Professional Documents
Culture Documents
available at www.sciencedirect.com
article info
Published on line 23 May 2011
Keywords:
Knowledge coproduction
Coproduced knowledge
Participation
Network governance
abstract
This article analyzes the process of knowledge co-production between experts, bureaucrats
and stakeholders in two Dutch water management projects. The methods used for coproduction are analyzed, along with the impact of the resulting knowledge on the decisionmaking process. Based on the cases, it is concluded that knowledge co-production between
experts and bureaucrats is not very problematic, because of discipline congruence and
institutionalized relations between the two in Dutch water management. Knowledge coproduction between stakeholders on the one hand and experts and bureaucrats on the other
is more problematic and leads to problems of legitimacy in knowledge production and
decision-making.
# 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1.
Introduction
676
2.
2.1.
677
Table 1 Overview of the differences between expert, bureaucratic and stakeholder knowledge.
Expert knowledge
Bureaucratic knowledge
Stakeholder knowledge
Scientific validity
Positive peer review
and prospects for publication
Social validity
Level of fit with the business,
local experiences and interests
Core business
Policy usefulness
Appropriateness with regard
to standards and warrants of
bureaucracy, and political use
Rule-following behaviour:
bureaucratic practices
Political-administrative
support for proposals
2.2.
Coproduced knowledge: where experts, bureaucrats
and stakeholders meet
Many scholars, mainly those in the social sciences, stress that
knowledge production is a process of social construction
(Latour, 1999; Knorr-Cetina, 1999). In this social construction of
knowledge, the worlds of experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders are combined and become interconnected (Woolgar,
2000). The way in which this connection is organized affects
the legitimacy of the knowledge used in making policy
decisions and thus the legitimacy of decisions. The proper
organization of this connection is stressed in literature on, for
example, joint fact-finding (Ehrmann and Stinson, 1999),
participatory policy analysis (Hoppe, 1999), collaborative
dialogues (Innes and Booher, 1999), collaborative analysis
(Busenberg, 1999), interactive social science (Caswill and
Shove, 2000), interactive knowledge (Lindblom and Cohen,
1979), cogeneration of knowledge (Petts and Brooks, 2006), and
civic science (Backstrand, 2003). Knowledge in these
approaches becomes a serviceable truth: a state of
knowledge that satisfies tests of scientific acceptability and supports
reasoned decision-making, but also assures those exposed to risk that
their interests have not been sacrificed on the altar of an impossible
scientific certainty (Jasanoff, 1990: 250).
Some authors argue that both expert and lay knowledge
should be used in the production of knowledge (Petts and
Brooks, 2006; Rinaudo and Garin, 2005; Yearley, 2000; Petts,
1997). Backstrand (2003) has identified experts, policy-makers
and citizens as relevant knowledge providers. In such an
approach, there is explicit recognition among traditional
decision-makers that others can fruitfully contribute to the
identification of problems and their solutions, especially when
decision stakes or uncertainty about information is high
(Gallopn et al., 2001; Ravetz, 1999). This requires a more open
approach to what constitutes authoritative knowledge and
2.3.
Analytical framework
678
3.
Case descriptions
3.1.
679
680
proposal put forward by the Core Group but did not convince
the authorities and the bureaucrats who informed them (DHV,
2005).
3.2.
4.
681
This section compares and analyzes the two cases on the way
in which knowledge is (co)produced and implemented in the
process. First, an overview table for the two cases is provided.
Second, the cases are discussed in more detail and their main
differences and similarities are highlighted.
4.1.
4.2.
Coproduction of stakeholder, expert and bureaucratic
knowledge
In both cases, experts as well as civil servants and stakeholders provided knowledge that was relevant to the decisionmaking process. The interactions between these different
sources of knowledge differed and were problematic for a
number of reasons. These are discussed in detail below. Table
3 provides a classification of the levels of interaction between
the different sources of knowledge following the analytical
framework.
4.2.1.
Role of stakeholders,
bureaucrats and experts
682
Table 3 Assessment of the coproduction of different sources of knowledge in the two cases.
Cases
Coproduction of
Gouwe Wiericke
Around Arnemuiden
Medium (+/ )
Medium (+/ )
Medium (+/ )
Minor ( )
Minor ( )
Minor ( )
4.2.2.
4.2.3.
5.
Conclusion
6.
Discussion
This research provides a strong indication that the fragmentation of perspectives and values between experts, civil
servants and stakeholders is a strong force and incentive
for a modular and fragmented knowledge process. Visions and
viewpoints of experts, civil servants and stakeholders reflect
their deeply rooted belief systems, ambitions and values (cf.
Rinaudo and Garin, 2005: 287). All the actors involved (experts,
stakeholders, civil servants, and also decision-makers) have
different perspectives on the relevant issues, and different and
opposing interpretations and assumptions are involved. It is
difficult to achieve a body of information that is recognized
and accepted as authoritative and useful for all parties
involved. In both cases, it was shown that experts, bureaucrats
and stakeholders use different norms and criteria for
knowledge production, ranging from scientific validity
(experts), policy usefulness (bureaucrats) and social validity
(stakeholders). These different orientations lead to different
valuing of the relevance of knowledge to be used for
assessment and decision-making. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the three-fold coproduction between experts,
683
references
684