Tapping into science advisers' learning
Tapping into science advisers' learning
复制标题
利用科学顾问的学习
DOI：
10.1057/s41599-020-0462-z
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Obermeister N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Obermeister N
科学建议的艺术和工艺并不是那些选择走出实验室或大学去参与政策世界的科学家天生就知道的。尽管有大量关于“科学建议的科学”的文献，但几乎在任何情况下都没有科学建议的“老师”;这是一个典型的在职学习案例。在这一背景下，从事专家咨询的学者的学习总是处于，有时可能是变革性的。然而，到目前为止，还没有系统的，深入的研究专家顾问的学习，而主要集中在决策者和公众对科学的学习。在这篇文章中，我认为这样一个研究计划是及时的，可能是一个非常富有成效的调查线有两个主要原因。首先，在环境和气候问题的情况下，文件的重点，它已成为无处不在谈论的需要为可持续的未来进行变革（S）。如果学者们要倡导并告知学术界以外的变革，那么在这样做的同时，他们也应该更努力地审视自己是如何在学术界内部进行变革的。具体而言，本文说明了如何定性研究顾问的学习可以帮助我们了解专家如何适应不断变化的情况下，科学政策的互动。第二，有人认为，顾问的学习研究可以直接有助于：（一）指导现在和未来的顾问（特别是早期的职业研究人员希望从事政策）和组织学习的科学政策组织;和（二）提高政策相关性的研究和研究资金的影响评估的设计（如卓越研究框架）。本文希望通过这种研究计划的思考和实施，激发（而不是关闭）创新的想法。随着科学和决策的性质不断变化，专家顾问的学习经验是一种尚未得到利用的邦蒂富尔资源。
The art and craft of science advice is not innately known by those scientists who choose to step out of the lab or the university to engage with the world of policy. Despite a wealth of literature on the ‘science of science advice’, in nearly every situation there is no ‘teacher’of science advice; it is a typical case of learning on the job. Within that context, the learning of scholars engaging in expert advice is always situated and can sometimes be transformative. To date, however, there has been no systematic, in-depth research into expert advisers’ learning—instead focusing mostly on policymakers’ and publics’ learning about science. In this article, I suggest that such a research programme is timely and potentially a very fruitful line of inquiry for two mains reasons. First, in the case of environmental and climate issues—the focus of the paper—it has become ubiquitous to talk about the need for transformative change (s) towards sustainable futures. If scholars are going to advocate for and inform transformations beyond academia, then in doing so they ought to also take a harder look at how they themselves are transforming within. Specifically, the article illustrates how qualitative research on advisers’ learning can contribute to our understanding of how experts are adapting to changing circumstances in science–policy interactions. Second, it is argued that research on advisers’ learning can directly contribute to:(i) guidance for present and future advisers (especially early-career researchers wishing to engage with policy) and organisational learning in science–policy organisations; and (ii) improving policy-relevance of research and the design of impact evaluations for research funding (eg Research Excellence Framework). With the hope of stimulating (rather than closing off) innovative ideas, the article offers some ways of thinking through and carrying out such a research programme. As the nature of both science and policymaking continues to change, the learning experiences of expert advisers is a bountiful resource that has yet to be tapped into.