TY - JOUR
T1 - Credibility and use of scientific and technical information in policy making
T2 - An analysis of the information bases of the National Research Council's committee reports
AU - Youtie, Jan
AU - Bozeman, Barry
AU - Jabbehdari, Sahra
AU - Kao, Andrew
N1 - Funding Information:
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.
Funding Information:
We focus on STI use exhibited by one of the most prominent and reputable science policy institutions in the US, the National Research Council (NRC). The NRC enables research work for the production of reports on science and technology issues within the National Academies. The National Academies play a unique role in the US science policy advisory system based on the organization’s history, structure, and process. First, the National Academies is one of the oldest science policy advisory bodies in the US, having been established in 1863 during the US Civil War to advise the US Congress on scientific issues. Second, because the US research system is large and decentralized with policy shaped in a bottom-up manner through the activities of departments and agencies with large R&D budgets, various agencies provide coordination and assistance either as part of a branch of government or as non-governmental advocacy organizations. The executive branch is served by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which resides in the Executive Office of the President and provides budgetary coordination as well as advice, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which is comprised of university presidents and industry CEOs and is supported through OSTP, and the Science and Technology Policy Institute, which is a Federally Funded R & D Center (i.e., public research organization) designed to serve OSTP, with budgetary and administrative oversight delegated to the National Science Foundation. The US Congress receives advice from the Congressional Research Service and the General Accountability Office on matters including but not exclusive to science policy. There are also private non-profit organizations that weigh in on science policy primarily as advocacy organizations. The National Academies stands in contrast to these agencies, centers, and organizations in that, although it was chartered by Congress, it specializes in providing scientific and technical advice to both Congress and executive branch agencies. Although it is funded primarily by executive agencies and Congress, in the amount of $230.5 million in grant and contract revenues in 2014 from US federal government agencies and Congress, the National Academies are structured as a private nonprofit organization, which gives the organization some independence.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2017/2/1
Y1 - 2017/2/1
N2 - Often researchers are disappointed by the limited extent to which peer reviewed STEM research seems to contribute directly to high level public policy decision-making. However, does the perception of the limited use of formal scientific and technical information (STI) accord with empirical reality? How does the choice of various types of information relate to the use and impacts of science policy reports and recommendations? While there is a prodigious literature on the use of formal information in decision-making, our focus is on the use of STI in science, technology and innovation (S&T) policy, a domain in which there is virtually no empirical literature. This study examines the use and impacts of STI in the context of a single, but arguably quite important, S&T policy domain: the US National Research Council (NRC) reports. This is an especially important target institution for analysis because NRC committees have extensive information access and resources, as well as decision-makers who are well equipped to deal with a variety of information types, including STI. To understand the information ingredients of high-level S&T policymaking and advice, we have coded information about the report, policy area, committee and reviewers, STI, and use of the report by Congress. Results indicate that STI is widely used in the NRC report-writing process, but, although nearly half of all NRC reports are explicitly conveyed to Congress, STI use does not figure significantly in this conveyance. These findings imply different internal and external credibility orientations.
AB - Often researchers are disappointed by the limited extent to which peer reviewed STEM research seems to contribute directly to high level public policy decision-making. However, does the perception of the limited use of formal scientific and technical information (STI) accord with empirical reality? How does the choice of various types of information relate to the use and impacts of science policy reports and recommendations? While there is a prodigious literature on the use of formal information in decision-making, our focus is on the use of STI in science, technology and innovation (S&T) policy, a domain in which there is virtually no empirical literature. This study examines the use and impacts of STI in the context of a single, but arguably quite important, S&T policy domain: the US National Research Council (NRC) reports. This is an especially important target institution for analysis because NRC committees have extensive information access and resources, as well as decision-makers who are well equipped to deal with a variety of information types, including STI. To understand the information ingredients of high-level S&T policymaking and advice, we have coded information about the report, policy area, committee and reviewers, STI, and use of the report by Congress. Results indicate that STI is widely used in the NRC report-writing process, but, although nearly half of all NRC reports are explicitly conveyed to Congress, STI use does not figure significantly in this conveyance. These findings imply different internal and external credibility orientations.
KW - Credibility
KW - National Research Council
KW - National academies
KW - Scientific and technical information
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995755037&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84995755037&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.001
DO - 10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.001
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84995755037
SN - 0048-7333
VL - 46
SP - 108
EP - 120
JO - Research Policy
JF - Research Policy
IS - 1
ER -