-based policymaking has gained importance worldwide, especially for\ncomplex issues such as climate change or public health. The inclusion of\nscientific knowledge in the policymaking process requires a robust and\nsustainable relationship between scientific knowledge producers and\npolicymakers. In this article, this relationship is conceptualized as \u201cthe\nscience-policy interface\u201d. The main claim is that introducing, discussing, and\ndeveloping the concept of \u201cthe science-policy interface\u201d would be useful for\nthe regional development agencies in Turkey to enhance their relations with knowledge\nproducers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Source: MacDonald et al. (2015) <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In very general terms, the term\nscience-policy interface refers to social processes between scientists and\npoliticians regarding the exchange and production of knowledge to improve\ndecision-making (Van den Hove, 2007). In this sense, any interaction between\nthe world of science and the world of politics can be considered an interface.\nThat is, science consultancy, science committees, joint conferences and\nworkshops, or the transfer of scientific articles to politicians, are all\nscience-policy interfaces. However, the current literature frequently\nemphasizes that collaborative approaches in producing knowledge, policy, and\naction lead to more effective results (Wall et al., 2017). The basis of these co-production based science-policy\ninterfaces<\/em> is the cooperation of different stakeholders from the design of\nthe activities to their implementation through ongoing interaction. In such\ninterfaces, stakeholders can share their knowledge, experiences, motivations,\nopportunities, resources, potentials, strengths, and weaknesses with each\nother. Therefore, policy-related scientific knowledge might be combined with\nsocial, cultural, and economic conditions to produce usable, acceptable, and\npractical knowledge and action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As mentioned above, uncovering\nand discussing the science-policy interface concept can be particularly useful\nfor development agencies. There are two inter-related reasons for this. The\nfirst is, due to their establishment reasons and missions, development agencies\ncarry out their activities based on evidence. Accordingly, they always need\nscientific knowledge. The second is, during these activities, they often\ncollaborate with knowledge producers. The universities, research centers, and\ntechnoparks in their regions are some examples of the knowledge producers.\nNevertheless, the agencies also cooperate with knowledge producers outside of\ntheir regions. For instance, Izmir Development Agency worked with the\nTechnology Development Foundation of Turkey to prepare \u201cIzmir Eco-efficiency\nStrategy\u201d and conduct \u201cIzmir Eco-efficiency (Clean Production) Program\u201d.\nMoreover, the agencies have the capacity to build a bridge between the local\nscale and the national\/ international scale. Indeed, Izmir Development Agency\ncollaborated with the World Bank in the project \u201cKey Agricultural Product Risk\nAssessment (KAPRA) for the Kucuk Menderes River Basin\u201d. In other words,\ndevelopment agencies establish cross-scale science-policy interfaces while\nturning international and national knowledge into regional and local action.\nThus, being aware of the theoretical and practical dimensions of these\ninterfaces would improve the agencies\u2019 relations with knowledge producers and\nmake their knowledge-based activities more effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ideally, both scientists and\npoliticians acknowledge that cooperation is necessary and indispensable. But,\nin real life, they encounter some problems as soon as they want to work\ntogether. These problems, here referred to as barriers, negatively affect the\nestablishment and effectiveness of science-policy interfaces. Revealing and\nexamining the barriers may be beneficial to work towards possible solutions. For\nthis purpose, some examples of these barriers are given below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Source: The Scientist<\/a> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
  1. Perspective differences:<\/strong> Scientists and policymakers are members of two different epistemic\ncommunities that are based on different norms and criteria, have different\ngoals, and approach concepts, ideas, and situations from different angles\n(Edelenbos et al., 2011; Van Stigt et al., 2015). The conflicts between the two\ngroups may make their cooperation difficult.<\/li>
  2. Scientific uncertainties:<\/strong> Scientific studies always contain some uncertainty, especially on\nissues that are affected by too many factors. The uncertainty of the findings\nand projections may result in that scientific knowledge is not taken seriously\nin the policymaking process.<\/li>
  3. Bounded rationality:<\/strong> Science mainly provides knowledge for rational decision-making\nprocesses. However, decision-making is inherently political and does not always\nact with rationality. Because of \u201cthe bounded rationality\u201d, scientific\nknowledge may be manipulated or completely ignored in the world of politics.<\/li>
  4. The criteria of academic success and the perception of\nacademic reputation:<\/strong> The academy\nmeasures success with traditional criteria such as publishing scientific\narticles, developing academic projects, and participating in conferences.\nAlthough these activities are essential, scholars sometimes refrain from\ncollaborating with non-academic stakeholders by making academic activities\ntheir main, and even only, focus. Furthermore, some scholars believe that\nnon-academic activities would harm their academic reputation.<\/li>
  5. Insufficient time:<\/strong> The above barriers are essentially theoretical problems. However, practical\nissues also affect the establishment or effective operation of science-policy\ninterfaces. For example, both groups might be very busy with their own duties\nand responsibilities and have difficulties in creating extra time for collaboration.<\/li>
  6. Financial management problems:<\/strong> Another practical problem is financial problems.\nKnowledge producers working in science-policy interfaces should receive a\npayment in return for their efforts, knowledge, and time. Yet, there may be\ndisputes between legal regulations on financing between the institutions of\nknowledge producers and policymakers.<\/li>
  7. The scale factor:<\/strong> \u201cThe scale factor\u201d is particularly important for regional development\nagencies. According to the scale factor, on the one hand, if the responsible\narea of development agencies is very small and there are not enough\nstakeholders, it becomes difficult to find relevant stakeholders and establish\nscience-policy interfaces. On the other hand, if the scale is too large and\nthere are too many stakeholders, it becomes challenging to analyze all relevant\nstakeholders and find the most suitable one. The regions that both have\nsufficient stakeholders and are not enormous can be regarded as an ideal scale\nand facilitate the establishment and sustainability of science-policy\ninterfaces (Ero\u011flu, 2020). <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    As stated above, identifying\nand being aware of barriers should not be seen as discouraging, but as the\nfirst step towards overcoming them. In the relevant literature, there are many\nrecommendations to strengthen the relationship between the world of science and\nthe world of policy. Perhaps the most important of these are individuals and\norganizations, often called knowledge brokers (Hering, 2016) or boundary\norganizations (Guston, 1999), working at the intersection of the two groups to\nimprove communication. For instance, since it prepares policy advice reports\nbased on climate science findings, IPCC is often referred to as a boundary\norganization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Nonetheless, development\nagencies have an advantage at this point. They have many experts who have\npreviously received or are currently pursuing a graduate degree. Agency\nexperts\u2019 familiarity with the academy minimizes some of the barriers described\nabove, such as the problems caused by perspective differences or scientific\nuncertainties. Agencies can interact directly with knowledge producers through\ntheir staff without the need for an intermediary. What the agencies need to do\nis to encourage interaction between different stakeholders and create suitable\nenvironments for collaborations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Many of today\u2019s problems, particularly climate change, are so complex and multidimensional that no single actor can deal with alone. Developing effective, sustainable, and holistic policies requires the collaborations of various groups, such as decisionmakers, knowledge producers, non-governmental organizations, and local people. It is more effective and preferable if these collaborations are horizontal in a multilevel governance framework rather than vertical in a rigid hierarchy. For knowledge producers and scientific knowledge to become an active part of this stakeholder network and governance, the science-policy interfaces provide both a theoretical framework and practical benefits. Through these interfaces, the ways of turning scientific knowledge into policies, by also considering political, economic, social, and cultural conditions, can be explored. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n