Search

For decades, policy learning has been often viewed as a force for the common good, a process that aims at creating value for the public through problem‐solving. While learning can indeed contribute to value creation, darkness also lurks therein, where learning can also contribute to value destruction. Yet, the dark side of policy learning remains under‐explored and under‐theorized, particularly going beyond meso‐level policy and organizational failures or “mishaps.” This article draws on policy learning and value theories to conceptualize two types of policy learning failures and plot how they can contribute to the destruction of value in the public sphere: misdirected learning design failures (non‐deliberate and cybernetic) and normative failures (intentional and deontological). This is done while addressing the two key facets of value in the public sphere; public values, being the guiding principles of policymaking and governance, as well as public value, being the worth of public services delivered to the citizenry. In doing so, this contributes to the literature by addressing calls for exploring the dark side of learning, expanding our understanding of learning outcomes beyond organizational and policy level implications, and developing novel fundamental understandings of value destruction mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research often explores the role of scientific expertise in policymaking from an externalised perspective, mostly focusing on how policymakers use and abuse scientific expertise through political learning. However, very little is known about political learning by scientific experts. What strategies do they use to maintain and advance their access to, and influence on policymaking? Using process tracing, we illustrate how scientific experts' access to policymaking is challenged as a policy issue develops. We explore how this nudges scientific experts to engage in political learning and employ political advocacy strategies to enhance science's role in policy making, corresponding to evolving political opportunity structures. We empirically trace this using the case of EU climate policy development between 1990 and 2022. We identify three main sets of advocacy strategies used by scientific experts: Narrative and semantic (policy issue-oriented), Socialisation (Actors-oriented), and Governance (systems and structures-oriented). In doing so, this article illustrates the political actorness and agency of scientific experts and provides a supplementary understanding to the role of science in public policy and policy change, not only as a function of policymaker's instrumentalization of science, but also as a function of how scientific experts actively advocate for science's role in public policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]