How research funding organizations can increase application of science to decision-making

Coastal Management

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 336-350

  Riley, C ^a   Matso, K ^b   Leonard, D ^b   Stadler, J ^b   Trueblood, D ^a   Langan, R ^b  

^a NOAA EARTH SYSTEM RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive management; Applied science; Program evaluation; Science and technology policy; Science to management

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT; APPLIED SCIENCE; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY; SCIENCE TO MANAGEMENT;

DECISION MAKING; INNOVATION; NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT; SCHEDULING; SURVEYS; TECHNOLOGY;

ENGINEERING RESEARCH;

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT; COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT; ESTUARINE POLLUTION; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; RESEARCH; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

EID: 79956074403     PISSN: 08920753     EISSN: 15210421     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2011.566117     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Brown, M. B. 2006. Ethics, politics, and the public: Shaping the research agenda. In Shaping Science and Technology Policy: The Next Generation of Research, ed. D. H. Guston and D. Sarewitz, 10-33. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
2. Brunner, R. D., and T. A. Steelman. 2005. Beyord scientific management. In Adaptive governance: Intergrating science, policy and decision making, ed. R. D. Brunner, T. A. Steelman, L. Coe-Juell, C. M. Cromley, C. M. Edwards, and D. W. Tucker. New York: Columbia University Press.
3. Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, J. Jager, and R. B. Mitchell. 2002. Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: Linking research, assessment and decision making. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Faculty Research Working Paper Series. RWP02-046. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=372280
4. Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
5. Cole, J. R. 2009. The great American university: Its rise to preeminence, its indispensable national role, and why it must be protected. New York: Public Affairs.
6. Jacobs, K. L. 2002. Connecting science, policy, and decision-making: A handbook for researchers and science agencies. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Global Programs.
7. Klee, G. A. 1999. The coastal environment: Toward integrated coastal and marine sanctuary management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8. Landry, R., N. Amara, and M. Lamari. 2001. Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy 30:333-349.
9. Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science 279 (5350): 491-497.
10. McNie, E. C. 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy 10: 17-38
11. Mog, J. M. 2006. Managing development programs for sustainability: Integrating development and research through adaptive management. Society and Natural Resources 19:531-546.
12. NRC (National Research Council). 1995. Science, policy and the coast-Improving decision making. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13. NRC. 2006. Linking knowledge with action for sustainable development: The role of program management-Summary of a workshop. Roundtable on Science and Technology for Sustainability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14. NRC. 2009. Informing decisions in a changing climate. Panel on Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12626
15. Rittel, H., and M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155-169. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Inc.
16. Roux, D. J., K. H. Rogers, H. C. Biggs, P. J. Ashton, and A. Sergeant. Bridging the science-management divide: Moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society 11 (1): 4. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/
17. Ruegg, R., and I. Feller. 2003. A toolkitt for evaluating public R&D investment models, methods, and findings from ATP's first decade. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST GCR 03-857).
18. Stewart, D. W., and P. N. Shamdasani. 1990. Focus groups: theory and practice. Applied Social Research Methods Series. volume 20. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
19. Stokes, D. 1997. Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
20. Stoneman, P. 2002. The economics of technological diffusion. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
21. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
22. Tornatzky, L. G., and M. Fleischer. 1990. The processes of technological innovation. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
23. University of Wisconsin Extension. 2010. Program design and evaluation. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html
24. US Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Final Report. Washington, DC: Commission on Ocean Policy.
25. Weisberg, S., W. Covell, M. O'Donovan, Dix D. Hernandez, K. Matso, C. Moore, J. Reutter, and J. Schubel. 2007. Best practices for increasing the impact of research investments: A report by the Research to Applications task force of the Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel. http://www.nopp.org/Dev2Go.web?id=207773
26. White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. Final recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. Washington, DC. http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf