RAPID: Workshop on Providing Timely and Accurate Scientific Information to Legislators: November 2018, Tokyo, Japan

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

The quantity and complexity of scientific and technological information provided to policymakers has been on the rise for decades. Yet, little is known about how to provide timely and actionable science advice to legislatures. This project gathers data at an international gathering of government officials and researchers to inform the development of an emerging research area "legislative science advice" that has the potential to dramatically improve policy advisory systems. This research takes a collaborative approach, in dialogue with researchers and government officials, to ensure that the framework can facilitate productive communication among stakeholders. The bidirectional communication and information gap between policymakers and researchers is a chief policy concern across the globe. By engaging with an international community, this research can examine best practices with immediate application for improving legislative science advice. Furthermore, the introduction of students into this project will contribute to the development of expertise in this growing area of research and practice.A pre-workshop survey of researchers and government officials will be used to identify promising theoretical areas, opportunities for multidisciplinary partnerships, and the research questions of most relevance to policymakers and interest to researchers. The approach starts with the proposition that there are likely differences among researchers and practitioners in conceptualizing the relationship between science and policymaking, and therefore also likely varying research priorities, with corresponding theoretical models and units of analysis. It is hypothesized that influential factors include not just the discipline (academic/practitioner) of the study participants, but characteristics of the governments with which they identify or study (economic development, political system, and democratization). Quantitative techniques that identify both areas of consensus and disagreement between workshop attendees, will be used to explore nuances that might otherwise escape notice in other forms of expert consultation.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.