Science and Politics in Times of Crisis

Summary

This course examines the role of scientific knowledge during high-stakes political crises related to health, climate, and the economy. In a group project, students apply evidence-informed policymaking frameworks to design a crisis management plan.

Content

Lire la suite

Keywords

Science and politics; Evidence-informed policymaking; Crisis management; Science advisory boards; Populism; Post-truth politics; Public policy; Political trust

Learning Outcomes

By the end of the course, the student must be able to:

• Explain the role of scientific knowledge in contemporary policymaking and identify the key actors involved
• Analyze how political decisions are formed under conditions of uncertainty and crisis
• Critically engage with core concepts in knowledge utilization, policy learning, and science advisory systems
• Evaluate the influence of populism and post-truth dynamics on evidence-based governance
• Apply course frameworks to a real-world crisis through the group project (crisis management plan)

Transversal skills

• Communicate effectively with professionals from other disciplines.
• Make an oral presentation.
• Use a work methodology appropriate to the task.
• Take feedback (critique) and respond in an appropriate manner.
• Demonstrate the capacity for critical thinking

Teaching methods

Each session begins with a short introductory lecture, followed by a guided discussion of the compulsory reading. Students are expected to come prepared. The course also includes a guest speaker in Session 7, a project workshop in Session 12, and group presentations in Sessions 13 and 14. Small-group work is integrated throughout, particularly in the later sessions, to support the collaborative development of crisis management plans.

Expected student activities

Students are expected to complete the compulsory reading before each session and participate actively in class discussions. In Session 11, students submit an individual reflection paper (1,000-1,500 words). Throughout the semester, students work in groups of 3-4 to develop a crisis management plan, with dedicated group work time in the Session 12 workshop and peer feedback; groups present their plans in Sessions 13-14. A guest speaker session (Session 7) requires attentive engagement and participation in the follow-up discussion.

 

Assessment methods

Continuous assessment based on three components: class participation throughout the semester (15%), an individual written reflection paper of 1,000-1,500 words submitted in Session 11 (25%), and a group crisis management plan with oral presentation, developed collaboratively and presented in Sessions 13-14 (60%).

Supervision

Office hours	No
Assistant.e.s	No
Forum	No

Resources

Virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI)

No

Bibliography

Adam, C., Steinebach, Y., & Knill, C. (2018). Neglected challenges to evidence-based policy-making: the problem of policy accumulation. Policy Sciences, 51(3), 269-290.

 

Baghramian, M. and Croce, M. (2021). Experts, public policy and the question of trust (pp. 446-457). In: Hannon, M., & de Ridder, J. (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Political Epistemology. Routledge.

 

Bavel, J. J. V., et al. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460-471.

 

Bayes, R., Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (2023). A research agenda for climate change communication and public opinion. Environmental Communication, 17(1), 16-34.

 

Bertsou, E. (2020). Bring in the experts? Citizen preferences for independent experts in political decision-making processes. European Journal of Political Research.

 

Bertsou, E., & Caramani, D. (2022). People haven't had enough of experts: Technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine European democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 66(1), 5-23.

 

Bourgeois, I., & Cousins, J. B. (2013). Understanding dimensions of organizational evaluation capacity. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(3), 299-319.

 

Bundi, P., & Trein, P. (2022). Evaluation use and learning in public policy. Policy Sciences, 55(2), 283-309.

 

Cairney, P. (2020). The UK government's COVID-19 policy: Assessing evidence-informed policy analysis in real time. British Politics, 1-27.

 

Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2016). Policy learning in the Eurozone crisis: Modes, power and functionality. Policy Sciences, 49, 107-124.

 

Fischer, F. (2022). Post-Truth Populism and Scientific Expertise: Climate and Covid Policies from Trump to Biden. International Review of Public Policy, 4(4:1).

 

Gilley, B. (2017). Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 9-22.

 

Hadorn, S., Sager, F., Mavrot, C., Malandrino, A., & Ege, J. (2022). Evidence-based policymaking in times of acute crisis. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 63(2), 359-382.

 

Head, B. W. (2016). Toward more 'evidence-informed' policy making? Public Administration Review, 76(3), 472-484.

 

Head, B. W., & Banerjee, S. (2020). Policy expertise and use of evidence in a populist era. Australian Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 110-121.

 

Howlett, M. (2009). Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 52(2), 153-175.

 

Janssen, M., & van der Voort, H. (2020). Agile and adaptive governance in crisis response: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102180.

 

Lancaster, K., Rhodes, T., & Rosengarten, M. (2020). Making evidence and policy in public health emergencies. Evidence and Policy, 16(3), 477-490.

 

Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.). The Policy Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press: 3-15.

 

Pattyn, V., & Bouterse, M. (2020). Explaining use and non-use of policy evaluations in a mature evaluation setting. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1-9.

 

Phillips, W., Roehrich, J. K., & Kapletia, D. (2023). Responding to information asymmetry in crisis situations. Public Management Review, 25(1), 175-198.

 

Valle-Cruz, D., Alejandro Ruvalcaba-Gomez, E., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Ignacio Criado, J. (2019). A review of artificial intelligence in government and its potential from a public policy perspective. Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: 91-99.

 

Weiss, C. H. (1995). The haphazard connection: social science and public policy. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(2), 137-150.

Moodle Link

• https://go.epfl.ch/HUM-235