Affiliation:
1. Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology , Tallinn 19086, Estonia
Abstract
Abstract
Science–policy interaction is frequently organized through projects, lauded as flexible and focused administrative solutions for policy learning. However, there is a risk of stifling projects with overly rigid interfaces or, controversially, losing project results amidst the cracks of inter- and intra-organizational cleavages when interfaces are excessively flexible. This article examines how science advisors in Estonian ministries contributed to resolving this controversy through an in-depth case study of an agenda-setting bioeconomy project. The results suggest that the potential of science advisors to provide necessary flexibility is contingent on their position relative to bureaucratic hierarchies and boundary objects.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference76 articles.
1. Dynamics of Expectations in the bioeconomy—Hopes, Disillusionments, and Conflicting Futures;Ahola-Launonen;Science and Public Policy,2022
2. Collaborative Environmental Governance: Achieving Collective Action in Social-ecological Systems;Bodin;Science,2017
3. Exploring the Function and Effectiveness of Knowledge Brokers as Facilitators of Knowledge Translation in Health-related Settings: A Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis;Bornbaum;Implementation Science,2015
4. On Temporary Organizations: A Review, Synthesis and Research Agenda;Burke;Human Relations,2016
5. Unlocking the Process of Collaborative innovation—Combining Mechanisms of Divergence and Convergence;Callens;Public Management Review,2023