The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics
Abstract
Scientists have a choice concerning what role they should play in political debates and policy formation, particularly in terms of how they present their research. This book is about understanding this choice, what considerations are important to think about when deciding, and the consequences of such choices for the individual scientist and the broader scientific enterprise. Rather than prescribing what course of action each scientist ought to take, the book aims to identify a range of options for individual scientists to consider in making their own judgments about how they would like to position themselves in relation to policy and politics. Using examples from a range of scientific controversies and thought-provoking analogies from other walks of life, The Honest Broker challenges us all - scientists, politicians and citizens - to think carefully about how best science can contribute to policy-making and a healthy democracy.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“We posit that only this variant allows the university to function as a (mostly unbiased) clearinghouse for science and for professors to function as honest knowledge brokers (Pielke 2007).”
From Transdisciplinarity: science for and with society in light of the university’s roles and functions (2020) · cites this paper as Pielke 2007
In the citing paper
“But maintaining independence is the prerequisite for facilitators to work as honest knowledge brokers (Pielke 2007).”
From Transdisciplinarity: science for and with society in light of the university’s roles and functions (2020) · cites this paper as Pielke 2007
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 1,000
Reducing risk from lahar hazards: concepts, case studies, and roles for scientists
Pierson, T. C., Wood, N., & Driedger, C. L. (2014) · Journal of Applied Volcanology · doi:10.1186/s13617-014-0016-4 · Cited by 90
Leith, P., O’Toole, K., Haward, M., Coffey, B., Rees, C., & Ogier, E. M. (2014) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.001 · Cited by 89
McAllister, R. R. J., McCrea, R., & Lubell, M. N. (2013) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0489-4 · Cited by 89
“Pielke’s (2007) ‘honest broker’ mode of how scientists could engage in policy also talks to these issues. Where the outcomes from various policy actions are highly uncertain, ‘honest brokers’ are critical because they, by seeking to expand problem scope, work to offset the narrowing role of ‘issue advocates’. Advocacy…”
BackgroundPaying for environmental services from agricultural lands: an example from the northern Everglades
Bohlen, P. J., Lynch, S., Shabman, L., et al. (2009) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/080107 · Cited by 89
Invasive Narratives and the Inverse of Slow Violence: Alien Species in Science and Society
Lidström, S., West, S., Katzschner, T., Ramos, M. I. P., & Twidle, H. (2016) · Environmental Humanities · doi:10.1215/22011919-3616317 · Cited by 93
Uncertainty and Dissent in Climate Risk Assessment: A Post-Normal Perspective
van der Sluijs, J. P. (2012) · Nature and Culture · doi:10.3167/nc.2012.070204 · Cited by 95
“For this reason, Pielke (2007) pleads for experts in the interface of science and policy to present themselves more as “honest broker(s) of policy alternatives” between pluralistic science and our pluralistic democratic society.”
BackgroundPrescriptions for adaptive comanagement: the case of flood management in the German Rhine basin
Becker, G., Huitema, D., & Aerts, J. C. J. H. (2015) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-07562-200301 · Cited by 87
“Experimentation may face a number of practical difficulties around the choice of methods, the interpretation of results, or the inclusion of stakeholders (Pielke 2007).”
BackgroundIngram, J., Gaskell, P., Mills, J., & Dwyer, J. (2020) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.003 · Cited by 87
Distorting the view of our climate future: The misuse and abuse of climate pathways and scenarios
Pielke, R. A., & Ritchie, J. (2020) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101890 · Cited by 112
Self-citationLeith, P., Ogier, E. M., & Haward, M. (2014) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2014.922641 · Cited by 86
Sundqvist, G., Bohlin, I., Hermansen, E. A. T., & Yearley, S. (2015) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312715583737 · Cited by 91
“…2000; Mulkay et al., 1983), may now be pursued in conjunction with our two-dimensional model (for a discussion of scientists as ‘honest brokers’ in relation to climate issues – who are ‘expanding the choice for policy makers’ without taking a personal stand – see Hulme, 2009: 99; Pielke, 2007).”
