Short abstract

This study compares policy discourses on embryonic intervention technologies in the UK and Japan to examine how scholarly expertise is framed in policymaking. It reveals that notions of legitimacy locally embedded in each country can differently shape scientistic prioritisation of expertise.

Long abstract

Since the introduction of scientific advice into policymaking (Brooks, 1964), there has been a persistent expectation for scientific knowledge to ‘speak truth to power’ (Hoppe, 1999). While science and technology studies (STS) have critically examined the technocratic assumptions underlying this expectation (Beck, 1998; Millstone, 2009; Bijker, 2009), the prioritisation of scientific knowledge—recently reframed as ‘evidence’—over other forms of intellectual input continues to dominate globally (Welsh & Wynne, 2013; Straßheim, 2024). Nevertheless, the pervasive integration of science into societal functions has rendered the use of scholarly expertise in policymaking unavoidable. This necessitates a broader—or ‘meta’—perspective to analyse how scholarly expertise is currently situated and how it should be, recognising its cross-national variations.

This study investigates how the status of science in policymaking processes is shaped by comparing policy discourses surrounding advisory committees in the UK and Japan. Using Scharpf’s typology of democratic legitimacy (Scharpf, 1997), it employs a comparative qualitative case study on policy debates on novel embryonic intervention technologies, including interviews and policy document analysis, to elucidate different forms of legitimacy embedded in each national context. Specifically, it reveals that Japan tends to emphasise the legitimacy in the output of decisions, reflecting broader Asian perspectives (Johnson, 1999), which contrasts with the Western democratic presumptions centred on procedural justice of input (Goodin, 1999).

By highlighting these locally embedded preferences for legitimacy, the study provides insights for more inclusive incorporation of scholarly expertise within policymaking practices, enabling harmonisation with other intellectual contributions and eventually more societally beneficial, or ‘democratic’, policymaking.

Short abstract

An increasing focus on strengthening the policy impact of research raises complex questions about its assessment. Challenges in definition, attribution, measurement and evolving understanding of effective practice and 'good' policy impede evaluation. What does good look like? How can it be measured?

Long abstract

The past decade has seen an increasing emphasis on understanding and assessing the wider societal impacts of research in the UK. This has included a growing focus on strengthening the impact of research on public policy. However, evaluating such policy impact is highly complex. Policy impact occurs both directly and indirectly, over long-time horizons, and as a result of multiple contributions. Concepts, approaches and outcomes vary across organisational contexts and beneficiaries. Policy impact appears as a ‘kaleidoscope’ of changing pictures and patterns.

Limited data and under-development of metrics make assessment challenging. The diversity of research-policy interactions impedes aggregation from individual case studies into broader assessments. Compounding this, practices aimed at enhancing research impact on policy are still evolving, and knowledge of what is most effective still developing.

In this context, what can we learn about how to conceptualise and articulate research impact on policy? Can we develop frameworks which capture the diverse and multifaceted nature of policy impact? And what does good look like - in impact assessment and for policy impacts themselves?

This panel will feature contributions from academics and policy actors to offer insights drawn from their experiences of knowledge exchange, government and Parliament, and research funding.