Table 2 Focus and methodology as well as relationship to stakeholders and political context of a selected few science-policy interfaces
From: Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning
Research studies (including meta-studies, pre-assess-ments, etc.) | Individual or small groups of scientific advisors or consultants | Permanent scientific advisory bodies (not providing larger-scale assessments) | Standardized impact assessments | Conventional medium-scale to large-scale integrated scientific assessments | Integrated scientific assessments in the spirit of the PEM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Focus and methodology | ||||||
Scope of literature | Various, depending on type of study | Most relevant literature; sometimes synthesis of additional literature. | Most relevant literature; sometimes synthesis of additional literature. | Synthesis of most relevant literature | Relatively comprehensive synthesis of literature | Relatively comprehensive synthesis of literature |
Policy options / alternatives explored | One or a few key options (if policy analysis is done at all) | One or a few key options (policy analysis is often done) | High variation, sometimes several key options explored | Exploring a few (pre-determined) options | Exploring several options (if policy analysis is done at all) | Many alternative pathways, options, and diverse practical implications |
Governance levels & other complexities considered | rather few | High variation, often only a few; sometimes analysis of interdependencies | High variation, often a few, sometimes with analysis of interdependencies | Only a few, sometimes with analysis of interdependencies | High variation, often multiple, and with analysis of interdependencies | Several, and with extensive analysis of interdependencies |
Transparency of levels of confi-dence and agreement | Some | High variation, sometimes only little | High variation, sometimes high | Moderate to high | High variation; moderate to very high | Very high |
Review process | Double-blind formalized peer review | High variation, often no external peer-review | Usually extensive internal review processes | Usually formalized internal review processes | High variation, often a larger group of external reviewers sometimes including policy makers and other stakeholders | Large-scale, formalized, multi-stage review process including policy makers and other stakeholders |
Relationship to stakeholders and political context | ||||||
Mandate from governing bodies | Very rarely | Rarely | Nearly always | Usually | Mostly | Mostly |
Interaction with stakeholders (beyond scientists) | If at all, usually only little (and informally, i.e. bilateral conversations) | High variation, sometimes little (informally, or surveys/ interviews) | Usually formalized interaction with particular governmental bodies | Usually formalized interaction with particular governmental bodies | Very often, and increasingly observed through multiple formats and with many groups | Extensive, and through multiple formats; many diverse groups |
Inclusion of divergent viewpoints | If at all, overview of major divergent viewpoints; sometimes a few scenarios | Sometimes overview of major divergent viewpoints; sometimes a few scenarios | Often the committee itself represents divergent views; sometimes scenario exploration | Exploration of a few scenarios related to pre-selected policy alternatives | Overview and exploration of several divergent viewpoints, sometimes through co-produced scenarios | Exploration of many relevant divergent viewpoints, mostly through co-produced scenarios |
Outreach and communication | Little (beyond scientific community) | Often extensive efforts | Mostly extensive efforts | Moderate | Often extensive efforts | Mostly extensive efforts |
