Author
Listed:
- Barry Bozeman
- Jan Youtie
- Eriko Fukumoto
- Marla Parker
Abstract
A frequent lament among researchers is that public policy makers should pay more attention to scientific and technical information (STI). If there is any single area where one might expect STI to be used in public policy making and agenda setting it is in science and technology policy. Many of the policy makers in science and technology policy are themselves scientists or researchers and presumably would prove especially receptive to STI. However, STI is only one of many types of information used in policy making and policy actors often differ in the extent to which they view STI as credible, particularly compared to other types of potentially policy‐relevant information. Research on credibility (the believability of information, information types, and media) has shown variance and policy makers’ “credibility maps.” Thus, some policy makers have preference for formal information generally and STI specifically, but others privilege raw data, personal experience, authority, history and anecdote, analogical reasoning, or conformance to ideology, to name just a few of the information choices. Here, we build on the current researchers’ previous bibliometrics‐based work and use data from 41 semi‐structured elite interviews with National Research Council (NRC) executives and staff and NRC committee members concerning the use of STI in reports issued by the NRC. Findings show that the use of STI in NRC reports varies according to the nature of the inquiry and the sponsor. Information used in the reports is based on not only the assessed credibility of information but also its perceived direct relevance and the availability of STI as compared to other types of information. In general, the amount of STI in the NRC reports tends to have modest effects on the likelihood that reports will be used in policy making or by the mass media. More important factors include the timing of the report with respect to political agendas, the party requesting the report, and the enacted roles of NRC staff members and committee chairs. 研究者们经常哀叹道,公共政策制定者应该更多地关注科技信息(STI)。如果说在公共政策制定和议程设计中可能想到运用STI的任何单一领域,那就是科技政策。这一领域的许多政策参与者都接受科学培训。尽管STI只是决策过程中使用的众多信息之一,政策参与者在多大程度上认为STI是可信的,尤其是与其他类型的潜在政策相关信息相比。基于可信度理论的研究表明,决策者一般都有各自偏爱形式的信息,就STI具体而言,他们经常将个人经验、权威、历史和轶事、类比推理或与意识形态一致视为比手头决定更为重要。然而,以前的研究并没有把重点放在科学家和科学政策上。本研究中笔者引用了41位精英关于NRC报告使用STI情况接受国家研究委员会(NRC) 高管,工作人员以及委员会成员的半结构式采访数据。调查结果显示,NRC报告中的STI数量对报告被用于决策或被大众媒体使用的可能性影响不大。更重要的影响因素包括报告政治议程的时间安排、要求提交报告的党派以及NRC工作人员和委员会成员的既定角色。 Una queja frecuente entre los investigadores es que los responsables de las políticas públicas deberían prestar más atención a la información científica y técnica (CTI). Si hay un área única en la que uno podría esperar que la CTI se utilicen en la formulación de políticas públicas y en el establecimiento de la agenda, es en la política de ciencia y tecnología. Muchos de los actores políticos en este dominio tienen entrenamiento científico. Sin embargo, la CTI es solo uno de los muchos tipos de información utilizados en la formulación de políticas y los actores de las políticas a menudo difieren en la medida en que consideran que la CTI es creíble, en particular, en comparación con otros tipos de información potencialmente relevante para las políticas. La investigación arraigada en la teoría de la credibilidad muestra que los formuladores de políticas han variado la información formal de preferencias en general y específicamente las STI, a menudo consideran la experiencia personal, la autoridad, la historia y la anécdota, el razonamiento analógico o la conformidad con la ideología, como más importante para la decisión en cuestión. Sin embargo, estudios anteriores no se han centrado en los científicos y la política científica. Aquí utilizamos datos de 41 entrevistas semiestructuradas de élite con ejecutivos y personal del Consejo Nacional de Investigación (NRC) y miembros del comité de la NRC sobre el uso de CTI en informes emitidos por el NRC. Los hallazgos muestran que la cantidad de CTI en los informes de la NRC tiende a tener efectos modestos en la probabilidad de que los informes se utilicen en la elaboración de políticas o en los medios de comunicación. Los factores más importantes incluyen la sincronización del informe con respecto a las agendas políticas, la parte que solicita el informe y los roles promulgados de los miembros del personal de la NRC y los miembros del comité.
Suggested Citation
Barry Bozeman & Jan Youtie & Eriko Fukumoto & Marla Parker, 2019.
"When Is Science Used in Science Policy? Examining the Importance of Scientific and Technical Information in National Research Council Reports,"
Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 36(2), pages 262-289, March.
Handle:
RePEc:bla:revpol:v:36:y:2019:i:2:p:262-289
DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12324
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Carlos Bianchi & Camilo Martínez, 2023.
"STI policy conventions in Uruguay. An analysis of political party platforms 2004–2019,"
Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(2), pages 260-281, March.
- Knut Blind & Alex Fenton, 2022.
"Standard-relevant publications: evidence, processes and influencing factors,"
Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 577-602, January.
- Solomon, Gregg E.A. & Youtie, Jan & Carley, Stephen & Porter, Alan L., 2019.
"What people learn about how people learn: An analysis of citation behavior and the multidisciplinary flow of knowledge,"
Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
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:bla:revpol:v:36:y:2019:i:2:p:262-289. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.