Cargando…

Considering science needs to deliver actionable science

Conservation practitioners, natural resource managers, and environmental stewards often seek out scientific contributions to inform decision‐making. This body of science only becomes actionable when motivated by decision makers considering alternative courses of action. Many in the science community...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bisbal, Gustavo A., Eaton, Mitchell J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10099986/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36193663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14013
_version_ 1785025177502875648
author Bisbal, Gustavo A.
Eaton, Mitchell J.
author_facet Bisbal, Gustavo A.
Eaton, Mitchell J.
author_sort Bisbal, Gustavo A.
collection PubMed
description Conservation practitioners, natural resource managers, and environmental stewards often seek out scientific contributions to inform decision‐making. This body of science only becomes actionable when motivated by decision makers considering alternative courses of action. Many in the science community equate addressing stakeholder science needs with delivering actionable science. However, not all efforts to address science needs deliver actionable science, suggesting that the synonymous use of these two constructs (delivering actionable science and addressing science needs) is not trivial. This can be the case when such needs are conveyed by people who neglect decision makers responsible for articulating a priority management concern and for specifying how the anticipated scientific information will aid the decision‐making process. We argue that the actors responsible for articulating these science needs and the process used to identify them are decisive factors in the ability to deliver actionable science, stressing the importance of examining the provenance and the determination of science needs. Guided by a desire to enhance communication and cross‐literacy between scientists and decision makers, we identified categories of actors who may inappropriately declare science needs (e.g., applied scientists with and without regulatory affiliation, external influencers, reluctant decision makers, agents in place of decision makers, and boundary organization representatives). We also emphasize the importance of, and general approach to, undertaking needs assessments or gap analyses as a means to identify priority science needs. We conclude that basic stipulations to legitimize actionable science, such as the declaration of decisions of interest that motivate science needs and using a robust process to identify priority information gaps, are not always satisfied and require verification. To alleviate these shortcomings, we formulated practical suggestions for consideration by applied scientists, decision makers, research funding entities, and boundary organizations to help foster conditions that lead to science output being truly actionable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10099986
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100999862023-04-14 Considering science needs to deliver actionable science Bisbal, Gustavo A. Eaton, Mitchell J. Conserv Biol Conservation Practice and Policy Conservation practitioners, natural resource managers, and environmental stewards often seek out scientific contributions to inform decision‐making. This body of science only becomes actionable when motivated by decision makers considering alternative courses of action. Many in the science community equate addressing stakeholder science needs with delivering actionable science. However, not all efforts to address science needs deliver actionable science, suggesting that the synonymous use of these two constructs (delivering actionable science and addressing science needs) is not trivial. This can be the case when such needs are conveyed by people who neglect decision makers responsible for articulating a priority management concern and for specifying how the anticipated scientific information will aid the decision‐making process. We argue that the actors responsible for articulating these science needs and the process used to identify them are decisive factors in the ability to deliver actionable science, stressing the importance of examining the provenance and the determination of science needs. Guided by a desire to enhance communication and cross‐literacy between scientists and decision makers, we identified categories of actors who may inappropriately declare science needs (e.g., applied scientists with and without regulatory affiliation, external influencers, reluctant decision makers, agents in place of decision makers, and boundary organization representatives). We also emphasize the importance of, and general approach to, undertaking needs assessments or gap analyses as a means to identify priority science needs. We conclude that basic stipulations to legitimize actionable science, such as the declaration of decisions of interest that motivate science needs and using a robust process to identify priority information gaps, are not always satisfied and require verification. To alleviate these shortcomings, we formulated practical suggestions for consideration by applied scientists, decision makers, research funding entities, and boundary organizations to help foster conditions that lead to science output being truly actionable. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-11-07 2023-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10099986/ /pubmed/36193663 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14013 Text en Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Conservation Practice and Policy
Bisbal, Gustavo A.
Eaton, Mitchell J.
Considering science needs to deliver actionable science
title Considering science needs to deliver actionable science
title_full Considering science needs to deliver actionable science
title_fullStr Considering science needs to deliver actionable science
title_full_unstemmed Considering science needs to deliver actionable science
title_short Considering science needs to deliver actionable science
title_sort considering science needs to deliver actionable science
topic Conservation Practice and Policy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10099986/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36193663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14013
work_keys_str_mv AT bisbalgustavoa consideringscienceneedstodeliveractionablescience
AT eatonmitchellj consideringscienceneedstodeliveractionablescience