BackgroundRevisiting the Relationship Between Data, Models, and Decision‐Making
Ferré, T. P. A. (2017) · Ground Water · doi:10.1111/gwat.12574 · Cited by 81
Conservation Science and Practice Must Engage With the Realities of Complex Tropical Landscapes
Boedhihartono, A. K., Bongers, F., Boot, R., van Dijk, J., Jeans, H., van Kuijk, M., Koster, H., REED, J. F., Sayer, J. A., Sunderland, T., et al. (2018) · Tropical Conservation Science · doi:10.1177/1940082918779571 · Cited by 84
Agapito-Tenfen, S. Z., Okoli, A. S., Bernstein, M. J., Wikmark, O.-G., & Myhr, A. I. (2018) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01874 · Cited by 89
“Social and political scientists have a breadth of expertise, theories, and tested methods for engaging heterogenous and diverse groups of people on controversial and important topics, and the role of scientific experts in this process (c.f., Pielke, 2007).”
BackgroundEpilogue: global food security, rhetoric, and the sustainable intensification debate
Kuyper, T. W., & Struik, P. C. (2014) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.09.004 · Cited by 85
Liu, S., SHEPPARD, A. W., Kriticos, D. J., & Cook, D. C. (2011) · Biological Invasions · doi:10.1007/s10530-011-0045-4 · Cited by 89
“Essentially, this new decision-making model fits into a more democratic paradigm that conceptualizes scientists as part of society, working with others to solve problems together (Norton 1998; Larson 2007; Robertson and Hull 2003; Pielke 2007).”
BackgroundYoung, N., Corriveau, M., Nguyen, V. M., Cooke, S. J., & Hinch, S. G. (2016) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.006 · Cited by 84
India's depleting groundwater: When science meets policy
Chindarkar, N., & Grafton, R. Q. (2019) · Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies · doi:10.1002/app5.269 · Cited by 86
Bellamy, R., Fridahl, M., Lezaun, J., Palmer, J., Rodriguez, E., Lefvert, A., Hansson, A., Grönkvist, S., & Haikola, S. (2020) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.022 · Cited by 91
Mainstreaming Multi-Risk Approaches into Policy
Scolobig, A., Komendantova, N., & Mignan, A. (2017) · Geosciences · doi:10.3390/geosciences7040129 · Cited by 85
Use and influence of composite indicators for sustainable development at the EU-level
Sébastien, L., & Bauler, T. (2013) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.04.014 · Cited by 82
“The minor direct explanatory force of indicator factors can be interpreted according to Pielke (2007) along two dimensions which guide the uptake of scientific and expert knowledge in policymaking processes: 1◦ the degree of scientific uncertainty; and, 2◦ the potential for value consensus.”
BackgroundCommunicating with the public: opportunities and rewards for individual ecologists
Pace, M. L., Hampton, S. E., Limburg, K. E., Bennett, E. M., Cook, E. M., Davis, A. E., Grove, J. M., Kaneshiro, K. Y., LaDeau, S. L., Likens, G. E., et al. (2010) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/090168 · Cited by 82
“Furthermore, there is tension about the expected role of scientists in public debate (Sarewitz 2004) and concern that scientists may misunderstand the nature of their interactions with policy makers (see below and Pielke 2007).”
BackgroundInfluentialScientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning
Kowarsch, M., Garard, J., Riousset, P., Lenzi, D., Dorsch, M. J., Knopf, B., Harrs, J.-A., & Edenhofer, O. (2016) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/palcomms.2016.92 · Cited by 82
Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre
Topp, L., Mair, D., Smillie, L., & Cairney, P. (2018) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-018-0143-3 · Cited by 89
Pickering, J., & Persson, Å. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2019.1661233 · Cited by 85
“Ensuring transparency in the placement of warning signs is crucial as a safeguard against what Pielke (2007) calls ‘stealth issue advocacy’ (where experts voice political opinions under the guise of presenting purely scientific findings), and also as a basis for further deliberation among experts,…”
BackgroundMethodPasquier, U., Few, R., Goulden, M. C., Hooton, S., He, Y., & Hiscock, K. M. (2019) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.016 · Cited by 82
“The rejection of science's traditional "top-down" stance to inform decision-making unilaterally (Pielke, 2007) has indeed been accompanied by efforts to make science more accountable and therefore more likely to be seen as acceptable (Voinov and Bousquet, 2010; Chilvers and Kearnes, 2016).”
