oru.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Alternative names
Publications (10 of 26) Show all publications
Gustafsson, K. M. & Lidskog, R. (2018). Boundary organizations and environmental governance: Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development. Climate Risk Management, 19, 1-11
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Boundary organizations and environmental governance: Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development
2018 (English)In: Climate Risk Management, E-ISSN 2212-0963, Vol. 19, p. 1-11Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The concept boundary organization has been introduced to identify and explain a specific way of organizing the interface between science and policy. Although the original meaning of the concept has been criticized, the term has come to be frequently used in studies of knowledge transfer and science-policy relations. This usage constitutes the reason for this paper, which investigates how the concept of boundary organization has come to be used and defined and explores its contribution to the discussion of the organization of the science-policy interplay. The analysis finds that despite its spread and usage, the concept boundary organization does not refer to any specific form of organization and does not per se give any guidance about how to organize science-policy interplay. Instead, boundary organization is mainly used as an empirical label when studying the governance of expertise and the management of science-policy interfaces. This finding is also true for studies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which describe that organization as a boundary organization without saying anything about what that label means in terms of institutional design and practical implications. However, to label an organization as a boundary organization nevertheless works performatively; it shapes an organization’s identity, may provide legitimacy, and can also stabilize the interactions between it and other organizations. Therefore, boundary organization is an important concept, but primarily as a way to facilitate interaction. Thus, the focus of research should be on analyzing how the concept is used and what its implications are for the organization studied.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2018
Keywords
Boundary organization; Science-policy interface; Institutional design; Hybrid management; IPCC
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-62918 (URN)10.1016/j.crm.2017.11.001 (DOI)2-s2.0-85036504015 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Available from: 2017-12-01 Created: 2017-12-01 Last updated: 2018-03-15Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M. & Lidskog, R. (2018). Organizing international experts: IPBES’s efforts to gain epistemic authority. Environmental Sociology
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Organizing international experts: IPBES’s efforts to gain epistemic authority
2018 (English)In: Environmental Sociology, ISSN 2325-1042Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

What role do organizational preconditions play in the constitution of expertise? This is the guiding question for this paper, which studies how expertise is shaped in the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). By organizing the world’s experts on biodiversity, IPBES sets out to produce policy-relevant knowledge. However, in contrast to many other international expert bodies such as the IPCC, IPBES assesses not only scientific knowledge, but also other forms of knowledge, including indigenous and local knowledge. In light of IPBES’s ambition to become an epistemic authority by synthesizing heterogeneous knowledge forms, it is of great interest to investigate how this expertise is constructed. What does ‘expertise’ mean for IPBES, and how are experts selected? Based on documents studies, this study explores the organizational structure through which IPBES assesses and selects experts. The analysis finds that the construction of expertise involves scientific as well as political dimensions. In the conclusions, problems are raised that are related to the outcome of this process and may threaten the epistemic authority of IPBES.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Routledge, 2018
Keywords
Expertise, epistemic authority, institutional design, IPBES, science–policy interaction
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-66700 (URN)10.1080/23251042.2018.1463488 (DOI)
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas
Available from: 2018-04-23 Created: 2018-04-23 Last updated: 2018-04-24Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M. (2018). Producing expertise: the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services’ socialisation of young scholars. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 15(1), 21-39
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Producing expertise: the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services’ socialisation of young scholars
2018 (English)In: Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, ISSN 1943-815X, E-ISSN 1943-8168, Vol. 15, no 1, p. 21-39Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Expert organisations, such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services (IPBES), have become increasingly important in global, regional, and local efforts to manage current environmental challenges. As producers of environmental knowledge assessments, these expert organisations are epistemic authorities in their field of expertise. To achieve and maintain epistemic authority, expert organisations constantly need to reproduce and develop their expertise. By using the first cohort of IPBES’s fellowship program as a case study, the current paper examines the production of expertise and the socialisation of new experts into expert organisations. The paper also examines the importance of these socialisation processes in the institutionalisation of expert organisations. By analyzing interviews, observations, and documents, the current study explores the expected goals, the performance, and the results of the socialisation. The study shows how the fellows learned and acquired new roles and norms. The study also shows that whoever controls the socialisation process also control the production of expertise and the institutionalisation of the expert organisation.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis Group, 2018
Keywords
Expert organisation; young scholars; socialisation; expertise; institutionalisation
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology) Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-65075 (URN)10.1080/1943815X.2018.1439509 (DOI)000425717000001 ()
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas
Available from: 2018-02-20 Created: 2018-02-20 Last updated: 2018-03-12Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M. (2017). Narrating the Monarch Butterfly: Managing Knowledge Complexity and Uncertainty in Coproduction of a Collective Narrative and Public Discourse. Science communication, 39(4), 492-519
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Narrating the Monarch Butterfly: Managing Knowledge Complexity and Uncertainty in Coproduction of a Collective Narrative and Public Discourse
2017 (English)In: Science communication, ISSN 1075-5470, E-ISSN 1552-8545, Vol. 39, no 4, p. 492-519Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In January 2014, the monarch butterfly reached North American political agendas due to reports of a long-term population decline. Requests were made for reliable descriptions of what was known about the butterfly, its population and migration, and the actions needed to protect it. This article studies the construction of the collective narrative that has come to dominate the public discourse on the butterfly. The analysis demonstrates how complexity and uncertainty in monarch knowledge have been managed through a process of coproduction, where focus has been on emphasizing knowledge certainty by portraying science and conservation as two separate but dependent social spheres.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2017
Keywords
coproduction of knowledge, collective narrative, knowledge complexity, uncertainty, monarch butterfly
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Research subject
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-59052 (URN)10.1177/1075547017719548 (DOI)000406556100004 ()2-s2.0-85026304682 (Scopus ID)
Note

