2004
Volume 94, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0025-9454
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2816

Abstract

Abstract

Contrary to the powerful image of ivory tower scholarship, aiming to make an impact on society has become an integral part of scholarly practices. This impact emerges through teaching, commercialization of research findings, public engagement, and advice for policy and practice. The latter role requires a solid scientific evidence base. Aligning science and policy is a well-known challenge. I describe ways in which actors ranging from individual scholars, to the organizations where they work, and macro-level players such as publishers, research funders and governments can help advance interaction and communication between the spheres of scholarship and policy. Using firsthand experience in negotiating the boundaries between research and decision making, I describe the context in which the European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors works and identify conditions which, in my personal view, make its scientific advice giving effective.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2019.3.004.DYKS
2019-09-01
2021-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P.(2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669-678.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baron, N.(2010). Escape from the ivory tower: A guide to making your science matter. Washington: Island Press.
  3. Benedictus, R., & Miedema, F.(2016). Redefine excellence: Fix incentives to fix science. Nature, 538, 453-455.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Benneworth, P., Jongbloed, B. W.(2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education, 59(5), 567-588.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bornman, L.(2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217-233.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boyer, E. L.(1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York: Jossey-Bass. [Special report, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.]
  7. Bremer, S.(2013). Mobilising high-quality knowledge through dialogic environmental governance: A comparison of approaches and their institutional settings. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 16(1/2), 66-90.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cairney, P.(2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  9. Cairney, P., Oliver, K., & Wellstead, A.(2016). To bridge the divide between evidence and policy: Reduce ambiguity as much as uncertainty. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 399-402.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chalmers, D.(2011). Progress and challenges to the recognition and reward of the scholarship of teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(1), 25-38.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cools, S.(2018). Professoren, kom uit die ivoren toren. De Standaard, 4 mei. https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20180503_03495797
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Davies, H. T.O., Nutley, S. M., Smith, P. C. (Eds.). (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: Policy Press.
  13. Donnelly, C. A., Boyd, I., Campbell, P., Craig, C., Vallance, P., Walport, M., Whitty, C. J. M., Woods, E. & Wormald, C.(2018). Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature, 558, 361-364.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Douglas, H.(2009). Science, policy and the value free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  15. Ferguson, M. W. J.(2016). Do judge: Treat metrics only as surrogates. Nature, 538, 455.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Frey, B., & Osterloh, M.(2010). Motivate people with prizes. Nature, 465, 871-872.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gluckman, P.(2014). The art of science advice to government. Nature, 507, 163-165.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hart, A., Maxim, L., Siegrist, M., Von Goetz, N., Da Cruz, C., … & Hardy, A.(2019). Guidance on communication of uncertainty in scientific assessments. EFSA Journal, 17(1), 5520. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5520
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L, De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I.(2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics.Nature, 520, 429-431.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Marcinkowski, F., Kohring, M., Fürst, S., & Friedrichsmeier, A.(2014). Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public: An empirical investigation. Science Communication, 36(1), 56-80.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Marris, P.(1990). Witnesses, engineers or storytellers: Roles of sociologists in social policy. In H.J.Gans (Ed.), Sociology in America (pp. 75-87). London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Meyer, G., & Sandøe, P.(2012). Going public: Good scientific conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 173-197.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Meyer, M.(2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32(1), 118-127.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Moher, D., Naudet, F., Cristea, I. A., Miedema, F., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Goodman, S. N.(2018). Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biology, 16(3): e2004089. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089
    [Google Scholar]
  25. OECD
    OECD(2015). Scientific advice for policy making: The role and responsibility of expert bodies and individual scientists. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 21. Paris: OECD Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Olmos-Peñuela, J., Benneworth, P., Elena Castro-Martínez, E.(2015). Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities’ research public value. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 61-78.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Parkhurst, J. O.(2016). Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias. Policy Sciences, 49(4), 373-393.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Pielke, R. A. Jr.(2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. New YorkCambridge University Press.
  29. Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences
    Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences(2018). Evidence synthesis for policy: A statement of principles. https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/evidence-synthesis/evidence-synthesis-statement-principles.pdf
  30. Tyler, C.(2017). Wanted: Academics wise to the needs of government. Nature, 552, 7.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Tweedie, R. L., Mengersen, K. L., & Eccleston, J. A.(1994). Garbage in, garbage out: Can statisticians quantify the effects of poor data?Chance, 7(2), 20-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Vermeulen, J.(2019). Community service learning en de ivoren toren. DUB, 9 mei. https://www.dub.uu.nl/nl/blog/community-service-learning-en-de-ivoren-toren
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Weckowska, D. M.(2015). Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation, 41-42, 62-74.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Weingart, P.(1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27(8), 869-879.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2019.3.004.DYKS
Loading

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error