IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v50y2023i1p15-29..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A computational approach to study the gap and barriers between science and policy

Author

Listed:
  • Nancy Li
  • Markus Luczak-Roesch
  • Flavia Donadelli

Abstract

Research on the gap between science and policymaking and the barriers to utilizing science in policy remains controversial, since previous research methods have dominated data collection with perceived participant responses. This approach makes research findings applicable to particular contexts, particular participants, and particular times but cannot be generalized. We used a computational model to analyse linguistic text data from two communities and compared the results with self-reported research findings. The outcomes support that scientists and policymakers have their own linguistic characteristics, with scientists in the medical field preferring jargon and policymakers’ language containing public satisfaction pressures. Language representation also validates the existence of barriers in the use of science.

Suggested Citation

  • Nancy Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Flavia Donadelli, 2023. "A computational approach to study the gap and barriers between science and policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 15-29.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:1:p:15-29.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac048
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philip Leifeld, 2020. "Policy Debates and Discourse Network Analysis: A Research Agenda," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 180-183.
    2. Lois Orton & Ffion Lloyd-Williams & David Taylor-Robinson & Martin O'Flaherty & Simon Capewell, 2011. "The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-10, July.
    3. Peter D. Gluckman & Anne Bardsley & Matthias Kaiser, 2021. "Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Joanna M Manning, 2021. "Feats, Flops, and Free Lessons From NZ’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 468-496.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna & Maraseni, Tek & Pathak, Bhoj Raj, 2022. "Navigating policy debates of and discourse coalitions on Nepal's Scientific Forest Management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    2. Patrick Barrett & Jacques Poot, 2023. "Islands, remoteness and effective policy making: Aotearoa New Zealand during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 682-704, April.
    3. Paula Hooper & Sarah Foster & Billie Giles-Corti, 2019. "A Case Study of a Natural Experiment Bridging the ‘Research into Policy’ and ‘Evidence-Based Policy’ Gap for Active-Living Science," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-14, July.
    4. Cyr, Pascale Renée & Jain, Vageesh & Chalkidou, Kalipso & Ottersen, Trygve & Gopinathan, Unni, 2021. "Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(8), pages 1054-1064.
    5. Matthew Calver, 2016. "Measuring the Appropriate Outcomes for Better Decision-Making: A Framework to Guide the Analysis of Health Policy," CSLS Research Reports 2016-03, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    6. Murray A. Rudd, 2022. "100 Important Questions about Bitcoin’s Energy Use and ESG Impacts," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Courtney A. Cuthbertson & Don E. Albrecht & Scott Loveridge, 2017. "Rural versus urban perspectives on behavioral health issues and priorities," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(4), pages 515-526, August.
    8. Heather Munthe‐Kaas & Heid Nøkleby & Sarah Rosenbaum, 2022. "User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    9. Pierre-Olivier Bédard, 2015. "The Mobilization of Scientific Evidence by Public Policy Analysts," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    10. Christoph von Hagke & Chloe Hill & Angela Hof & Thomas Rinder & Andreas Lang & Jan Christian Habel, 2022. "Learning from the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis to Overcome the Global Environmental Crisis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-8, August.
    11. Mijailoff, Julián Daniel & Burns, Sarah Lilian, 2023. "Fixing the meaning of floating signifier: Discourses and network analysis in the bioeconomy policy processes in Argentina and Uruguay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    12. Pauline Zardo & Adrian G Barnett & Nicolas Suzor & Tim Cahill, 2018. "Does engagement predict research use? An analysis of The Conversation Annual Survey 2016," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, February.
    13. Zardo, Pauline & Collie, Alex & Livingstone, Charles, 2014. "External factors affecting decision-making and use of evidence in an Australian public health policy environment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 120-127.
    14. Tomáš Lintner & Tomáš Diviák & Barbora Nekardová & Lukáš Lehotský & Michal Vašečka, 2023. "Slovak MPs’ response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in light of conspiracy theories and the polarization of political discourse," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    15. El-Jardali, Fadi & Bou-Karroum, Lama & Ataya, Nour & El-Ghali, Hana Addam & Hammoud, Rawan, 2014. "A retrospective health policy analysis of the development and implementation of the voluntary health insurance system in Lebanon: Learning from failure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 45-54.
    16. Farshad Amiraslani & Andrew Cooper, 2022. "Learning from the Past: Lessons from the First United Nations Report on Problems of the Human-Environment," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13, September.
    17. Falko T. Buschke & Christine Estreguil & Lucia Mancini & Fabrice Mathieux & Hugh Eva & Luca Battistella & Stephen Peedell, 2023. "Digital Storytelling Through the European Commission’s Africa Knowledge Platform to Bridge the Science-Policy Interface for Raw Materials," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    18. Ilias Krystallis & Sarah Jasim, 2023. "Charting the path towards a long-term knowledge brokerage function: an ecosystems view," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    19. P Th Houngbo & H L S Coleman & M Zweekhorst & Tj De Cock Buning & D Medenou & J F G Bunders, 2017. "A Model for Good Governance of Healthcare Technology Management in the Public Sector: Learning from Evidence-Informed Policy Development and Implementation in Benin," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, January.
    20. Natasa Loncarevic & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen & Anja Leppin & Maja Bertram, 2021. "Policymakers’ Research Capacities, Engagement, and Use of Research in Public Health Policymaking," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-17, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:1:p:15-29.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.