Original
Academic Experts in Policymaking: Divergent Patterns but Persistent Profiles Across Parliament, Government, and Media
Abstract
ABSTRACT Despite the growing interest in expert involvement in policymaking, we lack a comprehensive and detailed understanding of how experts engage across both direct and indirect arenas, and which experts are most likely to be consulted. This study offers one of the first comparative analyses of academic expert involvement across multiple arenas, offering a unique view on how scientific expertise functions in policymaking. Focusing on three key arenas in Belgium—parliament, government, and the media—we examine (1) the overall patterns of academic expert involvement, including frequency, repeated participation, cross‐arena overlap, and expert profile characteristics, and (2) how arena‐specific logics shape these patterns. Based on a self‐compiled dataset of 17,843 consulted actors in Belgium, including 3,440 academic experts, this study offers an extensive analysis of the inclusion of scientific expertise in policy‐influencing settings. Drawing on interest group literature to guide our analyses, findings reveal that academic expert involvement varies substantially between arenas, with limited repeated participation and cross‐arena overlap. Across arenas, senior male professors from the social sciences and humanities are consistently overrepresented relative to the academic population. However, distinct arena‐specific logics, such as supply and demand dynamics, gatekeeper mechanisms, and mandate structures, play a critical role in shaping academic involvement in each arena. By mapping when, where, and which academics are involved, this study offers insights into whose voices shape evidence‐informed policymaking and how arena‐specific dynamics structure this.
中文
政策制定中的学术专家:跨议会、政府与媒体的模式分异与持续画像
摘要
尽管对专家参与政策制定的兴趣日益增长,我们仍缺乏对专家如何在直接和间接场域中参与,以及哪些专家最有可能被咨询的全面而细致的理解。本研究提供了首批对学术专家跨多个场域参与的比较分析之一,为科学专业知识如何在政策制定中发挥作用提供了独特视角。我们聚焦比利时的三个关键场域——议会、政府和媒体,考察(1)学术专家参与的总体模式,包括频率、重复参与、跨场域重叠和专家画像特征,以及(2)场域特定逻辑如何塑造这些模式。基于自编的包含比利时17,843名被咨询行为者的数据集,其中3,440名为学术专家,本研究对科学专业知识被纳入政策影响情境的情况进行了广泛分析。借助利益集团文献指导分析,研究发现学术专家参与在场域之间差异显著,重复参与和跨场域重叠有限。跨场域来看,来自社会科学与人文学科的资深男性教授相对于学术总体人群始终被过度代表。然而,不同的场域特定逻辑,如供需动态、守门人机制和授权结构,在塑造各场域学术参与方面发挥关键作用。通过描绘学术专家何时、何地以及哪些人被纳入,本研究揭示了哪些声音塑造了基于证据的政策制定,以及场域特定动态如何构建这一过程。
关键词
学术专家、政策制定、专家参与、议会、政府、媒体、比利时、证据知情决策