A collaboratively derived international research agenda on legislative science advice
-
Published:2019-09-17
Issue:1
Volume:5
Page:
-
ISSN:2055-1045
-
Container-title:Palgrave Communications
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Palgrave Commun
Author:
Akerlof Karen, Tyler Chris, Foxen Sarah Elizabeth, Heath Erin, Gual Soler Marga, Allegra Alessandro, Cloyd Emily T., Hird John A., Nelson Selena M., Nguyen Christina T., Gonnella Cameryn J., Berigan Liam A., Abeledo Carlos R., Al-Yakoub Tamara Adel, Andoh Harris Francis, dos Santos Boeira Laura, van Boheemen Pieter, Cairney Paul, Cook-Deegan RobertORCID, Costigan Gavin, Dhimal Meghnath, Di Marco Martín Hernán, Dube Donatus, Egbetokun Abiodun, El Kharraz Jauad, Galindo Liliana Estrada, Ferguson Mark W. J., Franco José, Graves Zach, Hayter Emily, Hernández-Mondragón Alma CristalORCID, Hobbs Abbi D., Holden Kerry L., IJsselmuiden CarelORCID, Jegede Ayodele Samuel, Krstic Snezana B., Mbonyintwali Jean-Marie, Mengesha Sisay Derso, Michalek Tomas, Nagano Hiroshi, Nentwich Michael, Nouri Ali, Ntale Peter Dithan, Ogundele Olusegun M., Omenma Jude Tochukwu, Pau Louis-FrançoisORCID, Peha Jon M., Prescott Elizabeth M., Ramos-Vielba Irene, Roberts Raimundo, Sandifer Paul A., Saner Marc AlbertORCID, Sanganyado EdmondORCID, Sanni Maruf, Santillán Orlando, Stine Deborah D., Straf Miron L., Tangney Peter, Washbourne Carla-Leanne, Winderickx Wim, Yarime Masaru
Abstract
Abstract
The quantity and complexity of scientific and technological information provided to policymakers have been on the rise for decades. Yet little is known about how to provide science advice to legislatures, even though scientific information is widely acknowledged as valuable for decision-making in many policy domains. We asked academics, science advisers, and policymakers from both developed and developing nations to identify, review and refine, and then rank the most pressing research questions on legislative science advice (LSA). Experts generally agree that the state of evidence is poor, especially regarding developing and lower-middle income countries. Many fundamental questions about science advice processes remain unanswered and are of great interest: whether legislative use of scientific evidence improves the implementation and outcome of social programs and policies; under what conditions legislators and staff seek out scientific information or use what is presented to them; and how different communication channels affect informational trust and use. Environment and health are the highest priority policy domains for the field. The context-specific nature of many of the submitted questions—whether to policy issues, institutions, or locations—suggests one of the significant challenges is aggregating generalizable evidence on LSA practices. Understanding these research needs represents a first step in advancing a global agenda for LSA research.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,General Psychology,General Social Sciences,General Arts and Humanities
Reference69 articles.
1. AFIDEP (2019) AFIDEP.
https://www.afidep.org/about-us/
. Accessed 1 Apr 2019 2. Akerlof K (2018) Congress’s use of science: Considerations for science organizations in promoting the use of evidence in policy. American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC 3. Akerlof K, Lemos MC, Cloyd ET et al. (2018) Who isn’t biased?: perceived bias as a dimension of trust and credibility in communication of science with policymakers [Proceedings]. In: Iowa State University Summer Symposium on Science Communication, Ames, IA 4. Aldenderfer MS, Blashfield RK (1984) Cluster Analysis. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA 5. Baron de Montesquieu C-L de S (2011) The Spirit of Laws. Cosimo Classics: New York, NY
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|