Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:55:58.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decision Making at the State and Local Level: Does Science Matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2016

Susan G. Mason
Susan G. Mason*
Affiliation:
Boise State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Science is believed to be an important part of public policy decision making because of its inherent characteristics of measurability, rigor, objectivity, replication, and peer review. The purpose of this research was to explore the linkage of science to public policy decision making. The research explores what state and local public officials know about science and how much they actually use science in their decision making. Interview results with public officials in the State of Idaho demonstrate that policy makers ultimately see science as only one element in the mix. Findings suggest that equal attention and debate should be given to how science interacts with all of the other factors that affect the public policy making process.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 21 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ashford, Nicholas. 1994. “Value Judgments and Risk Assessment.” In Chemical Risk Assessment and Occupational Health, ed. Mark Smith, C., Christiana, David, and Kelsey, Karl, 197–203. Westport, CT: Auburn House.Google Scholar
Buck, Eugene M., Corn, Lynne, and Baldwin, Pamela. 2007. “The Endangered Species Act and ‘Sound Science.’” CRS Report for Congress. Washington, DC: CRS.Google Scholar
Burnett, H. Sterling. 1999. “Openness Protects Science and the Decisions That Follow.” Idaho Statesman, August 1, 7B.Google Scholar
Byerly, Radford, and Pielke, Roger Jr., 1995. “The Changing Ecology of United States Science.” Science 269: 1531–2.Google Scholar
Cozzens, Susan, and Woodhouse, Edward. 1995. “Science and Politics in International Environmental Regimes.” In Handbook of Science and Technology, ed. Jasanoff et al., 533–53.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Dahlstrom, Michael F. 2014. “Using Narratives and Storytelling to Communicate Science with Non-expert Audiences.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (4): 13614–20.Google Scholar
Fischoff, Baruch, and Scheufele, Dietram A.. 2014. “The Science of Science Communication II.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (4): 13583–4.Google Scholar
Foray, Domonique, and Kazancigil, Ali. 1999. Science, Economics and Democracy: Selected Issues. Prepared for the World Conference on Science, UNESCO–ICSU. Budapest, Hungary, June 26–July 1:12.Google Scholar
Graham, John, Green, Laura, and Roberts, Marc. 1988. In Search of Safety: Chemicals and Cancer Risk. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Hoover, Kenneth, and Donovan, Todd. 2008. The Elements of Social Science Thinking, 9th edition. Boston: Thomson-Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Isaak, Alan C. 1985. Scope and Methods of Political Science, 4th edition. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1994. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Joy, Billy. 2000. “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” Wired 8: 238–62.Google Scholar
Karl, Herman A., Scarlett, Lynne, Vargas-Moreno, Juan Carlos, and Flaxman, Michael. 2012. Restoring Lands: Coordinating Science, Politics and Action. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Kraft, Michael E. 2011. Environmental Policy and Politics, 5th edition. Boston: Longman.Google Scholar
Lach, Denise, List, Peter, Steel, Brent, and Shindler, Bruce. 2003. “Advocacy and Credibility of Ecological Scientists in Resource Decision Making: A Regional Study.” BioScience 55 (2): 170–8.Google Scholar
Litfin, Karen. 1994. Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, Ryan. 2006. “Intractable Debate: Why Congressional Hearings on Climate Fail to Advance Policy.” Perspectives in Public Affairs 3: 85–99.Google Scholar
Miller, Norman. 2009. Environmental Politics: Stakeholders, Interests, and Policymaking, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mooney, Chris. 2004. “Beware ‘Sound Science.’” Washington Post National Weekly Edition, March 8–14, p. 23.Google Scholar
Robison, Wade. 1994. Decisions in Doubt: The Environment and Public Policy. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul. 2007. “The Need for Better Theories.” In Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edition, ed. Sabatier, Paul, 3–18. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sarewitz, Daniel. 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress, Progress. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Schmandt, Jurgen. 1984. “Regulation and Science.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 9: 23–38.Google Scholar
Silver, Brian L. 1998. The Ascent of Science. New York: Solomon Press.Google Scholar
Skodvin, Tora, and Underdal, Arild. 2000. “Exploring the Dynamics of the Science–Politics Interaction.” In Science and Politics in International Environmental Regimes, ed. Andresen, Steinar, Skodvin, Tora, Underdal, Arild, and Wettestad, Jorgen, 22–34. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Skolnikoff, Eugene. 1999. “The Role of Science in Policy: The Climate Change Debate in the United States.” Environment 41: 23–38.Google Scholar
Steel, Brent, Clinton, Richard, and Lovrich, Nicholas. 2003. Environmental Politics and Policy: A Comparative Approach. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Steel, Brent, List, Peter, Lach, Denise, and Shindler, Bruce. 2004. “The Role of Scientist in the Environmental Policy Process: A Case Study from the American West.” Environmental Science & Policy 7: 1–11.Google Scholar
Underdal, Arild. 2000. Science and Politics: The Anatomy of an Uneasy Partnership, In Science and Politics in International Environmental Regimes, ed. Andresen, Steinar, Skodvin, Tora, Underdal, Arild, and Wettestad, Jorgen, 1–20. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
US General Accounting Office. 2007. Climate Change Research. GAO-07-1172. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Van Beek, Jac, and Isaacs, Frances. 2008. “Convergence and Scientific Management” In Innovation, Science, and Environment: Canadian Policies and Performance, 2008–2009. ed. Toner, Glen, 209–29. Montreal, Canada: McGill Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mason supplementary material

Appendix A

Download Mason supplementary material(File)
File 16.2 KB

A correction has been issued for this article:

Errata

Phillip Ardoin  and Paul Gronke