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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Omweri, F.S. & Motari, YO, 2024. "Policy Networks and Relationship between Multiple Streams Approach and Implementation of Road Safety Policy Measures in Kenyan Counties," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(4), pages 445-456, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Murray A. Rudd, 2022. "100 Important Questions about Bitcoin’s Energy Use and ESG Impacts," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Olariu Ana Alexandra & Breazu Andreea & Popa Ștefan Cătălin & Popa Cătălina Florentina & Căruceru Nicoleta, 2024. "Decision-Making in Healthcare. A Bibliometric Exploration," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 18(1), pages 3242-3254.
    9. 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, vol. 3(2), pages 1141-1154, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Simon Schaub, 2021. "Public contestation over agricultural pollution: a discourse network analysis on narrative strategies in the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 783-821, December.
    12. Dagenais, Christian & Dupont, Didier & Brière, Frédéric N. & Mena, Diego & Yale-Soulière, Gabrielle & Mc Sween-Cadieux, Esther, 2020. "Codifying explicit and tacit practitioner knowledge in community social pediatrics organizations: Evaluation of the first step of a knowledge transfer strategy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    13. Richard A. Sharpe & Tim Taylor & Lora E. Fleming & Karyn Morrissey & George Morris & Rachel Wigglesworth, 2018. "Making the Case for “Whole System” Approaches: Integrating Public Health and Housing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, October.
    14. Cooper, Adam C.G. & Lioté, Laurent & Colomer, Chloé, 2023. "We need to talk about engineering policy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    15. Lavinia Bianco & Salvatore Raffa & Paolo Fornelli & Rita Mancini & Angela Gabriele & Francesco Medici & Claudia Battista & Stefania Greco & Giuseppe Croce & Aldo Germani & Simona Petrucci & Paolo Anib, 2022. "From Survey Results to a Decision-Making Matrix for Strategic Planning in Healthcare: The Case of Clinical Pathways," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-30, June.
    16. 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).
    17. 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.
    18. Susana Sobral & Fronika Wit & Rita Carrilho & Dora Cabete & António Barbosa & Filipa Vala, 2024. "Navigating complexity: looking at the potential contribution of a boundary organisation in Portugal to evidence-informed policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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.