Expertise under uncertainty: Comparing policy expert platforms at the global climate–health nexus

IF 2.1 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Holger Straßheim
{"title":"Expertise under uncertainty: Comparing policy expert platforms at the global climate–health nexus","authors":"Holger Straßheim","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>This paper centres on expert platforms at the nexus between global climate policies and public health. Policy nexus problems have been associated with fragmentation and unclear authority. At the core, however, seem to be uncertainties about the nature of these problems and even about the nature of the nexus itself. The paper focuses on an especially rich ecosystem of policy expert platforms that have emerged at the climate–health nexus over the past decade. It outlines a typology and presents a comparison of selected policy expert platforms in terms of how they deal with these nexus uncertainties. It is argued that these platforms have developed various ways of interlinking science and policy. Insights on contradictions and controversies resulting from these ‘politico-epistemic logics’ are discussed. Mapping the nexus may inspire current research on political and epistemic uncertainty. It may also be a source of practical inspiration for developing forms of expertise beyond the standards of evidence-based policy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Points for practitioners</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>The landscape of advisory arrangements at the nexus may be a source of practical inspiration for developing forms of expertise beyond the standards of evidence-based policy.</li>\n \n <li>A commonality across various platforms is the acceptance of uncertainty as a resource that can be used to make knowledge more robust and to keep open multiple pathways.</li>\n \n <li>Types of policy expert platforms are associated with specific conflicts and tensions. Being aware of them might be helpful to deal with contradictory expectations and to avoid disappointment.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"83 2","pages":"173-191"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8500.12618","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12618","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper centres on expert platforms at the nexus between global climate policies and public health. Policy nexus problems have been associated with fragmentation and unclear authority. At the core, however, seem to be uncertainties about the nature of these problems and even about the nature of the nexus itself. The paper focuses on an especially rich ecosystem of policy expert platforms that have emerged at the climate–health nexus over the past decade. It outlines a typology and presents a comparison of selected policy expert platforms in terms of how they deal with these nexus uncertainties. It is argued that these platforms have developed various ways of interlinking science and policy. Insights on contradictions and controversies resulting from these ‘politico-epistemic logics’ are discussed. Mapping the nexus may inspire current research on political and epistemic uncertainty. It may also be a source of practical inspiration for developing forms of expertise beyond the standards of evidence-based policy.

Points for practitioners

  • The landscape of advisory arrangements at the nexus may be a source of practical inspiration for developing forms of expertise beyond the standards of evidence-based policy.
  • A commonality across various platforms is the acceptance of uncertainty as a resource that can be used to make knowledge more robust and to keep open multiple pathways.
  • Types of policy expert platforms are associated with specific conflicts and tensions. Being aware of them might be helpful to deal with contradictory expectations and to avoid disappointment.

Abstract Image

不确定性下的专业知识:比较全球气候-健康关系中的政策专家平台
本文以全球气候政策与公共卫生之间关系的专家平台为中心。政策联系问题与分裂和权力不明确有关。然而,其核心似乎是这些问题的性质,甚至是关系本身的性质的不确定性。这篇论文关注的是过去十年在气候健康关系中出现的一个特别丰富的政策专家平台生态系统。它概述了一种类型,并在如何处理这些关系不确定性方面对选定的政策专家平台进行了比较。有人认为,这些平台已经发展出各种将科学与政策联系起来的方式。对这些“政治认知逻辑”所产生的矛盾和争议的见解进行了讨论。绘制这种联系可能会激发当前对政治和认知不确定性的研究。它也可能成为发展超越循证政策标准的各种专门知识的实际灵感来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信