Cumulating evidence in environmental governance, policy and planning research: towards a research reform agenda
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Standard
In: Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, Vol. 22, No. 5, 02.09.2020, p. 667-681.
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Cumulating evidence in environmental governance, policy and planning research: towards a research reform agenda
AU - Newig, Jens
AU - Rose, Michael
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2020/9/2
Y1 - 2020/9/2
N2 - This paper suggests that the field of environmental governance, policy and planning (EGPP) may be seen as an (emerging) scientific field, which can be characterised as ‘fragmented adhocracy’, explaining the widespread failure to produce robust and cumulative knowledge. We argue that in order to produce reliable knowledge and to become credible in the realm of policy and planning praxis, EGPP research needs a major reform impetus. To this end, we propose three areas for reform, which cover (1) an agreed canon of definitions shared within the community, while being open to reinterpretations and novel concepts; (2) the stronger use of meta-analytical methods such as the case survey methodology, or systematic reviews, to cumulate published case-based evidence; (3) a systematic recognition of the institutional, political and social context of governance interventions, which becomes increasingly important to the extent that meta-analyses reveal general patterns and trends which nonetheless vary with context. For each agenda item, we briefly formulate the motivating problem and an ideal-typical vision to strive for, and sketch out the pragmatic, epistemological and normative limits to its realisation. We close with overall reflections on our research reform agenda and suggest pathways for implementation.
AB - This paper suggests that the field of environmental governance, policy and planning (EGPP) may be seen as an (emerging) scientific field, which can be characterised as ‘fragmented adhocracy’, explaining the widespread failure to produce robust and cumulative knowledge. We argue that in order to produce reliable knowledge and to become credible in the realm of policy and planning praxis, EGPP research needs a major reform impetus. To this end, we propose three areas for reform, which cover (1) an agreed canon of definitions shared within the community, while being open to reinterpretations and novel concepts; (2) the stronger use of meta-analytical methods such as the case survey methodology, or systematic reviews, to cumulate published case-based evidence; (3) a systematic recognition of the institutional, political and social context of governance interventions, which becomes increasingly important to the extent that meta-analyses reveal general patterns and trends which nonetheless vary with context. For each agenda item, we briefly formulate the motivating problem and an ideal-typical vision to strive for, and sketch out the pragmatic, epistemological and normative limits to its realisation. We close with overall reflections on our research reform agenda and suggest pathways for implementation.
KW - Environmental Governance
KW - Scientific field
KW - fragmented adhocracy
KW - Knowledge cumulation
KW - meta-analysis
KW - case survey method
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85085377513&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/1523908X.2020.1767551
DO - 10.1080/1523908X.2020.1767551
M3 - Journal articles
VL - 22
SP - 667
EP - 681
JO - Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning
JF - Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning
SN - 1523-908X
IS - 5
ER -