oru.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Alternative names
Publications (10 of 30) 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)000429589000001 ()2-s2.0-85036504015 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Available from: 2017-12-01 Created: 2017-12-01 Last updated: 2018-11-09Bibliographically approved
Boström, M., Andersson, E., Berg, M., Gustafsson, K. M., Gustavsson, E., Hysing, E., . . . Öhman, J. (2018). Conditions for Transformative Learning for Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Review and Approach. Sustainability, 10(12), Article ID 4479.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Conditions for Transformative Learning for Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Review and Approach
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Sustainability, ISSN 2071-1050, E-ISSN 2071-1050, Vol. 10, no 12, article id 4479Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Continued unsustainability and surpassed planetary boundaries require not only scientific and technological advances, but deep and enduring social and cultural changes. The purpose of this article is to contribute a theoretical approach to understand conditions and constraints for societal change towards sustainable development. In order to break with unsustainable norms, habits, practices, and structures, there is a need for learning for transformation, not only adaption. Based on a critical literature review within the field of learning for sustainable development, our approach is a development of the concept of transformative learning, by integrating three additional dimensions—Institutional Structures, Social Practices, and Conflict Perspectives. This approach acknowledges conflicts on macro, meso, and micro levels, as well as structural and cultural constraints. It contends that transformative learning is processual, interactional, long-term, and cumbersome. It takes place within existing institutions and social practices, while also transcending them. The article adopts an interdisciplinary social science perspective that acknowledges the importance of transformative learning in order for communities, organizations, and individuals to be able to deal with global sustainability problems, acknowledging the societal and personal conflicts involved in such transformation.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
MDPI, 2018
Keywords
conflict, institutional, learning, social change, social practice, structure, transformative
National Category
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-70403 (URN)10.3390/su10124479 (DOI)000455338100145 ()2-s2.0-85057440663 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2018-12-03 Created: 2018-12-03 Last updated: 2019-01-29Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M. & Lidskog, R. (2018). Organizing international experts: IPBES’s efforts to gain epistemic authority. Environmental Sociology, 4(4), 445-456
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Organizing international experts: IPBES’s efforts to gain epistemic authority
2018 (English)In: Environmental Sociology, ISSN 2325-1042, Vol. 4, no 4, p. 445-456Article in journal (Refereed) Published
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)000444089300005 ()2-s2.0-85051704535 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas
Available from: 2018-04-23 Created: 2018-04-23 Last updated: 2018-09-24Bibliographically 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. (2018). Trustworthy scientist - trustworthy knowledge production: Studying IPCC’s introduction of early career scientists as an effort to regain trust. In: : . Paper presented at 2018 Utrecht Conference on Earth System Governance, Utrecht, The Netherlands, November 5-8, 2018.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Trustworthy scientist - trustworthy knowledge production: Studying IPCC’s introduction of early career scientists as an effort to regain trust
2018 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

In the context of increasing doubts about the effectiveness of global environmental assessments, the key strategy  to become trustworthy have for many expert organizations, such as IPCC and IPBES, been to enroll world leading scientists to ‘speak truth to power’. However, trust is gained and trust can be lost. This fact became a reality to IPCC in November 2009 when Climategate broke. From being seen as the most trustworthy expert organization on climate change, IPCC lost its trustworthiness in the eyes of many and was forced to work to regain its trust.

How to become a trustworthy organization is in this study understood as a question about epistemic ideals, legitimate knowledge systems, and science-policy relations. The study use a theoretical framework which combines concepts on knowledge systems and science policy relations. Using this theoretical framework, the study analyses the introduction of early career scientist as an example of IPCC’s efforts to regain trust in the aftermaths of Climategate.

The study aims to analyze IPCC’s introduction of early career scientists in the role of chapter scientist and how it relates to IPCC’s ambitions to create expertise and gain epistemic authority.

During the fifth assessment report, IPCC for the first time officially enrolling early career scientists to assist in the assessment. With this decision, IPCC partly diverted from its previous strategy on how to gain trust (by enrolling world leading scientists). The decision raises questions. If trust is gained by enrolling world leading scientist; why was early career scientists enrolled in IPCC, what role were they supposed to play in the organization as well as in the relation between science and policy, and how could early career scientists contribute in IPCC’s effort to regain trust?

The study is based on documents and interviews. The study shows how the introduction of early career scientists is an example of a changed relation between science and non-science, and an acknowledgment that trust in a positions, such as ‘leading scientist’, does not automatically mean trust in an assessment.

National Category
Sociology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-70230 (URN)
Conference
2018 Utrecht Conference on Earth System Governance, Utrecht, The Netherlands, November 5-8, 2018
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas
Available from: 2018-11-19 Created: 2018-11-19 Last updated: 2018-11-21Bibliographically approved
Gustafsson, K. M. (2018). Why is there early career scientists in IPCC?. In: : . Paper presented at Meetings - Making Science, Technology and Society together (EASST2018), Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, July 25-28, 2018.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Why is there early career scientists in IPCC?
2018 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

For IPCC, the key to create become trustworthy has been to enroll world leading scientists. With AR5 IPCC enrolled early career scientists to assist as chapter scientists. This paper explores the role created for early career scientists and how this role is to be understood in terms of credibility.

National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-68514 (URN)
Conference
Meetings - Making Science, Technology and Society together (EASST2018), Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, July 25-28, 2018
Available from: 2018-08-16 Created: 2018-08-16 Last updated: 2018-08-17Bibliographically 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: 2018-11-09Bibliographically 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: 2018-11-09Bibliographically 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: 2018-11-09Bibliographically 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
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-1495-8346

Search in DiVA

Show all publications