IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v46y2017i1p108-120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Credibility and use of scientific and technical information in policy making: An analysis of the information bases of the National Research Council’s committee reports

Author

Listed:
  • Youtie, Jan
  • Bozeman, Barry
  • Jabbehdari, Sahra
  • Kao, Andrew

Abstract

Often researchers are disappointed by the limited extent to which peer reviewed STEM research seems to contribute directly to high level public policy decision-making. However, does the perception of the limited use of formal scientific and technical information (STI) accord with empirical reality? How does the choice of various types of information relate to the use and impacts of science policy reports and recommendations? While there is a prodigious literature on the use of formal information in decision-making, our focus is on the use of STI in science, technology and innovation (S&T) policy, a domain in which there is virtually no empirical literature. This study examines the use and impacts of STI in the context of a single, but arguably quite important, S&T policy domain: the US National Research Council (NRC) reports. This is an especially important target institution for analysis because NRC committees have extensive information access and resources, as well as decision-makers who are well equipped to deal with a variety of information types, including STI. To understand the information ingredients of high-level S&T policymaking and advice, we have coded information about the report, policy area, committee and reviewers, STI, and use of the report by Congress. Results indicate that STI is widely used in the NRC report-writing process, but, although nearly half of all NRC reports are explicitly conveyed to Congress, STI use does not figure significantly in this conveyance. These findings imply different internal and external credibility orientations.

Suggested Citation

  • Youtie, Jan & Bozeman, Barry & Jabbehdari, Sahra & Kao, Andrew, 2017. "Credibility and use of scientific and technical information in policy making: An analysis of the information bases of the National Research Council’s committee reports," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 108-120.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:1:p:108-120
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733316301731
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barry Bozeman & David Landsbergen, 1989. "Truth and Credibility in Sincere Policy Analysis," Evaluation Review, , vol. 13(4), pages 355-379, August.
    2. Wenpin Tsai, 2002. "Social Structure of “Coopetition” Within a Multiunit Organization: Coordination, Competition, and Intraorganizational Knowledge Sharing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 179-190, April.
    3. Lynn Frewer & Brian Salter, 2002. "Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulatory policy: The case of BSE," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 137-145, April.
    4. Masood Ahmed, 2005. "Bridging research and policy," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 765-773.
    5. Julia Porter Liebeskind & Amalya Lumerman Oliver & Lynne Zucker & Marilynn Brewer, 1996. "Social networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 428-443, August.
    6. Robert Hoppe, 1999. "Policy analysis, science and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 201-210, June.
    7. Godin, Benoit & Gingras, Yves, 2000. "The place of universities in the system of knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 273-278, February.
    8. Teresa A. Myers & Edward W. Maibach & Connie Roser-Renouf & Karen Akerlof & Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2013. "The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 343-347, April.
    9. Koenig, M. E. D. & Gans, D. J., 1975. "The productivity of research effort in the US pharmaceutical industry: a statistical approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 330-349, October.
    10. Bozeman, Barry & Rogers, Juan D., 2002. "A churn model of scientific knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 769-794, July.
    11. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    12. Ellefson, Paul V., 2000. "Integrating science and policy development: case of the national research council and US national policy focused on non-federal forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 81-94, May.
    13. Morlacchi, Piera & Martin, Ben R., 2009. "Emerging challenges for science, technology and innovation policy research: A reflexive overview," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 571-582, May.
    14. Mansfield, Edwin, 1995. "Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations:," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(1), pages 55-65, February.
    15. Richard G. Peters & Vincent T. Covello & David B. McCallum, 1997. "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 43-54, February.
    16. Herbert A. Simon, 1991. "Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 125-134, February.
    17. C. Nadine Wathen & Jacquelyn Burkell, 2002. "Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 53(2), pages 134-144.
    18. Landry, Rejean & Amara, Nabil & Lamari, Moktar, 2001. "Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 333-349, February.
    19. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1832-1846, September.
    20. Greg Hampton, 2009. "Narrative policy analysis and the integration of public involvement in decision making," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(3), pages 227-242, August.
    21. Axelrod, Robert, 1973. "Schema Theory: An Information Processing Model of Perception and Cognition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 1248-1266, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Knut Blind & Alex Fenton, 2022. "Standard-relevant publications: evidence, processes and influencing factors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 577-602, January.
    2. Leonid Gokhberg & Dirk Meissner & Ilya Kuzminov, 2023. "What semantic analysis can tell us about long term trends in the global STI policy agenda," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 2249-2277, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Zuniga, Pluvia, 2009. "Diversity of science linkages and innovation performance: some empirical evidence from Flemish firms," Economics Discussion Papers 2009-30, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Lionel Nesta & Vincent Mangematin, 2002. "Industry Life Cycle, Knowledge Generation and Technological Networks," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-03398092, HAL.
    3. Cooley, Savannah & Jenkins, Amber & Schaeffer, Blake & Bormann, Kat J. & Abdallah, Adel & Melton, Forrest & Granger, Stephanie & Graczyk, Indrani, 2022. "Paths to research-driven decision making in the realms of environment and water," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    4. René Belderbos & Bart Leten & Shinya Suzuki, 2017. "Scientific research, firm heterogeneity, and foreign R&D locations of multinational firms," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 691-711, September.
    5. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    6. Donald Siegel & David Waldman & Albert Link, 1999. "Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study," NBER Working Papers 7256, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Atul Nerkar & Srikanth Paruchuri, 2005. "Evolution of R&D Capabilities: The Role of Knowledge Networks Within a Firm," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 771-785, May.
    8. Jong, Simcha & Slavova, Kremena, 2014. "When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 645-654.
    9. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    10. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    11. Frank T. Rothaermel & Andrew M. Hess, 2007. "Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 898-921, December.
    12. Cammarano, Antonello & Michelino, Francesca & Lamberti, Emilia & Caputo, Mauro, 2017. "Accumulated stock of knowledge and current search practices: The impact on patent quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 204-222.
    13. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Rainhilde, 2003. "Which firms have cooperative R&D agreements with universities? Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing," IESE Research Papers D/502, IESE Business School.
    14. Chai, Sen & Shih, Willy, 2016. "Bridging science and technology through academic–industry partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 148-158.
    15. Simon Rodan, 2008. "Organizational learning: effects of (network) structure and (individual) strategy," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 222-247, September.
    16. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 27-48, January.
    17. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2018. "Absorptive Capacity for Need Knowledge: Antecedents and Effects for Employee Innovativeness," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 47(4), pages 687-699.
    18. Rene Belderbos & Vincent Van Roy & Bart Leten & Bart Thijs, 2014. "Academic Research Strengths and Multinational Firms' Foreign R&D Location Decisions: Evidence from R&D Investments in European Regions," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(4), pages 920-942, April.
    19. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2018. "Absorptive capacity for need knowledge: Antecedents and effects for employee innovativeness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 687-699.
    20. Breugelmans, Els & Köhler, Clemens F. & Dellaert, Benedict G.C. & de Ruyter, Ko, 2012. "Promoting Interactive Decision Aids on Retail Websites: A Message Framing Perspective with New versus Traditional Focal Actions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 226-235.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:1:p:108-120. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.