Funding Agency:

Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future Academic Venture Fund, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Available from: 2017-08-07 Created: 2017-08-07 Last updated: 2017-10-18Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M., Wolf, S. A. & Agrawal, A. A. (2017). Science-Policy-Practice Interfaces: Emergent knowledge and monarch butterfly conservation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(6), 521-533
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Science-Policy-Practice Interfaces: Emergent knowledge and monarch butterfly conservation
2017 (English)In: Environmental Policy and Governance, ISSN 1756-932X, E-ISSN 1756-9338, Vol. 27, no 6, p. 521-533Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

We study how knowledge is produced at the intersection of science, environmental policy and public engagement. Based on analysis of monarch butterfly conservation, we critically evaluate models of knowledge production. The monarch butterfly and its migration have engaged science and enchanted people for over a century, and current threats to monarchs catalyze debates and actions. This paper traces the historical development of knowledge regarding (i) long-term monarch population trends, (ii) the monarch’s dependence on a particular food plant, the milk-weed, and (iii) the monarch as a pollinator. Our analysis indicates that knowledge production and science–policy–practice interfaces cannot be satisfactorily understood through reference to the classical linear model and more recent conceptions of relationally produced knowledge (i.e. co-production). We identify powerful and sometimes contradictory knowledge claims that emerge from unmediated interactions among scientists, advocates, policy makers and diverse publics. The emergent model complements existing models of knowledge production, thereby expanding the conceptual foundation available for making sense of science–policy–practice interfaces.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2017
Keywords
knowledge production; social change; emergent knowledge; citizen science; milkweed; monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-62178 (URN)10.1002/eet.1792 (DOI)000418257500002 ()
Note

Funding Agency:

Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future at Cornell University, USA 

