IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v50y2023i1p15-29..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A computational approach to study the gap and barriers between science and policy

Author

Listed:
  • Nancy Li
  • Markus Luczak-Roesch
  • Flavia Donadelli

Abstract

Research on the gap between science and policymaking and the barriers to utilizing science in policy remains controversial, since previous research methods have dominated data collection with perceived participant responses. This approach makes research findings applicable to particular contexts, particular participants, and particular times but cannot be generalized. We used a computational model to analyse linguistic text data from two communities and compared the results with self-reported research findings. The outcomes support that scientists and policymakers have their own linguistic characteristics, with scientists in the medical field preferring jargon and policymakers’ language containing public satisfaction pressures. Language representation also validates the existence of barriers in the use of science.

Suggested Citation

  • Nancy Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Flavia Donadelli, 2023. "A computational approach to study the gap and barriers between science and policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 15-29.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:1:p:15-29.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac048
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:1:p:15-29.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.