Epistemic Governance in the Context of Crisis: A Complexity-informed Approach

• Published date: 01 February 2025
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241303935
• Author: Harri Jalonen
• Date: 01 February 2025

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241303935

Administration & Society

2025, Vol. 57(2) 218 –253

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997241303935

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Epistemic Governance

in the Context of Crisis:

A Complexity-informed

Approach

Harri Jalonen1

Abstract

This article examines the concept of epistemic governance during crises, a

situation that presents simultaneous challenges of information scarcity and

overload. Epistemic governance refers to the processes shaping collective

perceptions and influencing the understanding of a situation. The research

employs a complexity thinking approach, focusing on the interdependency of

phenomena, actors, and events, which resists reductionism and linear thin-

king. It illustrates how epistemic governance—comprising self-organization,

diversity, trust, feedback loops, attractor, and agency—operates in crises.

The study advances a novel approach to epistemic governance in crises,

promoting effective decision-making and embracing complexity-informed

research.

Keywords

epistemic governance, complexity thinking, public administration

Introduction

The concept of governance, in its inherent generality and neutrality, neces-

sitates the inclusion of descriptive adjectives to effectively enhance its

1University of Vaasa, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Harri Jalonen, University of Vaasa, Wolffintie 32, Vaasa, FL 65101, Finland.

Email: harri.jalonen@uwasa.fi

1303935AAS0010.1177/00953997241303935Administration & SocietyJalonen

research-article2024

Jalonen 219

applicability for analytical scrutiny (Peters et al., 2022; see also Ansell &

Torfing, 2022; Frederickson, 2007 for a critique of the overly vague use of

the concept of governance). In recent decades, governance has attracted

significant attention across various disciplines, with a growing body of

literature examining its multiple dimensions and implications. Despite

extensive research activity in the field, there remains no consensus on

what governance actually entails. The lack of a comprehensive, all-encom-

passing theory of governance reflects the complexity and diversity of gov-

ernance practices across different contexts (Ansell & Torfing, 2022). The

research identifies, among other forms, network governance (e.g., Pierre

& Peters, 2000) that emphasizes the interconnected nature of stakeholders;

participatory governance (e.g., Grote & Gbikpi, 2002) that underscores the

value of engaging citizens; experimentalist governance (e.g., Sabel &

Zeitlin, 2012) that values trial and learning; collaborative governance

(e.g., Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015) that celebrates collective endeavors and

partnerships; anticipatory governance (e.g., Quay, 2010) that seeks fore-

sight in its operations; and adaptive governance (e.g., Folke et al., 2005)

that concerns flexibility and resilience in the face of change. A common

feature of all the approaches is that they argue that effective governance

requires coordination among local, regional, and national levels of govern-

ment and across the public, private and non-profit sectors. Yet, although

each aspect has solid theoretical foundations, none provides the compre-

hensive understanding necessary to drive effective governance during cri-

ses, especially in terms of how governance actors perceive unfolding

events, the reasons behind them, and their potential consequences.

Each of these governance models has specific limitations, particularly

regarding the production, dissemination, and utilization of information.

First, network governance in crisis response shapes its functioning by

creating coordination challenges for the actors involved, affecting how

authority is distributed and negotiated (e.g., Moynihan, 2009). Its decen-

tralized structure can create fragmented information streams and prompt

a lack of agency. Different rhythms at various levels of governance

(Janssen & van der Voort, 2016) make it difficult to acquire and synthe-

size information to enable rapid decision-making during a crisis. Second,

the participatory governance approach has been applied in the fight

against the climate crisis, emphasizing the inclusion of diverse voices in

decision-making (e.g., Goell, 2018). However, the model’s underlying

assumption of broad participation can be problematic in crises that

demand the rapid formation of situational awareness and swift decision-

making. The time required to gather and integrate a wide range of per-

spectives may delay critical action and undermine the effectiveness of

220 Administration & Society 57(2)

crisis response. Third, experimentalist governance has been regarded as

a valuable approach to address complex problems due to its iterative

nature and emphasis on learning through experimentation (e.g., Zeitlin,

2016). This iterative foundation can become a limitation in rapidly

unfolding crisis situations. The time required for trial-and-error pro-

cesses may impede the ability to respond swiftly, delaying the implemen-

tation of immediate and decisive action when most needed. Fourth, while

collaborative governance promotes collective decision-making, its ten-

dency to favor consensus-based processes (Ansell & Gash, 2008) can

slow information sharing and utilization, risking delayed responses.

Fifth, anticipatory governance emphasizes preparedness for crises by

proactively shaping legal frameworks to enhance governance actors’

capacity to act in exceptional situations (Koskimaa & Raunio, 2024). Its

reliance on foresight can cause problems in the face of unforeseen events,

making it difficult to produce and adapt new information, and potentially

hindering responsiveness. Finally, adaptive governance aligns well with

the dynamics of crises, as it emphasizes flexibility, learning, and the

ability to adjust to changing circumstances (Janssen & van der Voort,

2020). Yet, its focus on learning and adaptation makes it better suited for

understanding and developing governance after a crisis rather than dur-

ing one.

This article assumes that the inherent uncertainty and complexity of crises

can open the door for shaping narratives, selectively presenting information,

or obscuring certain facts, all of which can distort the shared understanding

of the crisis. I argue that tumultuous times require a more nuanced approach

to governance, one that focuses on the epistemic challenges posed by a mul-

titude of complex, interconnected, and persistent crises.

The article is founded on two premises. First, previous modes of gover-

nance fall short when addressing crises that reset requirements for how

information is produced, interpreted, and utilized in decision-making pro-

cesses. Although there is abundant research on the benefits and challenges

of using knowledge and evidence in policy processes (e.g., Cairney, 2016;

Head, 2016; Parkhurst, 2017), it does not adequately address the uncertainty

arising during crises. That necessitates a specific approach to governance,

that is, epistemic governance. The analysis here considers epistemic gover-

nance as more than simply governing based on established knowledge or

existing paradigms but as an approach recognizing the limits of current

understanding, continuously seeking new insights, and adjusting gover-

nance structures and processes accordingly. In so doing, the article draws on

Ansell and Torfing (2022, p. 10), who suggest that “a problem-driven study

of contemporary forms of governance is better off choosing between a large