Advertisement

Policy-Relevant Science: The Depth and Breadth of Support Networks

  • Bruce A. DesmaraisEmail author
  • John A. Hird
Conference paper
  • 61 Downloads
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

Proponents of basic science argue that objective scientific understanding can inform improvement in public policy. We gather data on scientific research cited in official benefit-cost analyses produced by US federal regulatory agencies to justify policy decisions between 2008 and 2012. We construct a science-policy network in which benefit-cost analyses and the studies they cite are the nodes, and citations represent the edges. We assess two features of each scientific publication in the network; how frequently is it used; and how broadly it spans across the network, as measured by betweenness centrality. We ask which author affiliations and funders are associated with the best-cited and farthest spanning publications. Elite universities and major government funders support publications that are most heavily cited, but the farthest spanning articles are written by scientists with non-academic affiliations and sponsored by non-governmental funders. These results suggest that bias towards academically affiliated investigators should be scrutinized by major funding organizations if a major objective is to support science that is used by policymakers.

Keywords

Scientometrics Policy networks Regulation 

References

  1. 1.
    Executive Order No. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review. 58 FR 51735 (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, B.S., Butts, C., Carley, K.: The interaction of size and density with graph-level indices. Soc. Netw. 21(3), 239–267 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker, B.: Politicizing science: what is the role of biologists in a hyperpartisan world? BioScience 64(3), 171–177 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnett, G.A., Huh, C., Kim, Y., Park, H.W.: Citations among communication journals and other disciplines: a network analysis. Scientometrics 88(2), 449–469 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berardo, R., Scholz, J.T.: Self-organizing policy networks: Risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 54(3), 632–649 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00451.x. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00451.x/abstractCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bigrigg, M.W., Carley, K.M., Manousakis, K., McAuley, A.: Routing through an integrated communication and social network. In: MILCOM 2009-2009 IEEE Military Communications Conference, pp. 1–7. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colebunders, R., Kenyon, C., Rousseau, R.: Increase in numbers and proportions of review articles in tropical medicine, infectious diseases, and oncology. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(1), 201–205 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scientific Integrity in Policy Making. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA (2004). https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/scientific_integrity_in_policy_making_july_2004_1.pdf
  9. 9.
    Costa, M., Desmarais, B.A., Hird, J.A.: Science use in regulatory impact analysis: the effects of political attention and controversy. Rev. Policy Res. 33(3), 251–269 (2016) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costa, M., Desmarais, B.A., Hird, J.A.: Public comments’ influence on science use in US rulemaking: the case of epa’s national emission standards. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 49(1), 36–50 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Desmarais, B.A., Hird, J.A.: Public policy’s bibliography: the use of research in us regulatory impact analyses. Regul. Gov. 8(4), 497–510 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diesner, J., Carley, K.M.: A methodology for integrating network theory and topic modeling and its application to innovation diffusion. In: 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing, pp. 687–692. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eysenbach, G.: Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biol. 4(5), e157 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harzing, A.W., Alakangas, S.: Google scholar, scopus and the web of science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 106(2), 787–804 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heclo, H.: Issue networks and the executive establishment. In: King, A. (ed.) The New American Political System. American Enterprise Institute, Washington (1978)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hutchins, C.E., Benham-Hutchins, M.: Hiding in plain sight: criminal network analysis. Comput. Math. Organ. Theor. 16(1), 89–111 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jin, J.H., Park, S.C., Pyon, C.U.: Finding research trend of convergence technology based on Korean R&D network. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(12), 15159–15171 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kenneth, P., Schwandt, T.A., Straf, M.L.: Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy. The National Academies Press, Washington (2012). National Research CouncilGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koontz, T.M.: The science-policy nexus in collaborative governance: use of science in ecosystem recovery planning. Rev. Policy Res. 36(6), 708–735 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leydesdorff, L.: Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58(9), 1303–1319 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leydesdorff, L., Rafols, I.: Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: diversity, centrality, and citations. J. Informetr. 5(1), 87–100 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Orosz, K., Farkas, I.J., Pollner, P.: Quantifying the changing role of past publications. Scientometrics 108(2), 829–853 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Provan, K.G., Veazie, M.A., Staten, L.K., Teufel-Shone, N.I.: The use of network analysis to strengthen community partnerships. Public Adm. Rev. 65(5), 603–613 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sandstrom, A., Carlsson, L.: The performance of policy networks: the relation between network structure and network performance. Policy Stud. J. 36(4), 497–524 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00281.x. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00281.x/abstractCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sugimoto, C.R., Thelwall, M.: Scholars on soap boxes: science communication and dissemination in TED videos. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64(4), 663–674 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tonta, Y., Darvish, H.R.: Diffusion of latent semantic analysis as a research tool: a social network analysis approach. J. Informetr. 4(2), 166–174 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weiss, C.H.: The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm. Rev. 39(5), 426–431 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Pennsylvania State University, University ParkState CollegeUSA
  2. 2.University of Massachusetts AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations