The intersection between science and policy: The case of the development of Belgian drug policy between 1996 and 2003 By Julie Tieberghien Thesis submitted to obtain the academic degree Doctor (Ph.D) in Criminology Supervisor: Prof. dr. Tom Decorte Doctoral Guidance Committee: Prof. dr. Brice De Ruyver Prof. dr. Carl Devos Prof. dr. Guido Van Hal Department Criminology, Penal Law and Social Law Ghent University, Belgium Academic year 2014-2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis is the end of both a tough and enjoyable journey that started in 2007. As a young researcher developing a local drug monitoring system in the city of Antwerp, I did not know that the ‘science-policy nexus’ would become my main interest and object of my PhD-study. However, in the two years that followed, I became more and more interested in this particular research topic and, in 2009, my PhD journey eventually took a start. I know I could not have achieved this work alone. First of all, I would like to thank the interviewees that have participated in this study. I appreciate your constructive collaboration and openness even though I know that some things were difficult to remember and busy agendas were definitely at stake. For reasons of confidentiality I am unable to identify these experts by name but I am, nevertheless, grateful for their participation. I also gratefully acknowledge the funding received from the Ghent University as part of their doctoral research program. As an academic assistant and PhD-candidate, I am grateful to the Ghent University for allowing such a study to be undertaken. Special gratitude goes to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Tom Decorte, for initially providing me with the opportunity to work on the research project in the city of Antwerp. You patiently provided the encouragement and advice necessary for me to complete my dissertation and have always given me great freedom to pursue independent work. Tom, thank you for your trust and support as well as for your understanding in my search for a balance between research ambitions and personal pursuits. My appreciation also goes out to the members of the guidance committee, Prof. Dr. Brice De Ruyver, Prof. Dr. Carl Devos and Prof. Dr. Guido Van Hal, for critically reading parts of my dissertation and contributing constructive reflections and useful suggestions. I would also like to thank Lucy for proofreading my manuscript. Her criticism and suggestions definitely provided a 'finishing touch'. This PhD study would also not have been possible without the support of former and present colleagues who crossed my path at the university and especially at the Institute for Social Drug research (ISD). I am particularly grateful to Liz, Charlotte, Marieke, Julie, Eline, Mafalda and Lotte i for encouraging me and for providing a very enjoyable working atmosphere. My gratitude goes out to my ‘office neighbour’ Olga as well for showing interest and providing moral support. I also want to thank the members of the departments’ secretariat who have been helpful throughout. I am indebted to my friends who have personally supported me over the last few years. I particularly want to thank Charlotte, Steven, Celine and Ann. It was sometimes difficult to explain what I was ‘doing’ but you all kept me optimistic about my work when I needed your support the most. I would also like to say a heartfelt thank you to my mother, father and sister for always believing in me and encouraging me endlessly when I did not seem to have the courage. Your genuine interest in the things I was studying as well as the encouragement I received from my family-in- law have been very important to me. A very special thank you to my husband Bruno who has always been by my side throughout this journey, experiencing every single minute of it. Your questions and critical notes about my research always kept the helpful outsider’s viewpoint in front of me when I got lost in ‘my world’ once again. Thanks for being so supportive of my work and for keeping a sense of humour when I had lost mine. Last but not least, life doesn’t stand still, nor waits until you are finished with your PhD. Lovely Mette, your enthusiasm and broad smiles definitely brought me a lot of inspiration, happiness and joy in the final stages of my PhD. Julie Tieberghien, Waregem, 25 April 2015 ii ABSTRACT [English] Since the late 20th century, evidence-based policy has become the benchmark by which policies are judged. However, the assumption that policy should reflect accurate factual knowledge rather than political biases has no basis in reality. In heavily politicised domains, rational, instrumental frameworks are devalued in favour of those focusing on political/symbolic ways of knowledge