Knowledge Management

Knowledge for Policy Processes

Policy decisions consist of a constellation of normative, empirical, and practical judgments. Knowledge management facilitates the decision-making process by generating the normative and empirical bases from which policy decisions can be made. There are two reasons for doing so: reducing uncertainty (a shortage of information) and reducing ambiguity (disagreement about the interpretation of information). For example, to convince political principals and the public, stakeholders and officials involved in a policy process usually want to know the possible effects of a proposal through studies such as cost-benefit analyses and impact assessments. Important aspects of knowledge management are

• formulating the research questions and selecting the knowledge producer;
• guaranteeing the quality and the timeliness of the research process, the independence of the researchers and the applicability of the results;
• managing the utilization of knowledge in the policy process.

In today's risk society, the rational underpinning of policy has never been so important and so difficult. Adequate knowledge is often not available, arrives too late, or is not authoritative enough to convince involved actors. C. P. Snow noted in 1964 that the different cultures and logics of the world of science and the world of politics cause major problems. There is the danger of what Liora Salter termed mandated science and science-driven policy or technocracy. Sheila Jasanoff noted that boundary work to define and guard the mutual rights of the domains of science and politics is necessary to safe-guard a healthy distinction between these domains.

Ambiguity is the result of the different frames of reference that actors employ when participating in the policy process. Especially in controversial policy processes, actors do have widely different perceptions about the problem and the desired solutions. More information can politicize discussions because of the different interpretations actors give to it and because actors mobilize contra-expertise. Through the organization of processes of interaction and deliberation between actors with diverging frames, knowledge managers try to reach a process of joint fact-finding or social learning in which stakeholders are stimulated to develop shared images about the problem situation and desirable solutions.

This task of knowledge management focuses on a softer, more subjective, and constructivist interpretation of knowledge. Knowledge is seen as a constantly changing flow of interpretations that is constructed through social interaction and reflection. The main problem for reaching a process of frame reflection is the realization of a safe arena in which actors with highly diverging interests and perceptions are willing to discuss their own frames. Another problem has to do with the result of such a process. This is because the search for support and consensus can result in gray compromises, or what can be termed negotiated nonsense.

...