Science and technology are embedded in virtually every aspect of modern life. As a result, people face an increasing need to integrate information from science with their personal values and other considerations as they make important life decisions about medical care, the safety of foods, what to do about climate change, and many other issues. Communicating science effectively, however, is a complex task and an acquired skill. Moreover, the approaches to communicating science that will be most effective for specific audiences and circumstances are not obvious. Fortunately, there is an expanding science base from diverse disciplines that can support science communicators in making these determinations.
Communicating Science Effectively offers a research agenda for science communicators and researchers seeking to apply this research and fill gaps in knowledge about how to communicate effectively about science, focusing in particular on issues that are contentious in the public sphere. To inform this research agenda, this publication identifies important influences – psychological, economic, political, social, cultural, and media-related – on how science related to such issues is understood, perceived, and used.
Just a couple of news items:
Congrats to Paul Battaglio and Jeremy Hall for their impending editorship of PAR. Paul is an alum of UGA’s PhD program in public administration and policy and currently editor at ROPPA.
In other news, I’m joining the editorial board at Policy & Society, and extending my term on the editorial board at Policy Studies Journal for another two years. In addition, we’ve reorganized some of the duties at the Journal of Public Policy; I’ll serve as the Field Editor for Policy Implementation and Public Administration.
Who defended the best dissertation in 2016?
The Best Dissertation Award Selection Committee for the Public and Nonprofit
(PNP) Division of the Academy of Management requests nominations for the
Division’s 2017 Best Dissertation Award.
This dissertation award recognizes important academic work and high quality
intellectual contributions to the PNP fields. Nominated dissertations that
make contributions to the understanding of management in the public and
nonprofit arenas will be considered.
Only dissertations defended during the 2016 calendar year are eligible for
consideration. Submissions consist of two items: (1) An electronic copy of the
dissertation, and (2) An electronic copy of a nomination letter from the
dissertation committee chair or other committee member. These materials must
be submitted by email to the committee chair by February 1, 2017.
Submissions will be evaluated by three committee members:
Mark Hager (chair), School of Community Resources & Development, Arizona State
University (United States)
Anders Ryom Villadsen, Department of Management, Aarhus University (Denmark)
Elizabeth Searing, Department of Public Administration & Policy, University of
Albany (United States) — last year’s award winner
Send questions and nominations to the Committee chair, Mark.Hager@asu.edu
Academia isn’t like the public sector or firms or nonprofits. These days, people in those sectors are trying to read the tea leaves about what’s coming next. In a post-truth world, everything is negotiable, so it’s all about reading the fault lines of debates, figuring out who wants what.
I became an academic because I believe in evidence. It’s easy for critics to wrongly claim that universities are full of informational relativism, but I don’t see it. Instead I see groups of people trying to find the best ways to discover evidence about truth. The most bitter fights are about how we assemble that evidence because it isn’t easy to demonstrate causality.
Academics are also facing the decision of whether to invest time reading the political fault lines – or to double down on evidence.
If I was gifted with reading those political tea leaves I would have run for office. I’m not, so I’m doubling down on evidence. I’m doing so because post-truth, like other movements, is a fad. Assuming we survive it, after it fades, there will be a great demand for evidence. Somewhere, sometime, people will want evidence about how to make policy or manage organizations.
In the end, this is the primary responsibility of academics – to double down on evidence, not to translate or write opeds or whatever. If we don’t discover, who will?
National statistical systems are enterprises tasked with collecting, validating and reporting societal attributes. These data serve many purposes–they allow governments to improve services, economic actors to traverse markets, and academics to assess social theories. National statistical systems vary in quality, especially in developing countries. This study examines determinants of national statistical capacity in developing countries, focusing on the impact of technological attainment. Just as technological progress helps to explain differences in economic growth, we argue that states with greater technological attainment have greater capacity for gathering and processing quality data. Analysis using panel methods shows a strong, statistically significant positive linear relationship between technological attainment and national statistical capacity.
Please feel free to contact me for a pre-publication version of the paper.
On one hand, the president gets to appoint people to help further the Administration’s initiatives throughout the federal bureaucracy.
On the other hand, the president must appoint people or risk power vacuums. How many positions, though?
The newly-released Plum Book says: 9,000. Over the first 100 days, that’s 90 per day. Even over the course of a year, that’s over two per day.
“Drain the swamp?” Give me a break. “The swamp” isn’t a swamp – it’s an ecosystem, and the president gets to – and must – fill it. And each of those appointments tell us something about the president’s approach to governing.