utilisation, power relationships and interactions between various players in the policy-making process. Against such a background, criminologists also became concerned with their own commitments to the policy-making process: the idea of public criminology has gathered momentum in a number of fields. This dissertation wishes to contribute to the (theoretical) debate on knowledge utilisation and public criminology and aims to provide a critical analysis of the evidence-based thinking by detailing the modalities of knowledge utilisation (theoretically guided by Weiss’ three-folded typology) in both policy processes (Parliament and Government), the role of the media and interest groups in the science-policy nexus and the ways scientists manage the relationship between their academic activities and policy-making (public criminology). Using a case study of the development of Belgian drug policy between 1996 and 2003, a qualitative methodological approach has been selected: a (critical) discourse analysis of specially selected newspaper articles and policy documents and interviews with 55 key informants. The ideal of evidence-based policy clearly faces significant challenges: the relationship between science and policy is neither rational nor exclusive. Through scientists performing public roles as observer-turned player or policy advisor, scientific knowledge informs policy (conceptual use) rather than constituting a rational foundation for policy-makers. Examples of political/symbolic use can also be found: policy-makers readily distorted scientific arguments which were detrimental to the chosen policy direction. Scientific knowledge has been just one element in the policy-making process characterised by competing interests, electoral ambitions and international frameworks. Even scientific knowledge has its limitations: several instances of the misuse of science by scientists are observed. While interest groups are not as engaged in the science-policy nexus, media coverage appears to be a valuable instrument by means of which policy-makers may receive (and use) scientific knowledge. iii [Dutch] Sinds het einde van de 20ste eeuw wordt beleid steevast getoetst aan de kernidee van het evidence-based denken. De assumptie dat wetenschappelijk onderzoek een invloed dient uit te oefenen op het uitstippelen van het beleid door beleidsmakers is aannemelijk, maar de relatie tussen onderzoek en beleid is in werkelijkheid niet zo rechtlijnig. In politiek en maatschappelijk geladen beleidsdomeinen wordt aangenomen dat politiek/symbolisch kennisgebruik, machtsrelaties en interacties tussen (beleids)actoren een belangrijke rol spelen. In dit verband ontwikkelde zich onlangs, onder de noemer ‘publieke criminologie’, een debat over de publieke rol van criminologen alsook over hoe de kloof tussen de ‘academische’ criminologie en het publieke en politieke discours kan worden overbrugd. Dit doctoraatsonderzoek wenst bij te dragen tot de (theoretische) debatten inzake kennisgebruik en publieke criminologie en beoogt een kritische analyse van het evidence-based denken aan de hand van een studie van de vormen van kennisgebruik (geïnspireerd door de theoretische modellen van Weiss) in beleidsprocessen (Parlement en Regering), de rol van de media en belangengroepen in deze relatie en de manier waarop wetenschappers hun publieke rol waarnemen en beoordelen (publieke criminologie). De casestudy inzake de ontwikkeling van het Belgische drugsbeleid tussen 1996 en 2003 hanteert een kwalitatief methodologisch opzet: een (kritische) discoursanalyse van beleidsdocumenten en krantenartikels en diepte-interviews met 55 relevante sleutelfiguren. Strijdig met de kernidee van het evidence-based denken, toont dit onderzoek aan dat de relatie tussen wetenschap en beleid rationeel noch exclusief is. Publieke rollen als observer-turned- player of policy advisor hebben een belangrijke functie om het politieke bedrijf te informeren (conceptueel kennisgebruik). Ideaaltypisch en rationeel kennisgebruik is eerder beperkt in tegenstelling tot politiek-symbolisch gebruik: beleidsmakers selecteerden wetenschappelijke kennis om hun ('korte-termijn’) belangen te behartigen. Wetenschappelijke kennis vormt, naast o.a. conflicterende belangen, electorale ambities en het internationale kader, slechts één van de bronnen op grond waarvan beleidsmakers handelen. Ook wetenschappelijke kennis zelf kent beperkingen: enkele voorbeelden hebben het misbruik van wetenschappelijke kennis door wetenschappers aangetoond. Belangengroepen hebben eerder een beperkte invloed op de interactie tussen wetenschap en beleid terwijl de media een waardevol kanaal zijn waarlangs wetenschappelijke kennis ingang vindt bij beleidsmakers. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS