Public policy's bibliography: The use of research in US regulatory impact analyses

Major US federal regulatory decisions are developed and justified using regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) mandated by executive order. We examine the scientific citation activity in RIAs, a unique effort that we believe holds significant potential for understanding the use of science in policymaking. This paper reports preliminary findings from collecting and examining scientific citations in 104 RIAs from 2008–2012. We present evidence indicating that some agencies make extensive use of science in RIAs, that there is substantial variation in use across agencies, and show variation across journals and disciplines cited by regulatory agencies. Finally, we present analysis showing that regulatory policymakers make greater use of research published in highly cited scholarly journals. We conclude by outlining several future directions for research using these data.     

Meeting the Challenges of Policy‐Relevant Science: Bridging Theory and Practice

Ongoing public debate about the role of science in policy making signifies the importance of advancing theory and practice in the field. Indeed, assumptions about the science–policy nexus hold direct implications for how this interface is managed. A useful lens on contemporary themes is offered by the experience of a federal environmental science program that launched an ambitious effort to enhance capacity for policy relevance while protecting a commitment to sound, impartial scientific inquiry. This was achieved by developing an explicit conceptual model and implementing corresponding strategies that addressed critical gaps in capacity for policy‐relevant research, analysis, and communication while supporting existing capacities. This article describes and evaluates the capacity‐building effort from the dual perspectives of deepening an understanding of successful practice in the field and advancing a conceptual understanding of the science–policy nexus. It illustrates the challenges facing practitioners and the need for greater interaction between theory and practice.     

The economic tradition and the constitution of science

There has been an institutional turn in the philosophy of science, which has led the discipline to become more concerned with understanding how the scientific process actually works. This paper argues that such a philosophy of science, which lies beyond only proposing a logic of science, has something to learn from economics. Economic thinking can be instrumental in understanding the actual scientific process, and in proposing proper institutions guiding scientific competition. It is, however, also argued that economics would benefit from overcoming the pure logic of choice inherent to the neoclassical approach, by further developing the institutional approach to economics.     

Social humanities

With the rise to eminence and influence of scientists in recent years the distinction between scientific judgment and the judgment of scientists has been increasingly blurred. In particular, the meaning and definition of the social sciences and of their auxiliary or more applied disciplines has become confused. On the one hand, several value-centered undertakings such as policy analysis or planning have laid claim to status as sciences, while on the other hand, social scientists have increasingly attacked the legitimacy or reasonableness of the goal of value-free social science. Scientific publicists further confuse the discussion by arguing for the discovery of a value-free, scientific basis for society in which applied science equals policy. The result has been to damage the effectiveness of both scientific and nonscientific efforts, and to confuse the relationship of their activities in the minds of those who regularly feel compelled to cross a variety of scientific and nonscientific frontiers.     

Scientific opinion in policymaking: the case of climate change adaptation

The urgent need for policy decisions often outpaces scientific discovery. At such times, policymakers must rely on scientific opinion. This is the case with many aspects of current climate policy, especially those involving untested but potentially necessary adaptations to reduce vulnerability to climate change. Unfortunately, scientific opinion is not currently defined, measured, or used in a standardized way, which often allows for the accidental or intentional dissemination of misinformation and the marginalization of science where science could be most beneficial. In this article, we argue that scientific opinion can be usefully measured by systematic surveys of scientists that employ standards similar to those that govern public opinion surveys, including systematic decisions about target populations, sampling frames, and sampling techniques. We demonstrate this approach with the methodology for a study of scientific opinion on a potential adaptation to climate change, the managed relocation of species. We show that survey results may be used to corroborate other types of information, refine or contradict other information, and offer novel insights into emerging issues, such as adaptations to climate change, that are currently not addressed with any other type of available information.     

On prediction in political science

This article discusses recent moves in political science that emphasise predicting future events rather than theoretically explaining past ones or understanding empirical generalisations. Two types of prediction are defined: pragmatic, and scientific. The main aim of political science is explanation, which requires scientific prediction. Scientific prediction does not necessarily entail pragmatic prediction nor does it necessarily refer to the future, though both are desiderata for political science. Pragmatic prediction is not necessarily explanatory, and emphasising pragmatic prediction will lead to disappointment, as it will not always help in understanding how to intervene to change future outcomes, and policy makers are likely to be disappointed by its time-scale.     

Science in Policy-Making: Neutral Experts or Strategic Policy-Makers?