BackgroundMacKillop, E., Quarmby, S., & Downe, J. (2019) · Policy & Politics · doi:10.1332/030557319x15740848311069 · Cited by 87
Visualization in environmental policy and planning: a systematic review and research agenda
Metze, T. A. P. (2020) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2020.1798751 · Cited by 81
It's Good to Share: Why Environmental Scientists’ Ethics Are Out of Date
Soranno, P. A., Cheruvelil, K. S., Elliott, K. C., & Montgomery, G. M. (2014) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biu169 · Cited by 80
Geography and the new social contract for global change research
Castree, N. (2016) · Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers · doi:10.1111/tran.12125 · Cited by 86
Climate change as a ‘hyperobject’: a critical review of Timothy Morton's reframing narrative
Boulton, E. G. (2016) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.410 · Cited by 92
Cook, B. R., & Overpeck, J. T. (2018) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.570 · Cited by 86
The narrative truth about scientific misinformation
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1914085117 · Cited by 101
Dealing with uncertainties in environmental burden of disease assessment
Knol, A. B., Petersen, A. C., van der Sluijs, J. P., & Lebret, E. (2009) · Environmental Health · doi:10.1186/1476-069x-8-21 · Cited by 80
Communicating soil carbon science to farmers: Incorporating credibility, salience and legitimacy
Ingram, J., Mills, J., Dibari, C., Ferrise, R., Ghaley, B. B., Hansen, J. G., Iglesias, A., Karaczun, Z., McVittie, A., Merante, P., et al. (2016) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.10.005 · Cited by 90
Oliver, K., & Pearce, W. (2017) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-017-0045-9 · Cited by 79
The Snowbird Charrette: Integrative Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Environmental Research Design
Hackett, E. J., & Rhoten, D. R. (2009) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9136-0 · Cited by 79
“…science still face an uphill struggle because disciplines are powerful, interdisciplinary communication is difficult, integration and synthesis are elusive, and engagement with problems of the real world places extraordinary demands on the judgment and probity of scientists (Pielke 2007).”
BackgroundJuhola, S. K., & Kruse, S. (2013) · Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change · doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9481-z · Cited by 79
“Underlying this is the notion that evidence-based policy making requires sound data and research results (Pielke 2007; Posas 2011).”
BackgroundThe culture and discourse of climate skepticism
Hoffman, A. J. (2011) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127010395065 · Cited by 79
Policy analysis in the face of complexity: What kind of knowledge to tackle wicked problems?
Daviter, F. (2017) · Public Policy and Administration · doi:10.1177/0952076717733325 · Cited by 87
Evaluation of science advice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden
Brusselaers, N., Steadson, D., Bjorklund, K., Breland, S., Sörensen, J. S., Ewing, A. G., Bergmann, S., & Steineck, G. (2022) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01097-5 · Cited by 89
TOWARDS PRODUCTIVE SCIENCE-POLICY INTERFACES: A RESEARCH AGENDA
van Enst, W. I., Driessen, P., & Runhaar, H. A. C. (2014) · Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management · doi:10.1142/s1464333214500070 · Cited by 85
“Essentially, they are individual scientists or experts whose goal it is to facilitate the creation, sharing and use of knowledge (Pielke, 2007).”
