Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Science–policy interaction is frequently organized through projects, lauded as flexible and focused administrative solutions for policy learning. However, there is a risk of stifling projects with overly rigid interfaces or, controversially, losing project results amidst the cracks of inter- and intra-organizational cleavages when interfaces are excessively flexible. This article examines how science advisors in Estonian ministries contributed to resolving this controversy through an in-depth case study of an agenda-setting bioeconomy project. The results suggest that the potential of science advisors to provide necessary flexibility is contingent on their position relative to bureaucratic hierarchies and boundary objects.
Peeter Vihma (Wed,) studied this question.