The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: the practitioners’ perspectives
Open accessAbstract
Cultivating a more dynamic relationship between science and policy is essential for responding to complex social challenges such as sustainability. One approach to doing so is to "span the boundaries" between science and decision making and create a more comprehensive and inclusive knowledge exchange process. The exact definition and role of boundary spanning, however, can be nebulous. Indeed, boundary spanning often gets conflated and confused with other approaches to connecting science and policy, such as science communication, applied science, and advocacy, which can hinder progress in the field of boundary spanning. To help overcome this, in this perspective, we present the outcomes from a recent workshop of boundary-spanning practitioners gathered to (1) articulate a definition of what it means to work at this interface ("boundary spanning") and the types of activities it encompasses; (2) present a value proposition of these efforts to build better relationships between science and policy; and (3) identify opportunities to more effectively mainstream boundary-spanning activities. Drawing on our collective experiences, we suggest that boundary spanning has the potential to increase the efficiency by which useful research is produced, foster the capacity to absorb new evidence and perspectives into sustainability decision-making, enhance research relevance for societal challenges, and open new policy windows. We provide examples from our work that illustrate this potential. By offering these propositions for the value of boundary spanning, we hope to encourage a more robust discussion of how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making for sustainability.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Science for the post-normal age
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993) · Futures · doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-l · Cited by 4,255
Knowledge systems for sustainable development
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jäger, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100 · Cited by 3,660
(2004) · doi:10.4324/9780203413845 · Cited by 2,963
States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order
Jasanoff, S. (2004) · Cited by 2,942
Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J. J., Schellnhuber, H. J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N. M., et al. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1059386 · Cited by 2,551
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011) · The Sociological Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x · Cited by 2,340
The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics
Pielke, Jr. (2007) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818110 · Cited by 2,020 · cited 1×
“…knowledge exchange and dedicating time to scanning relevant scientific research and policy issues, boundary spanners can help track current and emerging science needs in decisionmaking to help the scientific community focus research efforts accordingly (McNie 2007; Sarewitz and Pielke 2007).”
BackgroundBoundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure
Aldrich, H. E., & Herker, D. (1977) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1977.4409044 · Cited by 1,574
Boundary spanning roles and organization structure
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257905 · Cited by 1,518
Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction
Guston, D. H. (2001) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/016224390102600401 · Cited by 1,474
Cited by
Piczak, M. L., Anderton, R., Cartwright, L. A., Little, D., MacPherson, G., Matos, L., McDonald, K., Portiss, R., Riehl, M., Sciscione, T., et al. (2022) · Ecological Solutions and Evidence · doi:10.1002/2688-8319.12187 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Bednarek, A. T., Wyborn, C., Cvitanovic, C., Meyer, R., Colvin, R. M., Addison, P. F. E., Close, S. L., Curran, K., Farooque, M., Goldman, E., Hart, D., Mannix, H., McGreavy, B., Parris, A., Posner, S., Robinson, C., Ryan, M., & Leith, P.
- Venue
- Sustainability Science
- Published
- 2018-03-27
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1175-1183
- ISSN
- 1862-4057 (ISSN-L)
- 1862-4065
- OpenAlex
- W2794948046
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 40.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: the practitioners’ perspectives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9
- The paper
- Bednarek, A. T., Wyborn, C., Cvitanovic, C., Meyer, R., Colvin, R. M., Addison, P. F. E., Close, S. L., Curran, K., Farooque, M., Goldman, E., Hart, D., Mannix, H., McGreavy, B., Parris, A., Posner, S., Robinson, C., Ryan, M., & Leith, P. (2018). Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: the practitioners’ perspectives. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.