Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The RIU Model as an Analytical Framework for Scientific Knowledge Transfer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Science Makes the World Go Round

  • 564 Accesses

Abstract

Like the two friends sharing a beer in the first chapter, many researchers in the environmental sciences experience frustration because practical actors do not follow their scientific advice. Conversely, many politicians are frustrated with the naivety of natural scientists regarding the potential for political implementation of their recipes. The widely-assumed incompatibility between science and politics is the starting point for our analysis: We question whether there may be possibilities for successful scientific knowledge transfer in spite of the fact that the types of logic that political and scientific systems use are different.

This chapter has been translated from Mit Wissen bewegen! Erfolgsfaktoren für Wissenstransfer in den Umweltwissenschaften written by Michael Böcher and Max Krott. Copyright © oekom verlag 2013. All Rights Reserved

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Atteslander, P. (1995). Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (8., bearb. Aufl.. ed., Sammlung Göschen; 2100). Berlin {[u.a.]: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, K. (2004). Scientisation vs. civic expertise in environmental governance: Eco-feminist, eco-modern and post-modern responses. Environmental Politics, 13(4), 695–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. (2011). Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Regional Environmental Change, 11(2), 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. (2012). Between tribalism and trust: The IPCC under the. Nature and Culture, 7(2), 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2010). Umsetzung des Konzepts einer modernen Ressortforschung im Geschäftsbereich des BMU (Vol. 39/2010, Umweltbundesamt-Texte). Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2011). Forschungsfeld “Raumbezogene Nachhaltigkeitsforschung” - Stand und Optionen für die Zukunft in Österreich. Göttingen: unpublished Research Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2012). Nachhaltigkeitsforschung in Österreich. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 21(2), 155–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2014a). Mit Wissen bewegen! Erfolgsfaktoren für Wissenstransfer in den Umweltwissenschaften. München: Oekom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2014b). The RIU model as an analytical framework for scientific knowledge transfer—the case of the “decision support system for sustainable forest management within climate change”. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(14), 3641–3656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2009). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation : für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler; mit 87 Tabellen (4., überarb (Aufl ed.). Heidelberg: Springer-Medizin-Verl.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., & Jäger, J. (2002). Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: Linking research, assessment and decision making. KSG Faculty Research Working Paper 02-046. Cambridge MA: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • DFG, (German Research Foundation). (1998). Safeguarding good scientific practice. Memorandum. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.

    Google Scholar 

  • DGRC and Chief Executives of the Research Councils. (1998). Safeguarding good scientific practice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dharmawan, B., Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2016). Failure of science-based win-win solution in fishery management: Learnings from Segara Anakan Waters. Central Java, Indonesia. under review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, S. (1996). Public participation in environmental policy: Considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Understanding of Science, 5(3), 183–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (2001). Toward a “best practice” of constructing “serviceable truths”. In M. Hisschemöller, R. Hoppe, W. N. Dunn & J. R. Ravetz (Eds.), Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. Policy Studies Review Annual, 12, (pp. 97–118). New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, J., & Böcher, M. (2016). CITES and science: Using the RIU-model to analyze institutionalized scientific policy advice in Germany for the case of ivory trade. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: From ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch : Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kromrey, H. (2000). Empirische Sozialforschung : Modelle und Methoden der standardisierten Datenerhebung und Datenauswertung (9., korrigierte Aufl.. ed., Utb, 1040). Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krott, M. (2012). Value and risks of the use of analytical theory in science for forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics, 16, 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNie, E. C. (2007). Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(1), 17–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, D. W., & Alcock, D. (2004). Science, scientists, and the policy process: Lessons from Global environmental assessments for the Northwest forest plan. In K. Arabas, & J Bowersox (Eds.), Forest futures. Science, politics, and policy for the next century (pp. 95–111). Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moll, P., & Zander, U. (2006). Managing the interface. From knowledge to action in global change and sustainability science. München: oekom-Verl.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Rommel, F. (1984). Sozialwissenschaftliche Politik-Beratung - Probleme und Perspektiven. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 32(B25–84), 26–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagasaka, K., Böcher, M., & Krott, M. (2016). Science-policy interaction: Who does what? Case of the forest and forestry revitalisation plan in Japan. under review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (2003). Sozialwissenschaftliche Politikberatung: Gesellschaftliche Anforderungen und gelebte Praxis. TA-Informationen(1), 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A, Jr. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnell, R., Hill, P. B., & Esser, E. (2008). Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (8., unveränd. Aufl.. ed.). München {[u.a.]: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science, G. O. F. (2010). The government chief scientific adviser’s guidelines on the use of scientific and engineering advice in policy making. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevanov, M., Böcher, M., Krott, M., Krajter, S., Vuletic, D., & Orlovic, S. (2013). The research, integration and utilization (RIU) model as analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research institutes in Serbia and Croatia. Forest Policy and Economics, 37, 20–28. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2013.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topçu, S. (2008). Confronting nuclear risks: Counter-expertise as politics within the French nuclear energy debate. Nature and Culture, 3(2), 225–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ugolini, F., Massetti, L., Sanesi, G., & Pearlmutter, D. (2015). Knowledge transfer between stakeholders in the field of urban forestry and green infrastructure: Results of a European survey. Land Use Policy, 49, 365–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (1999). Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Michael Böcher & Max Krott

Authors
  1. Michael Böcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Max Krott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Böcher .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Böcher, M., Krott, M. (2016). The RIU Model as an Analytical Framework for Scientific Knowledge Transfer. In: Science Makes the World Go Round. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34079-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation