Epistemic Communities, Between Science and Power in International Domains: A Systematic Literature Review

Pratiwi

doi:10.24252/rir.v6i1.45840

Pratiwi National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS), Tokyo, Japan
(JP)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24252/rir.v6i1.45840

Keywords: Epistemic Community, Sains, Policy, International Relations

Abstract

Epistemic communities were emphasized in constructivism discourse as powerful emerging non-state actors that can drive policies in international domains. The rise of scientific consortiums in policymaking has driven policy directions by using scientific standards. Other realms in international relations also recognize the roles of scientific communities other than creating standards to fix global challenges, such as to serve states’ interests and cooperation tools. This study aims to investigate which realm of epistemic communities are more prevalent. The tools and conditions for influential epistemic communities were also not sufficiently investigated. By using a systematic literature review (SLR) that is overlooked in international relations studies, this paper organized previous databases that use primary data on epistemic communities. The result of this paper shows epistemic communities are the most prevalent in creating scientific standards to address global challenges. Some tools that used were knowledge transfers, training, research collaborations, and networking funding. However, other studies also found that scientific consortiums may be used to legitimize the status quo. In sensitive issues like transboundary pollution, more distrust was found. This study eventually draws some limitations and agenda for future studies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Balch, Alex. (2009). Labour and epistemic communities: The case of “managed migration” in the UK. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11(4), 613–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2009.00384.x

Bicchi, Federica. (2022). Communities of practice and what they can do for International Relations. Review of International Studies, 48(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210521000528

Bonilla, Kleinsy, Cabrera, Johana, Calles-Minero, Camila, Torres-Atencio, Ivonne, Aquino, Karina, Renderos, Deysi, & Alonzo, Margarita. (2021). Participation in Communities of Women Scientists in Central America: Implications From the Science Diplomacy Perspective. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 6(July), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.661508

Bueger, Christian, & Gadinger, Frank. (2014). International practice theory: New perspectives. In International Practice Theory: New Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137395535

Chapman, Karen. (2021). Characteristics of systematic reviews in the social sciences. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102396

Cross, Mai’a K.Davis. (2015). The limits of epistemic communities: EU security agencies. Politics and Governance, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i1.78

Cross, Mai’A K.Davis. (2013). Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later. Review of International Studies, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210512000034

Dacombe, Rod. (2018). Systematic Reviews in Political Science: What Can the Approach Contribute to Political Research? Political Studies Review, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929916680641

Fritsch, Stefan. (2011). Technology and Global Affairs. International Studies Perspectives, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2010.00417.x

Gluckman, Peter D., Turekian, Vaughan C., Grimes, Robin W., & Kishi, Teruo. (2018). Science Diplomacy: A Pragmatic Perspective from the Inside. Science & Diplomacy, 6(4 (December 2017)), 1–13.

Gusenbauer, Michael, & Haddaway, Neal R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

Haas, Ernst. (2000). Science and Progress in International Relations: Conversation with Ernst B. Haas. Retrieved from Conversation with History website: https://iis.berkeley.edu/publications/ernst-b-haas-science-and-progress-international-relations

Haas, Peter. (2021). 40 Epistemic Communities. In Lavanya Ranjamani & Jaqueline Peel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. https://doi.org/https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/41336/chapter-abstract/352410862?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Haas, Peter M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442

Hsu, Angel, Brandt, John, Widerberg, Oscar, Chan, Sander, & Weinfurter, Amy. (2020). Exploring links between national climate strategies and non-state and subnational climate action in nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Climate Policy, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1624252

Kaltofen, Carolin, & Acuto, Michele. (2018). Rebalancing the Encounter between Science Diplomacy and International Relations Theory. Global Policy, 9(November), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12620

Kelley, J. R. (1989). The agenda-setting power of epistemic communities in public diplomacy. Journal of Politics, 51(2).

