You are here:
POLICY ADVOCACY IN SCIENCE: PREVALENCE, PERSPECTIVES, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGISTS
Citation:
SCOTT, J. M., J. L. RACHLOW, R. T. LACKEY, A. B. PIDGORNA, J. L. AYCRIGG, G. R. FELDMAN, L. K. SVANCARA, D. A. RUPP, D. I. STANISH, AND R. K. STEINHORST. POLICY ADVOCACY IN SCIENCE: PREVALENCE, PERSPECTIVES, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGISTS. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, 21(1):29-35, (2007).
Impact/Purpose:
We examined prevalence of policy advocacy in peer-reviewed research published in six natural resource journals
Description:
Much debate and discussion has focused on the relationship between science and advocacy, and the role of scientists in influencing public policy. Some argue that advocacy is widespread within scientific literature, however, data to evaluate that contention are lacking. We examined prevalence of policy advocacy in peer-reviewed research published in six natural resource journals (Conservation Biology, Ecological Applications, Forest Science, Journal of Range Management, Journal of Wildlife Management, and North American Journal of Fisheries Management). We assessed papers for two indicators of policy advocacy: presence of normative language and stipulation of policy or management preferences. We identified evidence of advocacy in most papers we reviewed. Prevalence of normative language in papers published in Conservation Biology was significantly higher than in all other journals. Similarly, the occurrence of stipulated policy preference was highest in Conservation Biology, and significantly higher than in Ecological Applications, Journal of Range Management, and Forest Science. To gain an understanding of the perspectives of scientists on advocacy in the research literature, we surveyed attendees of the 2006 annual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology. Over 64% of respondents indicated that they were ¿aware¿ of issues concerning advocacy in science. Among respondents who regularly read journals, most indicated that those journals published scientific research articles that advocate policy. Additionally, most respondents indicated that advocacy should be included in the peer-reviewed literature. Although advocacy is often viewed as dichotomous, we recognize that actions, especially use of value-laden language, likely occur on a continuum. There is need to more clearly define policy advocacy and delineate those actions that constitute advocacy. Clarifying the distinction between advocacy for science and the scientist-advocate is important for advancing discussions about how conservation biologists can effectively influence policy.