IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/asiaps/v2y2015i3p441-451.html

Governance for Effective Policy-Relevant Scientific Research: The Shared Governance Model

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Burgman

Abstract

Despite the aligned aspirations of many applied scientists and policy-makers that science should contribute directly to policy decisions, there are significant gaps between what scientists provide and what policy-makers can use. This article outlines the features that encourage effective adoption of scientific advice in public policy. It reviews some of the major impediments to its use. It describes governance mechanisms that aim to overcome these impediments, and discusses their strengths and weaknesses. Opportunities exist for designing governance mechanisms that will better support the development and persistence of the personal relationships that underpin the most effective delivery of science for policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Burgman, 2015. "Governance for Effective Policy-Relevant Scientific Research: The Shared Governance Model," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(3), pages 441-451, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:asiaps:v:2:y:2015:i:3:p:441-451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/app5.104
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Dan M. Kahan, 2013. "Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(4), pages 407-424, July.
    3. Pannell, David J., 2004. "Effectively communicating economics to policy makers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-21.
    4. Fidler, Fiona & Geoff, Cumming & Mark, Burgman & Neil, Thomason, 2004. "Statistical reform in medicine, psychology and ecology," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 615-630, November.
    5. Simon French, 2012. "Expert Judgment, Meta-analysis, and Participatory Risk Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 119-127, June.
    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. Vardon, Michael & Burnett, Peter & Dovers, Stephen, 2016. "The accounting push and the policy pull: balancing environment and economic decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 145-152.

    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. Evan Sadler, 2021. "A Practical Guide to Updating Beliefs From Contradictory Evidence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(1), pages 415-436, January.
    2. Justin F. Landy, 2016. "Representations of moral violations: Category members and associated features," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 496-508, September.
    3. Dharshing, Samdruk & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2017. "The Influence of Political Orientation on the Strength and Temporal Persistence of Policy Framing Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 295-305.
    4. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    5. Michael Kurschilgen, 2023. "Moral awareness polarizes people’s fairness judgments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(2), pages 339-364, August.
    6. Thierry Poynard & Dominique Thabut & Mona Munteanu & Vlad Ratziu & Yves Benhamou & Olivier Deckmyn, 2010. "Hirsch Index and Truth Survival in Clinical Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-10, August.
    7. Alexander Frankel & Maximilian Kasy, 2022. "Which Findings Should Be Published?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, February.
    8. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    9. Benabou, Roland & Falk, Armin & Tirole, Jean, 2018. "Narratives, Imperatives, and Moral Reasoning," IZA Discussion Papers 11665, IZA Network @ LISER.
    10. Stephen Fox, 2016. "Dismantling The Box — Applying Principles For Reducing Preconceptions During Ideation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(06), pages 1-27, August.
    11. John Davis, 2018. "Communicating Economic Concepts and Research in a Challenging Environment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 591-605, September.
    12. Amanda Fitzgerald & Naoise Mac Giollabhui & Louise Dolphin & Robert Whelan & Barbara Dooley, 2018. "Dissociable psychosocial profiles of adolescent substance users," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, August.
    13. Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, Chris, 2019. "Practical Significance, Meta-Analysis and the Credibility of Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 12458, IZA Network @ LISER.
    14. Gordon Pennycook & Robert M Ross & Derek J Koehler & Jonathan A Fugelsang, 2016. "Atheists and Agnostics Are More Reflective than Religious Believers: Four Empirical Studies and a Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    16. Karin Langenkamp & Bodo Rödel & Kerstin Taufenbach & Meike Weiland, 2018. "Open Access in Vocational Education and Training Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-12, July.
    17. Flörchinger, Daniela & Frondel, Manuel & Sommer, Stephan & Andor, Mark A., 2025. "Pro-environmental behavior and environmentalist movements: Evidence from the identification with Fridays for Future," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    18. Jared Coopersmith & Thomas D. Cook & Jelena Zurovac & Duncan Chaplin & Lauren V. Forrow, 2022. "Internal And External Validity Of The Comparative Interrupted Time‐Series Design: A Meta‐Analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(1), pages 252-277, January.
    19. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    20. Emilija Stojmenova Duh & Andrej Duh & Uroš Droftina & Tim Kos & Urban Duh & Tanja Simonič Korošak & Dean Korošak, 2019. "Publish-and-Flourish: Using Blockchain Platform to Enable Cooperative Scholarly Communication," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, 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:bla:asiaps:v:2:y:2015:i:3:p:441-451. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=2050-2680 .

    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.