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

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及时和可操作的科学建议知之甚少。该项目在政府官员和研究人员的国际聚会上收集数据，为一个新兴研究领域“立法科学咨询”的发展提供信息，该领域有可能大大改善政策咨询系统。这项研究采取了与研究人员和政府官员对话的合作办法，以确保框架能够促进利益攸关方之间富有成效的沟通。决策者和研究人员之间的双向沟通和信息差距是地球仪的一个主要政策问题。通过与国际社会合作，这项研究可以研究最佳做法，并立即应用于改善立法科学咨询。此外，引入学生到这个项目将有助于专业知识的发展，在这一不断增长的研究和实践领域。研讨会前的调查研究人员和政府官员将被用来确定有前途的理论领域，多学科合作的机会，最相关的政策制定者和研究人员感兴趣的研究问题。该方法首先提出，研究人员和实践者在科学与决策之间关系的概念化方面可能存在差异，因此也可能存在不同的研究优先事项，以及相应的理论模型和分析单位。据推测，有影响力的因素不仅包括学科（学术/从业人员）的研究参与者，但与他们识别或研究（经济发展，政治制度和民主化）的政府的特点。定量技术将用于确定研讨会与会者之间的共识和分歧领域，以探索在其他形式的专家咨询中可能忽略的细微差别。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并被认为值得通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估来支持。

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.