BackgroundInfluentialNelson, J. P., Selin, C. L., & Scott, C. T. (2021) · Journal of Responsible Innovation · doi:10.1080/23299460.2021.1957579 · Cited by 83
The value of values in climate science
Pulkkinen, K., Undorf, S., Bender, F. A. ‐., Wikman–Svahn, P., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Flynn, C. M., Hegerl, G. C., Jönsson, A. R., Leung, G.-K., Roussos, J., et al. (2022) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01238-9 · Cited by 76
BEDNAREK, A. T., Shouse, B., Hudson, C. G., & Goldburg, R. J. (2015) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scv008 · Cited by 75
From Expert Communities to Epistemic Arrangements: Situating Expertise in International Relations
Bueger, C. (2014) · Global power shift · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-55007-2_2 · Cited by 75
Belcher, B., Claus, R., Davel, R., & Ramirez, L. F. (2019) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.013 · Cited by 74
“Rather, these cases are consistent with a stakeholder model of science in which users have some role in knowledge production, and where considerations of how science is used in decision-making are important (Pielke, 2007; Sarewitz, 1996; Stokes, 1997).”
BackgroundMethodBreaking the impasse: Towards a forward‐looking governance framework for gene editing with plants
Macnaghten, P., & Habets, M. G. J. L. (2020) · Plants People Planet · doi:10.1002/ppp3.10107 · Cited by 80
Communicating complex ecological models to non-scientist end users
Cartwright, S., Bowgen, K. M., Collop, C., Hyder, K., Nabe‐Nielsen, J., Stafford, R., Stillman, R., Thorpe, R., & Sibly, R. (2016) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.07.012 · Cited by 74
Finding your place on the science – advocacy continuum: an editorial essay
Donner, S. D. (2014) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1108-1 · Cited by 77
“This linear model is simpler and more limited than the multi-dimensional typologies of authors like Pielke (2007), but explicitly recognizes the continuous, rather than categorical, nature of the public roles taken by scientists.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPolejack, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.664066 · Cited by 84
“…on the political basis of science (Jasanoff, 1998; McCain, 2016), this public perception promotes science as a reliable source of knowledge that is widely used by policymakers and diplomats, from advising policy to reinforcing political values (Weiss, 2005; Pielke, 2007; Oliver and Cairney, 2019).”
BackgroundEngaging with stakeholders to produce actionable science: a framework and guidance
Bamzai‐Dodson, A., Cravens, A. E., Wade, A. A., & McPherson, R. A. (2021) · Weather Climate and Society · doi:10.1175/wcas-d-21-0046.1 · Cited by 80
Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy
Crouzat, É., Arpin, I., Brunet, L., Colloff, M. J., Turkelboom, F., & Lavorel, S. (2017) · AMBIO · doi:10.1007/s13280-017-0939-1 · Cited by 80
“Teams can be more successful as honest brokers than individuals (Pielke 2007) because a range of perspectives are required to generate policy alternatives (Barnaud and 123 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en Antona 2014).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMcFadgen, B. K., & Huitema, D. (2017) · Water · doi:10.3390/w9090648 · Cited by 74
“The analytical framework employs a multi-dimensional learning typology (cognitive, normative, and relational learning) and the experiments are grouped into three “ideal types” of policy experiment: the “technocratic experiment” which is populated and controlled by technocrats, the “advocacy experiment” which contains…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialStringer, L. C., & Dougill, A. J. (2012) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.025 · Cited by 73
The Risk of Using Inductive Risk to Challenge the Value-Free Ideal
de Melo‐Martín, I., & Intemann, K. K. (2016) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/687259 · Cited by 74
Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., Norström, A. V., & Reed, M. S. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203752 · Cited by 70
MPA policy: What lies behind the science?
Caveen, A., Gray, T. S., Stead, S. M., & Polunin, N. V. C. (2012) · Marine Policy · doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.005 · Cited by 74
Tensions in agnotology: Normativity in the studies of commercially driven ignorance
Pinto, M. F. (2015) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312714565491 · Cited by 70
“…2010; Shrader-Frechette, 2007), the appropriateness of science for public policy (Elliott, 2011; Haller and Gerrie, 2007; Maasen and Weingart, 2005; Pielke, 2007), and debates regarding science policy (Biddle, 2014; Guston and Sarewitz, 2006).12 To conclude, the specification of agnotology’s…”
BackgroundEye on the Taiga: Removing Global Policy Impediments to Safeguard the Boreal Forest
Moen, J., Rist, L., Bishop, K., Chapin, F. S., Ellison, D., Kuuluvainen, T., Petersson, H., Puettmann, K. J., Rayner, J., Warkentin, I. G., et al. (2014) · Conservation Letters · doi:10.1111/conl.12098 · Cited by 70
A more social science: barriers and incentives for scientists engaging in policy
Singh, G. G., Tam, J., Sisk, T. D., et al. (2014) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/130011 · Cited by 70
“Furthermore, these choices pertain to engagement activities that differ greatly in nature (Pielke 2007) and cannot be properly understood in aggregate.”
