The theory of boundary organizations was developed to address an important group of institutions in American society neglected by scholarship in science studies and political science. The long-term stability of scientific and political institutions in the United States has enabled a new class of institutions to grow and thrive as mediators between the two. As originally developed, this structural feature of these new institutions—that is, their location on the boundary between science and politics—dominated theoretical frame-works for explaining their behavior. Applying the theory of boundary organizations to international society requires a refocusing of some of the theory’s central features, however. In this article, I introduce a new framework—hybrid management—to explain the activities of boundary organizations in the more complex, contingent, and contested settings of global politics. I develop the framework of hybrid management using the specific example of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agrawala, Shardul, Kenneth Broad, and David H. Guston. 2001. Integrating climate forecasts and societal decision making: Challenges to an emergent boundary organization. Science, Technology, & Human Values26:454-477.
2.
4(3):185-200.
3.
Brickman, Ronald, Sheila Jasanoff, and Thomas Ilgen. 1985. Controlling chemicals: The politics of regulation in Europe and the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
4.
Brown, Sandra, Bo Lim, and Bernhard Schlamadinger. 1998. Evaluating approaches for estimating net emissions of carbon dioxide from forest harvesting and wood products. Meeting report, IPCC/OECD/IEA Programme on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Dakar, Senegal, 5-7 May.
5.
Cash, David W.2001. “In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information”: Agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Science, Technology, & Human Values26:431-453.
6.
Dennis, Michael. 1994. “Our first line of defense”: Two university laboratories in the postwar American state. Isis85 (3): 427-455.
7.
Edwards, Paul, and Stephen Schneider. 2001. Self-Governance and peer review in science-for-policy. In Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance, edited by Clark A. Miller and Paul N. Edwards. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Ezrahi, Yaron. 1990. The descent of Icarus: Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Gieryn, Thomas F.1995. Boundaries of science. In The handbook of science and technology studies, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Gieryn, Thomas F.1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Guston, David H.1999. Stabilizing the boundary between U.S. politics and science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science29 (1): 87-112.
13.
Guston, David H.2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Guston, David H.2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values26:399-408.
15.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1991. Proceedings of the Workshop on National Inventories of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 5-6 December, Geneva, Switzerland.
16.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1997. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Bracknell, UK: IPCC.
17.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1986. Risk management and political culture. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
18.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1991. Acceptable evidence in a pluralistic society. In Acceptable evidence, edited by Deborah Mayo and Rachelle Hollander. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1993. India at the crossroads. Global Environmental Change, March, 32-51.
21.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1995. Product, process, or programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. In Resistance to new technology, edited by M. Bauer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1996a. Science at the bar: Law, science and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Jasanoff, Sheila1996b. Science and norms in global environmental regimes. In Earthly goods: Environmental change and social justice, edited by Fen O. Hamson and Judith Reppy, 173-197. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
24.
Jasanoff, Sheila., ed. 1997a. Comparative science and technology policy. Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar.
25.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1997b. Compelling knowledge in public decisions. In Saving the seas: Values, scientists, and international governance, edited by L. Anathea Brooks and Stacy VanDeveer, 229-254. Silver Spring: University of Maryland Press.
26.
Jasanoff, Sheila, and Brian Wynne. 1998. Science and decisionmaking. In Human choice and climate change: The societal framework, edited by Steve Rayner and Elizabeth Malone. Columbus, OH: Battelle.
27.
Kay, Lily. 1993. The molecular vision of life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the new biology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
28.
Keating, Terry J.2001. Lessons from the recent history of the Health Effects Institute. Science, Technology, & Human Values26:409-430.
29.
Kohler, Robert E.1994. Lords of the fly: Drosophila genetics and the experimental life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Latour, Bruno. 1993. We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
Leslie, Stuart W.1993. The Cold War and American science: The military-industrial-academic complex at MIT and Stanford. New York: Columbia University Press.
32.
Methodological issues: Other matters, estimation of emissions of carbon dioxide from forest harvesting and wood products. Draft conclusions by the chairman. 1999. U.N. document FCCC/SBSTA/1999/CRP.06, November 1. United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.
33.
Miller, Clark A.2001. Challenges to the application of science to global affairs: Contingency, trust, and moral order. In Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance, edited by Clark A. Miller and Paul N. Edwards. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
Miller, Clark A. Forthcoming. Undermining the postwar settlement: Climate science and the reconstruction of global order. In States of knowledge: Science, power, and political culture, edited by Sheila S. Jasanoff.
35.
Miller, Clark A., and Paul N. Edwards, eds. 2001. Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
Mintzer, Irving, and J. A. Leonard, eds. 1993. Negotiating climate change: The inside story of the framework convention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Mitman, Greg. 1992. The state of nature: Ecology, community, and American social thought, 1900-1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
Nelkin, Dorothy. 1992. Controversy: Politics of technical decisions. 3rd ed.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39.
Porter, Theodore. 1995. Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40.
Shackley, Simon, and Brian Wynne. 1995. Global climate change: The mutual construction of an emergent science-policy domain. Science and Public Policy22 (4): 218-230.
41.
Shapin, Steven. 1994. A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
42.
Shapin, Steven. 1996. Cordelia’s love: Credibility and the social studies of science. Perspectives on Science: Historical, Philosophical, Social3 (3): 255-275.
43.
van Amstel, A. R., ed. 1993. Methane and nitrous oxide: Methods in national emissions inventories and options for control, an international IPCC workshop. Bilthoven, Netherlands: RIVM.