Available from: 2017-11-07 Created: 2017-11-07 Last updated: 2018-01-25Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M. (2017). The importance of boundaries: Boundary work in IPBES. In: : . Paper presented at 13th Conference of the European Sociological Association (ESA 2017), (Un)Making Europe: Capitalism, Solidarities, Subjectivities, Athens, Greece, August 29 - September 1, 2017.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The importance of boundaries: Boundary work in IPBES
2017 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Expert organizations in nature conservation are often described as boundary organizations that facilitate science-policy interfaces. Besides the boundary between science and policy, boundary organizations need to manage other social boundaries, such as between different knowledge forms and between different categories of actors. In order to shape credible, legitimate, and policy relevant knowledge a boundary organization has to make use of competences from both sides of these boundaries. However, this boundary management is to a large extent concealed for those external to it. Focusing the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this study explores how boundaries are created and managed, as well as how they become important in order to shape credible, legitimate, and policy relevant knowledge. In particular, three boundaries are analyzed: between science and policy, between scientific knowledge and indigenous and local knowledge, and between senior and young experts. Three questions are central; how are boundaries created and managed in the process of knowledge production?; how does boundary work on different boundaries in the same organization intersect and influence one another?;  how is boundary work important, and what role does it play for the production of policy relevant knowledge? The empirical material consists of official documents from IPBES and interviews with IPBES fellows. By showing how different boundaries intersect in the construction of expert knowledge, this study deepens the understanding of the preconditions for expert-based policy recommendations in nature conservation.

National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-63007 (URN)
Conference
13th Conference of the European Sociological Association (ESA 2017), (Un)Making Europe: Capitalism, Solidarities, Subjectivities, Athens, Greece, August 29 - September 1, 2017
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Available from: 2017-12-07 Created: 2017-12-07 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M. (2016). Organizing experts: IPBES and the construction of epistemic authority. In: : . Paper presented at 4S/EASST Conference BCN-2016. Science + technology by other means, Barcelona, Spain, August 31 - September 3, 2016.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Organizing experts: IPBES and the construction of epistemic authority
2016 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

What role organizational preconditions play for the constitution of expertise and the construction of epistemic authority? This is the guiding question for this paper, which studies how expertise is shaped in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The IPBES has been described as an organizational blue print of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By organizing the world’s experts on biodiversity, IPBES set out to produce policy-relevant knowledge. However, while IPCC is delimited to organize scientific knowledge, IPBES also acknowledges the importance to find ways to synthetize different knowledge forms, including indigenous and local knowledges. Thus, for IPBES, policy-relevant knowledge is created through the enrolment of fundamentally different knowledge practices and multiple forms of experts.

In the light of IPBES’s ambitions to become an epistemic authority through synthetization of heterogeneous knowledge forms, we need to revisit the classic questions of who is an expert and its relation to epistemic authority. What does expert mean for IPBES and how does the expert contribute shape the epistemic authority of the IPBES?

Based on a combination of documents and interviews, this study explores the organizational structure of IPBES through which expertise are determined and experts enrolled. Experts and expertise has previously been understood as either created relationally, or as being qualities possible to acquire. However, the result of this study shows how expertise and epistemological authority also have important organizational preconditions. IPBES’s institutional design is pivotal in the making of expertise and the shaping of the epistemic authority of IPBES.

National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Research subject
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-52649 (URN)
Conference
4S/EASST Conference BCN-2016. Science + technology by other means, Barcelona, Spain, August 31 - September 3, 2016
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Available from: 2016-09-28 Created: 2016-09-28 Last updated: 2017-10-17Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M. (2016). Reproducing expertise: The role of young scholars in IPBES’s capacity building efforts. In: 3rd ISA Forum of Sociology: Book of abstracts. Paper presented at 3rd ISA Forum of Sociology. The Futures We Want: Global Sociology and the Struggles for a Better World, Vienna, Austria, July 10-14, 2016 (pp. 278-279).
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Reproducing expertise: The role of young scholars in IPBES’s capacity building efforts
2016 (English)In: 3rd ISA Forum of Sociology: Book of abstracts, 2016, p. 278-279Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Being an expert organization in the making, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) faces the challenge to create an organisation which is able to facilitate a dialogue between science and policy today, and to remain credible, relevant, and legitimate tomorrow. In this, how do IPBES work to recruit and reproduce expertise needed for delivering assessments? How is new researchers socialized and integrated into the expert organizations’ epistemic perspective and social practices? What function does reproducing expertise have in the institutionalization of expert organizations? These questions are central for this paper, which analyze IPBES’s pilot fellowship program for young scholars.

