Science–Policy Interfaces (Beyond Myth and Wishful Thinking)

In the previous chapter, I delved at length into various theoretical aspects concerning SPI(s). However, perhaps surprisingly, I did not provide a definition of this term. This was in many ways a deliberate choice, partly dictated by the fact that offering a satisfactory, comprehensive, and univocal definition of “SPI” is a particularly arduous task. Naturally, this does not mean that SPI(s) cannot or should not be defined. Nevertheless, before attempting to reach a definition, it was more important to convey an idea of the complexity of the topic. As shown in Chap. 2 , one can encounter and conceive of many different ways of approaching and studying SPI(s), spanning a wide range of philosophical, theoretical, and normative angles. As a consequence of this rich but fragmented picture, the very idea of SPI becomes contested. So, if there is no consensus on SPI as an idea, how can there be an agreement on its definition? Despite the impossibility of achieving a unanimous definition, in this section I propose that SPI can still be denoted as a concept and that it is possible to adopt rules of thumb to identify examples of SPIs in the social world. To do so, I first go through some of the existing definitions of SPI. Based on these definitions’ strengths and weaknesses, I then outline what can be considered the key features of SPI(s). After that, with the help of the antithetical question “what is not an SPI?,” I discuss the matter of what qualifies as an SPI in practice. I conclude with a short reflection about the implications of a relatively fuzzy understanding of SPI(s) in both academic and policy circles.