This study presents initial work to validate a scale designed to measure scientists’ outcome expectations in relation to public engagement. A 20-item survey was administered to a sample of 341 scientists. Graded response models were used to assess the quality of the items. Results suggest that six items provided the strongest measure of outcome expectations, with classically adequate reliability across a wide range of scientists and scores. The findings are presented in relation to the short-term outcomes of public engagement for scientists and the need for validated scales that allow for the continued study of science communication efforts.
The National Climate Assessment's ability to support decision-making partly relies on engaging stakeholders throughout the assessment process. The guiding vision for the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA3) was for an inclusive, broad-based, and sustained process attentive to both the conduct of assessments and communication of findings. Such a process promotes dialogue between scientific experts, stakeholders, and decision-makers about what is important in a particular region or sector, the potential impacts of climate change, and possible responses. We sought to create actionable research and assessment products widely perceived as credible, salient, and legitimate. The process also sought to build capacity to conduct sustained assessments and use climate change information in decision-making processes. Here we describe how we pursued this stakeholder engagement vision during the planning, development, and release of NCA3. Through repeated opportunities for stakeholder. input, we ensured process transparency and inclusiveness in the framing of assessment and built human capital. We also increased connectivity among stakeholder organizations. By cultivating a network of collaborators who connected the NCA to other networks, the NCA3 engagement process laid the groundwork for a sustained assessment -which is envisaged to transition the traditional quadrennial assessment approach into a more dynamic and adaptive assessment process.
Unlike basic science, studies conducted for the purpose of societal decision-making require the involvement of broad publics (Gibbons, 2000). The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), mandated by Congress in 1990 to provide decision-relevant climate science, spurred the establishment of some of the longest-running and most geographically diverse programs to conduct these types of applied research. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Adaptation Partnerships (CAP), Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Climate Hubs (Pulwarty et al., 2009; USGCRP, 2023) represent some of the most prominent examples. These federal programs may shed light on an issue that is increasingly recognized as a significant challenge to decision-relevant scientific research: the involvement of people who historically have been underserved by government programs and/ or have experienced discrimination and exclusion (Early & Kotzebue, 2021). Public administration and political science scholars have long warned that conditions of social inequity and inequality may worsen if the quality of governance and public services is dependent on community participation (Einstein et al., 2019(Einstein et al., , 2022Rosentraub & Sharp, 1981). When the voices of marginalized groups are unlikely to be heard and to influence policy
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 contextspecific 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.Notes 1 By policymakers, we mean those in government who use science to make policy decisions, whether members of staff or elected representatives. ARTICLE PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.