Tapping into science advisers’ learning

The paper addresses how academics who serve as expert advisers to policymakers learn to navigate science–policy interfaces, particularly in environmental and climate domains where calls for transformative societal change are pervasive. It argues that while transformative learning is often invoked for society, scholars should also examine how they themselves transform when engaging with policy. The author focuses on academics taking temporary advisory roles in government or statutory bodies, noting gaps in understanding of policymaking among academics and a literature bias toward improving advice effectiveness rather than examining advisers’ experiences. The study proposes key questions about what and how advisers learn, the transferability of lessons (especially to early-career researchers), shifting expectations over time, and what advisory settings work best. The paper outlines a program to conceptualize advisers’ learning as situated and sometimes transformative, situates science advice within evolving ecosystems, and argues that qualitative research into advisers’ learning can illuminate how experts adapt to changing science–policy conditions. It further contends such research can inform guidance for advisers, organizational learning, and the refinement of research impact evaluation frameworks.

The article synthesizes several strands of literature: (1) sustainability and transformative learning, tracing Mezirow’s transformative learning (including distinctions between content, process, and premise reflection) and its appeal for sustainability transitions; (2) science–policy scholarship emphasizing that expert advice is negotiated within political cultures and that simplistic ‘speaking truth to power’ models are inadequate (Jasanoff; Pielke; Stirling; Sarewitz); (3) boundary concepts, including boundary organizations and boundary work, and the role of advisers as knowledge brokers; (4) situated and social learning theories, particularly Lave and Wenger’s communities of practice and legitimate peripheral participation, framing advisers’ learning as embedded in social and organizational contexts; (5) the ecosystem view of science advice (Gluckman and Wilsdon) highlighting diverse formal/informal actors, cross-national differences in credibility and legitimacy, and common challenges (independence, trust, transparency, quality); (6) post-normal science, noting the inversion of ‘hard facts’ and ‘soft values’ in contentious environmental issues; (7) critiques of linear models of impact and guidance (e.g., REF, UKRI, NSF broader impacts), and calls for co-production, Mode-2, responsible research and innovation, and democratization of science. The review identifies a gap: little systematic, in-depth research into advisers’ own learning trajectories compared to extensive focus on policymakers’ or publics’ learning.

This is a conceptual essay proposing, rather than applying, empirical methods for a research program on advisers’ learning. The author recommends a qualitative, multi-method approach to capture both individual learning and its situated, organizational contexts, including: (1) in-depth, open-ended and nondirective interviews to elicit reflective narratives and minimize interviewer framing, allowing advisers to assign significance to experiences; (2) ethnographic approaches (institutional or organizational ethnography and ethnography of meetings) to produce thick descriptions of advisory cultures, practices, and interactions; (3) unstructured or semi-structured diaries to generate longitudinal, in-situ accounts, reduce recall bias, and capture routine and moments of change; and (4) multi-sited ethnography for comparative insights across advisory systems and political cultures (e.g., informed by civic epistemologies). The paper also advocates triangulation across methods to better access tacit knowledge and advises researcher agnosticism regarding the normative aspects of advisers’ motivations to facilitate access to inner experiences.

• Advisers’ learning is ubiquitous, situated within specific organizational and political contexts, and can be incremental or transformative; transformative learning may involve re-examining core assumptions about advising roles and science–policy relations.
• Science advice functions as an evolving ecosystem comprising diverse formal and informal actors; expectations of science and expertise are changing amid concerns over crises of expertise and post-normal conditions, requiring advisers to continuously adapt.
• Tailoring advice to national political cultures and recognizing the non-privileged status of scientific knowledge relative to other inputs are increasingly acknowledged; advisers are generally aware that advice is not simply ‘speaking truth to power’.
• Studying advisers’ learning can yield pragmatic benefits: (i) complement and test existing guidance for advisers—especially for early-career researchers—by articulating ‘warning signs’ grounded in lived experiences; (ii) support organizational learning and institutional memory within science–policy bodies; and (iii) inform research funders’ design of impact frameworks to better reflect non-linear, context-dependent pathways to policy influence.
• Empirical touchpoints include: UK government estimates of £500 million/year lost to ‘wasted effort recreating old work’ due to poor institutional memory; UK universities’ 2018 research funding sources (63% UK government, 11% EU); REF 2021’s impact definition emphasizing effects beyond academia and potential for major changes in policy or practice. Table 1 (from Lawton, 2007) enumerates 11 reasons why strong evidence may not lead to policy action, underscoring systemic barriers advisers must navigate.

Positioning advisers’ learning as both situated and potentially transformative addresses the paper’s core question of how experts adapt within changing science–policy ecosystems. By foregrounding advisers’ personal trajectories, the paper reframes effectiveness not merely as better evidence delivery but as reflexive adaptation to institutional norms, political cultures, and value-laden contexts characteristic of post-normal issues like climate and environment. This approach highlights the limits of linear models of impact, supports the design of more context-sensitive guidance for advisers (with emphasis on early-career support), and encourages organizations to leverage advisers’ experiential knowledge to strengthen institutional memory, adaptability, and trust. Integrating advisers’ insights into research funding impact frameworks can align incentives with realistic, plural pathways to policy relevance, potentially reshaping research agendas and practices. Overall, the analysis contributes to understanding evolving science–policy relations by proposing advisers’ learning as an empirical lens to assess whether and how advisory systems themselves are transforming.

The paper advocates a research program centered on the learning of academic expert advisers, arguing that their experiences are an underutilized resource for improving science–policy interactions. It contributes a conceptual framing of advisers’ learning as situated and occasionally transformative; an ecosystem perspective on science advice; and a set of practical benefits from studying advisers’ learning, including enhanced guidance for advisers (notably early-career researchers), organizational learning within advisory bodies, and refinement of research funders’ impact evaluation frameworks. For future research, the author proposes qualitative, triangulated methods—nondirective interviews, ethnographies (including of meetings and multi-sited comparisons), and unstructured diaries—to capture both inner reflections and organizational contexts. The paper calls for comparative work across diverse political cultures (beyond the UK) and encourages methodological experimentation to surface tacit knowledge and deepen understanding of advisers’ adaptive practices.

The article is conceptual and does not present new empirical data; examples and references are largely UK-centric, potentially limiting generalizability. The author notes challenges in eliciting and abstracting tacit experiential knowledge from advisers, risks of superficial or instrumental accounts of learning, and methodological difficulties in fostering critical introspection. Efforts to generalize across different advisory systems and political cultures must be sensitive to context (e.g., civic epistemologies), and researcher agnosticism regarding advisers’ motivations is advised to enhance access while acknowledging potential normative blind spots.