Barry bozeman arizona state university jan youtie georgia institute of technology usa
Download
1 / 17

Barry Bozeman, Arizona State University Jan Youtie, Georgia Institute of Technology USA - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 216 Views
  • Uploaded on

Credibility and Use of Scientific and Technical Information in Policy Making: An Analysis of the Information Bases of the National Research Council’s Committee Reports. Barry Bozeman, Arizona State University Jan Youtie, Georgia Institute of Technology USA. Motivation.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Barry Bozeman, Arizona State University Jan Youtie, Georgia Institute of Technology USA' - zaynah


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Barry bozeman arizona state university jan youtie georgia institute of technology usa

Credibility and Use of Scientific and Technical Information in Policy Making: An Analysis ofthe Information Bases of the National Research Council’s Committee Reports

Barry Bozeman, Arizona State University

Jan Youtie, Georgia Institute of Technology

USA


Motivation
Motivation in Policy Making: An Analysis of

  • Contribution: little empirical understanding of use of STI

    • Much literature on use of formal information in decision-making

    • No literature on use of STI in science, technology and innovation (S&T) policy

  • Research questions for study

    • Does the perception of the limited use of formal scientific and technical information (STI) accord with empirical reality?

    • What types of information “compete” with STI for inclusion in science policy-making (where one might expect greatest receptivity)?

    • How does the choice of various types of information relate to the use and impacts of science policy reports and recommendations?


Definition of sti
Definition of STI in Policy Making: An Analysis of

  • Open scientific and technical literature appearing in peer-reviewed academic journals or proceedings.

  • STI used in a narrow sense v. typical in the literature (McClure, 1988; Walker and Hurt, 1990)


National research council nrc
National Research Council (NRC) in Policy Making: An Analysis of

  • Performs research work for the production of reports on science and technology issues within the National Academies

    • National Academy of Science (NAS)

    • National Academy of Engineering (NAE)

    • Institute of Medicine

  • National Academies serves as advisor about science and technology intensive policy issues to Congress

  • Little research on the NRC

    • Ellefson (2000): single case on non-forest federal land management

    • Policansky (1999): an ecologist and staff member at the NRC, argues that well-constructed committees with high level of trust given a precisely constructed policy question are most successful

    • Shapiro and Guston (2006): bureaucracies will shirk their duties, relying on the peer review process to for correction

    • Fein (2011): NRC plays an increasingly important role in regulatory peer review

    • Parascandola (2007): conflict of interest policy history in the NAS and NRC

    • Martin and Irvine (1989): lack of priority setting in NRC reports


National research council process
National Research Council Process in Policy Making: An Analysis of

National Academies (2006) Our Study Process: Ensuring Independent, Objective Advice.


Group based credibility model
Group-based Credibility Model in Policy Making: An Analysis of


Sample
Sample in Policy Making: An Analysis of

  • All National Academies reports published 2005-2012

  • Exclusion of workshop, narrow/very particular studies: Transportation Bureau (NAE), Health and Safety (IOM), repeat Congressionally authorized standing studies

  • Focus on board appointed/empaneled single shot studies (mostly NAS)

  • Results=589 reports


Method
Method in Policy Making: An Analysis of

  • Report variables: publication year, policy area, National Research Council department, Congressional authorization, # pages, # committee members, # reviewers by sector (business, government, academia, etc.) and geographic location (domestic, foreign), # cited references, # congressional briefings

  • Committee variables: chair versus member, terminal degree and concentration, industry affiliation by three-digit NAICS, sectoral affiliation (business, government, academia, etc.), title (e.g., president, secretary of agency, gov’t laboratory director)

  • Committee publications: # publications in the Web of Science and Scopus, # citations, primary Web of Science category, self-citation in reference list

  • Report outcomes: # Web of Science and Scopus papers, newspapers, industry trade press, newsletters, magazines, news transcripts, hearing transcripts, Congressional record daily issues, bills, House and Senate reports, Congressional Research Service reports.

  • Reference variables: STI (journal article, published proceeding) v. government report/document, book or book chapter, working paper, industry and nonprofit organization document, interview/testimony, website, expert opinion


Database linkages
Database Linkages in Policy Making: An Analysis of

  • NRC annual reports

  • Web of Science

  • Scopus

  • LexisNexis (news, web)

  • Proquest, UNT Digital Library (hearings, legislation, bills, Congressional reports)


Preliminary findings reports
Preliminary Findings: Reports in Policy Making: An Analysis of

  • 14% Congressionally authorized

  • Natural Resource and Defense areas most common and most likely Congressionally authorized (~ 30% of studies in these areas)


Average number of pages declining
Average Number of Pages Declining in Policy Making: An Analysis of

  • Average number of pages=188



Preliminary findings outcomes
Preliminary Findings: Outcomes (2005,2006)

  • NRC reports have greater impact than expected

    • 37% self-reported Congressional communications

      • Informal briefings (30%) more common than formal testimony (15%)

    • 20% reports have independent presence in Congressional documents

      • Not necessarily overlapping with self-reports (only 28% of reports with any Congressional impact are independent + self reports)

    • Taken together 45% of NRC reports have either (or both) of the above impacts


Preliminary findings reports and outcomes
Preliminary Findings: Reports and Outcomes (2005,2006)

  • ~ over time (except for independent outcomes being much higher, and self-reported outcomes lower, in 2005)

  • Congressionally authorized studies are associated with self-reported briefings (29% versus 6% for nonauthorized) and independent outcomes (26% versus 12% for nonauthorized)

  • Longer NRC studies tend to have self-reported briefings and independent outcomes (briefings=216 mean # pages versus 171 for no briefings; outcomes=213 mean versus 181 for no outcomes)


Preliminary findings references and outcomes
Preliminary Findings: References and Outcomes (2005,2006)

  • Inclusion of references makes little difference to outcomes


Plans and some issues
Plans and some issues (2005,2006)

  • Planned analysis

    Impact f(STI, active researchers on committee, other committee information, report characteristics)

  • Limitations

    • Not every NRC report has references; reference formats differ

    • We are not analyzing report content

    • We would like to do some interviews


Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements (2005,2006)

  • This work was supported by the US National Science Foundation, Science of Science and Innovation Policy, Award #1262251. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.

  • For more information

    http://stip.gatech.edu/credibility-and-use-of-scientific-and-technical-information-in-science-policy-making/


ad