IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01403-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

COVID-19 and science advice on the ‘Grand Stage’: the metadata and linguistic choices in a scientific advisory groups’ meeting minutes

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Baker

    (University of Cambridge)

  • Shauna Concannon

    (University of Cambridge)

  • Matthias Meller

    (The Technical University of Munich)

  • Katie Cohen

    (University of Cambridge)

  • Alice Millington

    (University of Cambridge)

  • Samuel Ward

    (University of Cambridge)

  • Emily So

    (University of Cambridge)

Abstract

Science advice for governments attracted great scrutiny during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the public spotlight on institutions and individual experts—putting science advice on the ‘Grand Stage’. A review of the academic literature identified transparency, a plurality of expertise, the science and policy ‘boundary’, and consensus whilst addressing uncertainty as key themes. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) has been the primary provider of coordinated scientific and technical advice to the UK Government during emergencies since 2009. Using the first 89 of SAGE’s meeting minutes (study period: 22 January 2020–13 May 2021), the ‘metadata’ and linguistic choices are analysed to identify how SAGE’s role and protocols are communicated. This includes understanding which experts were regularly taking part in discussions, the role of scientific experts in the science advisory system and their influence on policy choices, and the degree of consensus and uncertainty within this group of experts—all of which relate to the degree of transparency with the public. In addition, a temporal analysis examines how these practices, such as linguistically marking uncertainty, developed over the period studied. Linguistic markers indexing certainty and uncertainty increased, demonstrating a commitment to precise and accurate communication of the science, including ambiguities and the unknown. However, self-references to SAGE decreased over the period studied. The study highlights how linguistic analysis can be a useful approach for developing an understanding of science communication practices and scientific ambiguity. By considering how SAGE presents to those outside the process, the research calls attention to what remains ‘behind the scenes’ and consequently limits the public’s understanding of SAGE’s role in the COVID-19 response.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Baker & Shauna Concannon & Matthias Meller & Katie Cohen & Alice Millington & Samuel Ward & Emily So, 2022. "COVID-19 and science advice on the ‘Grand Stage’: the metadata and linguistic choices in a scientific advisory groups’ meeting minutes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01403-1
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01403-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01403-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01403-1?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. Jung, Alexander, 2016. "Have minutes helped to predict fed funds rate changes?," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-32.
    2. Jung, Alexander, 2016. "Have FOMC minutes helped markets to predict FED funds rate changes?," Working Paper Series 1961, European Central Bank.
    3. Dominic H. P. Balog-Way & Katherine A. McComas, 2020. "COVID-19: Reflections on trust, tradeoffs, and preparedness," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7-8), pages 838-848, August.
    4. Noam Obermeister, 2020. "Tapping into science advisers’ learning," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    5. Maria Laura Ruiu, 2020. "Mismanagement of Covid-19: lessons learned from Italy," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7-8), pages 1007-1020, August.
    6. Andy Stirling, 2010. "Keep it complex," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7327), pages 1029-1031, December.
    7. Jung, Alexander & El-Shagi, Makram, 2015. "Has the publication of minutes helped markets to predict the monetary policy decisions of the Bank of England's MPC?," Working Paper Series 1808, European Central Bank.
    8. Warren Pearce, 2020. "Trouble in the trough: how uncertainties were downplayed in the UK’s science advice on Covid-19," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-6, December.
    9. Atkinson, P. & Gobat, N. & Lant, S. & Mableson, H. & Pilbeam, C. & Solomon, T. & Tonkin-Crine, S. & Sheard, S., 2020. "Understanding the policy dynamics of COVID-19 in the UK: Early findings from interviews with policy makers and health care professionals," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    10. Robert Doubleday & James Wilsdon, 2012. "Beyond the great and good," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7398), pages 301-302, May.
    11. Amare Tesfie Birhan, 2021. "An exploration of metadiscourse usage in book review articles across three academic disciplines: a contrastive analysis of corpus-based research approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2885-2902, April.
    12. Reeves, Rachel & Sawicki, Michael, 2007. "Do financial markets react to Bank of England communication?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 207-227, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jung, Alexander, 2016. "Have monetary data releases helped markets to predict the interest rate decisions of the European Central Bank?," Working Paper Series 1926, European Central Bank.
    2. Juan Camilo Anzoátegui Zapata & Juan Camilo Galvis, 2019. "Efectos de la comunicación del banco central sobre los títulos públicos: evidencia empírica para Colombia," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, vol. 38(77), pages 337-364, July.
    3. Benjamin M. Vallejo & Rodrigo Angelo C. Ong, 2022. "OCTA as an independent science advice provider for COVID-19 in the Philippines," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Mikael Apel & Marianna Blix Grimaldi & Isaiah Hull, 2022. "How Much Information Do Monetary Policy Committees Disclose? Evidence from the FOMC's Minutes and Transcripts," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 54(5), pages 1459-1490, August.
    5. Bennani, Hamza & Fanta, Nicolas & Gertler, Pavel & Horvath, Roman, 2020. "Does central bank communication signal future monetary policy in a (post)-crisis era? The case of the ECB," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    6. Cour-Thimann, Philippine & Jung, Alexander, 2021. "Interest-rate setting and communication at the ECB in its first twenty years," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    7. Baranowski, Pawel & Bennani, Hamza & Doryń, Wirginia, 2021. "Do the ECB's introductory statements help predict monetary policy? Evidence from a tone analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    8. Paweł Baranowski & Hamza Bennani & Wirginia Doryń, 2020. "Do ECB introductory statements help to predict monetary policy: evidence from tone analysis," NBP Working Papers 323, Narodowy Bank Polski.
    9. Cour-Thimann, Philippine & Jung, Alexander, 2020. "Interest rate setting and communication at the ECB," Working Paper Series 2443, European Central Bank.
    10. Istrefi, Klodiana & Hanifi, Rayane & Penalver, Adrian, 2022. "Central Bank Communication of Uncertainty," CEPR Discussion Papers 17728, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Noam Obermeister, 2020. "Tapping into science advisers’ learning," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    12. Hüpper, Florian & Kempa, Bernd, 2023. "Inflation targeting and inflation communication of the Federal Reserve: Words and deeds," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    13. Timo Y. Maas & Annet Pauwelussen & Esther Turnhout, 2022. "Co-producing the science–policy interface: towards common but differentiated responsibilities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    14. Juan Camilo Galvis Ciro & Juan Camilo Anzoátegui Zapata, 2018. "Announcements credibility and government securities: evidence from Colombia," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 278-282, February.
    15. Lee A. Smales & Zhangxin (Frank) Liu & Cameron D. Robertson, 2022. "One session options: Playing the announcement lottery?," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(2), pages 192-211, February.
    16. Rivera-Ferre, Marta G. & Ortega-Cerda, Miquel, 2011. "Assessment of the Agri-food System for Sustainability: Recognizing Ignorance," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115965, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Saner, Marc A. & Bordt, Michael, 2016. "Building the consensus: The moral space of earth measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 74-81.
    18. Chappell, Henry W. & McGregor, Rob Roy, 2018. "Committee decision-making at Sweden's Riksbank," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 120-133.
    19. Jubinski, Daniel & Tomljanovich, Marc, 2013. "Do FOMC minutes matter to markets? An intraday analysis of FOMC minutes releases on individual equity volatility and returns," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 86-97.
    20. Lu Wei & Tien-Tsung Lee, 2021. "Who Can I Trust in a Scary World? An Examination of the Objects of Trust, Information Sources and Social Distancing Intention Amid COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-16, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01403-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.