Kourtelis, Christos. (2021). The role of epistemic communities and expert knowledge in the European Neighbourhood Policy. Journal of European Integration, 43(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2020.1739031

Legrand, Timothy, & Stone, Diane. (2018). Science diplomacy and transnational governance impact. British Politics, 13(3), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-018-0082-z

Leijten, Jos. (2019). Innovation policy and international relations: directions for EU diplomacy. European Journal of Futures Research, 7(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-019-0156-1

Lencucha, Raphael, Kothari, Anita, & Labonté, Ronald. (2011). The role of non-governmental organizations in global health diplomacy: Negotiating the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Health Policy and Planning, 26(5), 405–412. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czq072

Machoň, Miloslav, Kohoutová, Jana, Burešová, Jana, & Bobková, Jaroslava. (2018). Epistemic communities and their influence in international politics: Updating of the concept. Janus.Net, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.9.2.1

Methley, Abigail M., Campbell, Stephen, Chew-Graham, Carolyn, McNally, Rosalind, & Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh. (2014). PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0

Modisenyane, Simon Moeketsi, Hendricks, Stephen James Heinrich, & Fineberg, Harvey. (2017). Understanding how domestic health policy is integrated into foreign policy in South Africa: A case for accelerating access to antiretroviral medicines. Global Health Action, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2017.1339533

Moualla, Yara, & McPherson, Gayle. (2019). Making change towards inclusive societies: The soft power of community archaeology in building cultural heritage in Mozan, Syria. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(17), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174670

Nago, Minette, & Ongolo, Symphorien. (2021). Inside forest diplomacy: A case study of the congo basin under global environmental governance. Forests, 12(5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12050525

Otsuka, Kenji. (2022). Co-optation in co-production: Maintaining credibility and legitimacy in transboundary environmental governance in East Asia. Review of Policy Research, 39(6), 771–797. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12497

Özkaragöz Doğan, Elif, Uygun, Zafer, & Akçomak, İbrahim Semih. (2021). Can science diplomacy address the global climate change challenge? Environmental Policy and Governance, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1911

Page, Matthew J., McKenzie, Joanne E., Bossuyt, Patrick M., Boutron, Isabelle, Hoffmann, Tammy C., Mulrow, Cynthia D., Shamseer, Larissa, Tetzlaff, Jennifer M., Akl, Elie A., Brennan, Sue E., Chou, Roger, Glanville, Julie, Grimshaw, Jeremy M., Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Lalu, Manoj M., Li, Tianjing, Loder, Elizabeth W., Mayo-Wilson, Evan, McDonald, Steve, McGuinness, Luke A., Stewart, Lesley A., Thomas, James, Tricco, Andrea C., Welch, Vivian A., Whiting, Penny, & Moher, David. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, Vol. 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Petticrew, M., & Roberts. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Choice Reviews Online, 43(10). https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.43-5664

Riordan, Nancy, Machoň, Miloslav, & Csajková, Lucia. (2023). Space Diplomacy and the Artemis Accords. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 49(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191x-bja10151

Schiavenato, Martin, & Chu, Frances. (2021). PICO: What it is and what it is not. Nurse Education in Practice, Vol. 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103194

Sorrell, Steve. (2007). Improving the evidence base for energy policy: The role of systematic reviews. Energy Policy, 35(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.06.008

Toke, Dave. (1999). Epistemic Communities and Environmental Groups. Politics, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00091

Turekian, Vaughan C., Macindoe, Sarah, Copeland, Daryl, Davis, Lloyd S., Patman, Robert G., & Pozza, Maria. (2014). The emergence of science diplomacy. Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814440073_0001

Wood-Donnelly, Corine, & Bartels, Marianne Pascale. (2022). Science diplomacy in the Arctic: Contributions of the USGS to policy discourse and impact on governance. Polar Record, 58(12). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247422000134

Zhao, Quansheng. (2006). Epistemic Community, Intellectuals, and Chinese Foreign Policy. Policy and Society, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/s1449-4035(06)70126-6