Although many policy process and diffusion theories follow the premise that scientific and technological knowledge plays a crucial role in a wide variety of policy fields, very few empirically assess the impact that institutional and process-relevant factors may have on the position of science within a process. The present study addresses the question of what role science plays in policy processes. To answer this, we apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and investigate three complementary assumptions using a qualitative comparison of four cases: the ACF claims that scientific experts can take very different positions in the policy process, depending on how conflictive or consensus-oriented the relations among actors and coalitions are within a so-called policy subsystem. Put differently, the type of subsystem impacts on the position of science within the process. The results show that subsystem-specific factors impact upon whether scientific representatives act at the periphery of a process or as policy brokers seeking feasible policy solutions.     

STAR METRICS and the Science of Science Policy

STAR METRICS is a data platform that is being voluntarily and collaboratively developed by U.S. federal science agencies and research institutions to describe investments in science and their results. It initially emerged as a result of reporting requirements associated with the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; it has developed in response to a recognized need to begin to systematically document federal investments in science and their immediate and long‐term results. The eventual goal is to draw information from existing data on scientific and economic activities as well as from research institutions' and federal science agencies' systems to provide data that can be used for a more scientific analysis of science investments and their outcomes.     

Science and Technology for Economic Growth. New Insights from when the Data Contradicts Desktop Models1

Science and technology policy initiatives in the early 1980s have focused in both the United States and Western Europe on improving capacity to apply a good science base in practice, expecting increases in technological advancement, improved market presence and enhanced economic growth. Results varied broadly in the United States and Europe. Even more puzzling, Japan charged ahead in technological advancement without that strong of a science base of its own. Some industrialized economies do not conform to the expected science–technology relationship, whereby strong performance in science shall lead to strong technological performance. The puzzling science–technology relationship in advanced countries has plausible explanations. (1) Science–technology relationship is much interdependent or symbiotic. Its strength and primary direction at a given time varies largely by field of science or technological innovation and across long periods of time. (2) Science–technology link in a country may depend on the overall scientific and technological level of development in that country. The strength and interdependent nature of this link evolves historically and varies across fields of science and technology. The strength of the link is affected by scientific and technological specialization in a country. Different technological fields have different scientific intensities, or degrees of building upon the science base. (3) Specialization of countries across scientific and technological fields varies. Hence, the strength of science–technology link differs between countries. High technological specialization of a country may impact its technological performance more than its immediately current scientific performance does. History, tradition and knowledge transfers may affect more returns on R&D expenditures than the actual value of R&D funds spent in science or technology. Explanations of puzzling behavior of science–technology link may become policy recommendations.     

Reflections on Scientific Inquiry,Academic Freedom,and Enlightenment

This paper explores the connections between scientific inquiry, scholarly reflexivity, and enlightenment. I argue that the free intellectual inquiry essential to the practice of science is a fundamental constituent and enactment of human dignity, freedom, and democracy. The expansion and diffusion of these values are both unavoidable in the modern age and immensely valuable, even if there are of course many obstacles to their expansion and no guarantees of their ultimate realization. This process of scientific inquiry also contains the seeds of a discourse ethic with broader ramifications for public enlightenment and perhaps even democratization. I develop these themes through a dialogue with some of the writings of Professor Yu Keping on the topics of Chinese political science and “incremental democracy.”     

科学客观性的历史建构--科学哲学视域中的历史认识论

在尼采的视角主义和福柯的主体解释学等欧陆哲学的影响下,历史认识论结合观念史、思想史和文化史的历史语境,考察了科学客观性的概念的历史建构过程,加深了人们对科学实践的复杂性的认识,并为科学哲学在新世纪的发展提供了诸多有价值的启示。     

关于科学精神与人文精神结合的思考

伴随着社会的发展、科技的进步,人社会科学正在得到长足的发展。科学技术的人价值也正在随着科学的发展和技术的转化而凸现出来,成为当今时代的一大特征。本力图从学理上对自然科学、社会科学与人科学的划分与整合进行尽可能详细的描述,肯定了知识系统中不同知识门类的发展、演化和交叉、融合过程;并通过科学精神与人精神相互结合、不可或缺的实证分析,给人们以启迪、摒弃知识门类偏见,迎接一个科学精神与人精神交融统一的世纪。     

The Greater Yellowstone policy debate: What is the policy problem?

Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding mountainous region comprise the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), a 19 million acre area that is one of the few relatively intact ecosystems in the lower 48 states. Conservationists believe that continuation of present land management practices in the region will disrupt the ecological integrity of the GYE. Many authors have identified and described these threats, but as yet there has been no sustained effort to make sense of these threats in the context of the ongoing dynamic policy debate. We develop the foundation for such understanding by examining the implicit problem definitions that have emerged from this debate. They fall into three general categories: 1) a scientific definition, 2) an economic definition, and 3) a bureaucratic definition. This process produces an exploratory definition of the policy problem, which suggests a strategy for better understanding and policy design. We propose several intervention points at which substantive, one-the-ground improvements in the management of the GYE are possible.     

The Shifting Politics of Climate Science

The global warming controversy has experienced a tumultuous period, with the credibility of climate science repeatedly questioned and a lack of international solidarity on the issue. While climate science institutions have accomplished much in their history, the current impasse highlights the limits of previous approaches. Determined critics have contested the authority of established scientific institutions, which have failed to measure up to their mythic ideals. While the imperfections of climate science have exposed some avenues for reform, they also suggest that the public stands to benefit from a more accurate understanding of science as both a process and body of knowledge. Uncertain and incomplete knowledge need not be an obstacle for action, and climate science can be made more robust and credible if it is removed from the center of what are largely political disagreements.     

Policy Bubbles: Policy Overreaction and Positive Feedback

Drawing on insights from economics, psychology, sociology, political science, and policy sciences, this article proposes a definition and measurement strategies for policy bubbles. A policy bubble is a real and/or perceived policy overreaction that is reinforced by positive feedback over an extended period of time. Positive feedback is here integrated in a model of human herding as the key factor that propels this process but also as a key generator of change. The process is conceptualized in terms of the formation, growth, and burst of policy bubbles. This causal‐explanatory understanding of the term allows for the possibility that different modes of policy overreaction lead to different types of human herding, thereby resulting in different types of policy bubbles.     

The cultural labor of surveillance: video forensics,computational objectivity,and the production of visual evidence

This essay argues that the status of video evidence as an index of real events—a sign or representation that offers a direct, empirical connection to material reality—is the result of an intentional process of production. This process involves the repurposing of new technologies borrowed from the domain of creative media production in order to transform a chaotic field of raw surveillance video into useable evidence. In addition to the exchange in technologies, an unavoidable epistemological and interpretive exchange takes place between evidentiary uses of surveillance video on the one hand, and the now prevalent forms of surveillant narration found in both fictional and reality-based storytelling. But despite this exchange in meanings and technical systems, considerable effort has gone in to establish formal standards for the evidentiary uses of surveillance video that distinguish the discovery of video evidence from the production of creative content. Building on Daston and Gallison's historical study of the prevailing “epistemic virtues” that have defined objectivity over time, I argue that what we see emerging in the field of forensic video analysis, as a means of establishing its scientific and legal status, is a commitment to a new epistemic virtue of “computational objectivity.”     

关于马克思主义哲学新体系的构想

哲学是一门学科,它应该成为一门科学,即有明确的对象,有一系列的科学的原理,并形成一个完整严密的体系,那就是马克思主义哲学。马克思主义哲学的原有体系是辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义,这个体系是迄今为止惟一的相对科学、相对成熟的马克思主义哲学体系。这个体系存在不少问题,亟需加以改造,使之成为一个新体系。马克思主义哲学新体系应当以整个世界,人类社会和人,认识、价值和方法这三个层次为研究对象,应当包括世界观、历史观、人学、认识论、价值论、方法论六大部门,应当通过逻辑与历史相统一的方法建构起来。     

“科学发展观”中的“科学”特质

科学发展观是马克思主义中国化最新理论成果。在发展观前冠以"科学"作为特征,表达了对于科学的重视。科学的什么特质是在发展过程中应该借鉴的呢?一方面,科学的目的之一是为人类谋福祉,这与科学发展观的核心是一致的。另一方面,科学的"系统"研究的模式也可以为科学发展观思想提出借鉴。科学发展观的提出仅几年的时间,而科学理论已经有几千年的历史。只有借鉴成功理论的可取之处,科学发展观理论才能不断完善。     

公共科技政策分析的理论进路：评述与比较

公共科技政策分析是一个颇具多样性的领域。新古典经济学、演化经济学、科学技术与社会研究、政策科学4种理论进路各有特点。新古典经济学的政策分析非常清晰,可提供直接的政策工具;演化经济学给予科技发展一种系统的理解,可得到科技发展的结构性制度安排;STS以宽阔的视野,在政策导向、科技行为的规范、政策对科技的建构等方面具有丰富的思想和措施含义;政策科学的分析关注政策系统,为改进政策过程提供认识基础。基于对4种理论进路共性与差异的比较,提出了一个公共科技政策分析的整合的概念框架。