The fellowship program was launched early 2015 with the explicit aim to integrate young scholars in the Platform’s regional and sub-regional assessment processes, thereby strengthening its capacity and knowledge foundations. The ambition is that the program will be expanded to eventually “create a pool of competent professionals able to carry forward the Platform agenda”. The participating young scholars will have a unique position and role in the making of IPBES. Participating in the program implies that they will have to balance (i) the expectations of having both a contributory and a learning position; and (ii) the commitment to work pro bono (without any economic compensation) in an assessment processes with keeping engagement with home institutions.

Through a combined analysis of documents and interviews with IPBES representatives involved in the fellowship program, this study explores this program, in particular what capacities IPBES are looking for and what role the young scholars play in the assessment process as well as for IPBES general development. The analysis finds that there are both benefits and risks attached to the involvement of young scholars in the assessment process. By way of conclusion, some general remarks on the conditions of recruiting and socializing new expertise is raised.

National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Research subject
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-52652 (URN)
Conference
3rd ISA Forum of Sociology. The Futures We Want: Global Sociology and the Struggles for a Better World, Vienna, Austria, July 10-14, 2016
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Available from: 2016-09-28 Created: 2016-09-28 Last updated: 2017-10-17Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M. (2015). Latest News on the Monarch Butterfly [Review]. BioScience, 65(12), 1190-1192
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Latest News on the Monarch Butterfly
2015 (English)In: BioScience, ISSN 0006-3568, E-ISSN 1525-3244, Vol. 65, no 12, p. 1190-1192Article, book review (Other academic) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University Press, 2015
National Category
Sociology
Research subject
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-46133 (URN)10.1093/biosci/biv145 (DOI)
Note

Monarchs in a Changing World: Biology and Conservation of an Iconic Butterfly. Karen S. Oberhauser, Kelly R. Nail, and Sonia Altizer, eds. Comstock Publishing Associates, 2015. 352 pp., illus. $35.00 (ISBN: 9780801453151).

Available from: 2015-10-16 Created: 2015-10-16 Last updated: 2017-12-01Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M. (2015). Narrating on the fly: a case study of the monarch butterfly and the management of scientific ambiguity, complexity, and uncertainty. In: : . Paper presented at 12th Conference of the European Sociological Association (ESA), Differences, Inequalities and Sociological Imagination, Prague, Czech Republic, August 25-28, 2015. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Narrating on the fly: a case study of the monarch butterfly and the management of scientific ambiguity, complexity, and uncertainty
2015 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

To translate scientific knowledge into actions in social practices outside of science has been highlighted as one of the biggest challenges in environmental conservation. What has been presented as a key in this process is to balance between the need of new knowledge to explain details of nature’s complexity and the need to simplify the complexity to make it manageable, a balance that is supposed to contribute to transform knowing into doing. As this challenge is faced to meet the need of science based environmental decisions, it becomes more and more important to also ask the question of how this translation is done, this to understand what consequences it brings to what is, and could be, known and done.

By using the case of themonarch butterfly, this study provides knowledge of how the translation of knowledge between different social settings, such as science, citizen science, and policy, are being executed in an ongoing scientific and policy discussion. The study combines document studies with an interview study including scientists, citizen scientists, and ENGO representatives, all positioned in the center(s) of the monarch community. The analysis shows how a strong and engaging narrative are being constructed of the monarch butterfly by balancing detailed knowledge with general descriptions, inclusion and common knowledge with particularities and expertise, and consensus with conflicts.

The study shows how scientific ambiguity, complexity, and uncertainty are managed throughout the process of trying to translate knowing into doing, findings of importance to environmental conservation as well as to scientific communication more generally

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 2015
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Research subject
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-46103 (URN)978-80-7330-272-6 (ISBN)
Conference
12th Conference of the European Sociological Association (ESA), Differences, Inequalities and Sociological Imagination, Prague, Czech Republic, August 25-28, 2015
Available from: 2015-10-15 Created: 2015-10-15 Last updated: 2018-03-06Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-1495-8346

Search in DiVA

Show all publications