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

几十年来，向政策制定者提供的科技信息的数量和复杂性一直在上升。然而，关于如何向立法机构提供及时和可行的科学建议，人们知之甚少。该项目在一个由政府官员和研究人员参加的国际会议上收集数据，为一个新兴研究领域“立法科学建议”的发展提供信息，该领域有可能极大地改善政策咨询系统。这项研究采取与研究人员和政府官员对话的协作方式，以确保该框架能够促进利益攸关方之间的富有成效的沟通。政策制定者和研究人员之间的双向沟通和信息差距是全球主要的政策关切。通过与国际社会接触，这项研究可以审查最佳做法，并立即应用于改进立法科学建议。此外，将学生引入该项目将有助于发展这一日益增长的研究和实践领域的专门知识。研讨会前对研究人员和政府官员的调查将用于确定有前途的理论领域、多学科伙伴关系的机会，以及与政策制定者和研究人员最感兴趣的研究问题。这种方法首先提出，研究人员和实践者在概念化科学和决策之间的关系方面可能存在差异，因此也可能存在不同的研究优先事项，并有相应的理论模型和分析单位。假设影响因素不仅包括研究参与者的学科(学术/从业人员)，还包括他们认同或研究的政府的特征(经济发展、政治制度和民主化)。研讨会参与者之间共识和分歧的量化技术将被用来探索在其他形式的专家咨询中可能未被注意到的细微差别。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的智力优势和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

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.