A collaboratively derived international research agenda on legislative science advice

A collaboratively derived international research agenda on legislative science advice
复制标题

协作得出的立法科学建议国际研究议程

DOI:
10.1057/s41599-019-0318-6
复制
发表时间:
2019
影响因子:
4
通讯作者:
Nguyen, Christina T.
Nguyen, Christina T.
中科院分区:
--
文献类型:
--
作者:
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.

文献摘要

参考文献

被引文献

相似文献

几十年来,向决策者提供的科技信息的数量和复杂性一直在增加。然而,人们对如何向立法机构提供科学建议知之甚少,尽管科学信息被广泛认为对许多政策领域的决策有价值。我们要求来自发达国家和发展中国家的学者、科学顾问和政策制定者确定、审查和完善立法科学建议(LSA)中最紧迫的研究问题,然后对其进行排名。专家们普遍认为,证据不足,特别是在发展中国家和中低收入国家。许多关于科学咨询过程的基本问题仍然没有答案,并且非常感兴趣:立法使用科学证据是否会改善社会计划和政策的实施和结果;立法者和工作人员在什么条件下寻求科学信息或使用呈现给他们的信息;以及不同的沟通渠道如何影响信息信任和使用。环境和卫生是该领域的最高优先政策领域。许多提交的问题,无论是政策问题,机构,或位置的特定背景的性质表明,一个重大的挑战是汇总有关LSA做法的可推广的证据。了解这些研究需求是推进LSA研究全球议程的第一步。
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.
理解我们的政治本质:如何将知识和理性置于政治决策的核心
DOI: --
发表时间: 2019
期刊:
影响因子: --
作者:
M. David;Smillie Laura;L. Giovanni;Schwendinger Florian;Raykovska Milena;Pasztor Zsuzsanna;Van Bavel Rene
通讯作者: Van Bavel Rene
DOI: --
发表时间: 2004
期刊:
影响因子: --
作者:
R. Kurzweil
通讯作者: R. Kurzweil
科学与议会相遇
DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-5358-4_8
发表时间: 2007
影响因子: 2.7
作者:
T. Gascoigne
通讯作者: T. Gascoigne
谁不认为偏见是与政策制定者进行科学交流的可信度的一个维度?
DOI: 10.31274/sciencecommunication-181114-18
发表时间: 2018
影响因子: 4
作者:
K. Akerlof;M. Lemos;E. Cloyd;E. Heath
通讯作者: E. Heath
DOI: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.07.001
发表时间: 2013-09-01
期刊: POLICY AND SOCIETY
影响因子: 9.3
作者:
Craft, Jonathan;Howlett, Michael
通讯作者: Howlett, Michael