TY - JOUR
T1 - When Is Science Used in Science Policy? Examining the Importance of Scientific and Technical Information in National Research Council Reports
AU - Bozeman, Barry
AU - Youtie, Jan
AU - Fukumoto, Eriko
AU - Parker, Marla
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the U.S. 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. The authors gratefully acknowledge Lexi White, Andrew Kao, Sahra Jabbehdari, Yin Li, and Joshua Jacobs who assisted in interviews or data management.
Funding Information:
The National Academies include the National Academy of Science, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine (previously Institute of Medicine). For convenience, we hereafter refer collectively to this set of academies as the NAS. The NAS is a quasi-public body established in 1863 by the U.S. Congress (Boffey, 1975; Mullins, 1981; Seitz, 2007) and charged with providing advice concerning science and technology-intensive policy issues. One of the tangible indicators of the importance of NAS is its budget, composed chiefly of grants and contract revenues provided by Congress and federal agencies. According to the Report of the Treasurer of the National Academic of Sciences (National Academy of Sciences, 2016), for the calendar year ending December 31, 2015, the NAS received $279 million in receipts from a variety of study sponsors and contractors, including 74% from the federal government (Congress and federal agencies) and 26% from nonfederal sources (nonprofit institutions, state governments, and industry). The market value of its endowment portfolio was reported as $410.9 million as of December 31, 2015.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Policy Studies Organization
PY - 2019/3
Y1 - 2019/3
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - civil society
KW - innovation
KW - intellectual property
KW - national governance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058855319&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85058855319&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/ropr.12324
DO - 10.1111/ropr.12324
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85058855319
SN - 0278-4416
VL - 36
SP - 262
EP - 289
JO - Review of Policy Research
JF - Review of Policy Research
IS - 2
ER -