在咨询程序正规化的两难境地中摸索前行:国际海洋考察理事会(ICES)从业人员的观点

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Kåre Nolde Nielsen , Sebastian Linke , Petter Holm
{"title":"在咨询程序正规化的两难境地中摸索前行:国际海洋考察理事会(ICES)从业人员的观点","authors":"Kåre Nolde Nielsen ,&nbsp;Sebastian Linke ,&nbsp;Petter Holm","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103833","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Formalization is an important aspect of the provision of scientific advice, which has received limited scholarly attention, and needs further conceptualization. Drawing on Adler and Bory’s distinction between enabling and coercive formalization, we analyze advisory processes in a boundary organization. We do so with a case study of the provision of annual fisheries advice by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Based on interviews, we describe advantages and drawbacks of formalization in the views of ICES practitioners. Our findings highlight the importance of formalization and reveals ongoing challenges with navigating trade-offs between formalization and <em>ad hoc</em> adaptation. Despite a high level of formalization, respondents generally perceive that formalization approaches in ICES provide suitable guidance for the processes of stock assessment and advice formulation. However, they also emphasize the needs for deviations from standard procedures, justified with reference to peculiarities of situations. Lessons from ICES’ approach to formalization can be of use for other advisory contexts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"160 ","pages":"Article 103833"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124001679/pdfft?md5=2d0716e8f37608b9e55b4541a16bae8f&pid=1-s2.0-S1462901124001679-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Navigating dilemmas with formalization of advisory processes: Views of practitioners in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)\",\"authors\":\"Kåre Nolde Nielsen ,&nbsp;Sebastian Linke ,&nbsp;Petter Holm\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103833\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Formalization is an important aspect of the provision of scientific advice, which has received limited scholarly attention, and needs further conceptualization. Drawing on Adler and Bory’s distinction between enabling and coercive formalization, we analyze advisory processes in a boundary organization. We do so with a case study of the provision of annual fisheries advice by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Based on interviews, we describe advantages and drawbacks of formalization in the views of ICES practitioners. Our findings highlight the importance of formalization and reveals ongoing challenges with navigating trade-offs between formalization and <em>ad hoc</em> adaptation. Despite a high level of formalization, respondents generally perceive that formalization approaches in ICES provide suitable guidance for the processes of stock assessment and advice formulation. However, they also emphasize the needs for deviations from standard procedures, justified with reference to peculiarities of situations. Lessons from ICES’ approach to formalization can be of use for other advisory contexts.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"160 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103833\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124001679/pdfft?md5=2d0716e8f37608b9e55b4541a16bae8f&pid=1-s2.0-S1462901124001679-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124001679\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124001679","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

形式化是提供科学建议的一个重要方面,但学术界对其关注有限,需要进一步概念化。我们借鉴阿德勒和博里(Adler and Bory)对授权型正规化和强制型正规化的区分,分析了边界组织中的咨询过程。为此,我们对国际海洋考察理事会(ICES)提供年度渔业咨询的情况进行了案例研究。在访谈的基础上,我们描述了国际海洋考察理事会从业人员认为正规化的优点和缺点。我们的研究结果强调了正规化的重要性,并揭示了在正规化和临时适应之间权衡的持续挑战。尽管正规化程度较高,但受访者普遍认为国际海洋考察理事会的正规化方法为鱼量评估和建议制定过程提供了适当的指导。不过,他们也强调,需要根据具体情况偏离标准程序。从国际海洋考察理事会的正规化方法中汲取的经验教训可以为其他咨询工作提供借鉴。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Navigating dilemmas with formalization of advisory processes: Views of practitioners in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)

Formalization is an important aspect of the provision of scientific advice, which has received limited scholarly attention, and needs further conceptualization. Drawing on Adler and Bory’s distinction between enabling and coercive formalization, we analyze advisory processes in a boundary organization. We do so with a case study of the provision of annual fisheries advice by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Based on interviews, we describe advantages and drawbacks of formalization in the views of ICES practitioners. Our findings highlight the importance of formalization and reveals ongoing challenges with navigating trade-offs between formalization and ad hoc adaptation. Despite a high level of formalization, respondents generally perceive that formalization approaches in ICES provide suitable guidance for the processes of stock assessment and advice formulation. However, they also emphasize the needs for deviations from standard procedures, justified with reference to peculiarities of situations. Lessons from ICES’ approach to formalization can be of use for other advisory contexts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
×
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