BackgroundCebrián‐Piqueras, M. A., Karrasch, L., & Michael Kleyer, A. (2016) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.009 · Cited by 69
Toward reflexive climate adaptation research
Preston, B. L., RICKARDS, L. A., Fünfgeld, H., & Keenan, R. J. (2015) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.002 · Cited by 81
“This puts some researchers in the role of ‘science arbiters’ [38] who provide expertise on scientific (i.”
BackgroundCarrozza, C. (2014) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2014.914894 · Cited by 69
“More in general, climate change represents a very relevant setting to analyse the relationship between knowledge and policy advising and the role of science in policy-making (see, for example, Pielke, 2007, 2010).”
BackgroundInfluentialHegger, D. L. T., & Dieperink, C. (2014) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-06453-190234 · Cited by 69
“Literature on science brokers (Pielke 2007), the science–policy interface (van den Hove 2007), and boundary organizations (Guston 2001), however, emphasizes that there is always some degree of interaction between science and society, and that efforts to improve this interaction are underway,…”
The ethos of post-normal science
Kønig, N., Børsen, T., & Emmeche, C. (2017) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.12.004 · Cited by 69
“For example, one could distinguish between economically-disinterestedness and recognition-disinterestedness, or one can even be “in disguise” politically-disinterested like a stealth-issue advocate (Pielke, 2007).”
BackgroundIndividualism, Structuralism, and Climate Change
Brownstein, M., Kelly, D., & Madva, A. (2021) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2021.1982745 · Cited by 77
“Scientists, for example, can help initiate change by gathering data relevant to assessing interventions (they can also choose between various initiating roles, such as being a pure scientist, science arbiter, issue advocate, or honest broker (Pielke, 2007)); corporate”
BackgroundKnowledge co‐production and researcher roles in transdisciplinary environmental management projects
Kruijf, J. V., Verbrugge, L., Schröter, B., den Haan, R., Arevalo, V. J. C., Fliervoet, J., Henze, J., & Albert, C. (2022) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.2281 · Cited by 84
Informed adaptation: Ethical considerations for adaptation researchers and decision-makers
Lacey, J., Howden, M. S., Cvitanovic, C., & Dowd, A.-M. (2015) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.011 · Cited by 78
“…own research without full transparency that their recommendations represent only select information (aligned with their own knowledge or expertise) and not necessarily the broader array of adaptation options that are available, thus transferring un-identified risk to the end-user (Pielke, 2007).”
BackgroundInfluentialResponsible Innovation – Opening Up Dialogue and Debate
Sykes, K. E., & Macnaghten, P. (2013) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118551424.ch5 · Cited by 71
Rent-seeking behaviour and regulatory capture in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia
Grafton, R. Q., & Williams, J. N. (2019) · International Journal of Water Resources Development · doi:10.1080/07900627.2019.1674132 · Cited by 70
“Regulatory capture can occur when science is politicized or when there are ‘industry supported scientists-cum-consultants whose credentials support their “hired gun” role in issue advocacy’ (Pielke, 2007, p. 120).”
BackgroundPauliuk, S., Majeau‐Bettez, G., Mutel, C., Steubing, B. R. P., & Stadler, K. (2015) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.12316 · Cited by 80
Drought triggers and declarations: science and policy considerations for drought risk management
Botterill, L. C., & Hayes, M. J. (2012) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0231-4 · Cited by 65
“This is encouraging as a small ‘‘industry’’ has arisen in academia devoted to the issue of the interface between science and policy (see for example Pielke 2007) and the difficulties of speaking across jargon-laden disciplinary boundaries.”
Breaking the climate change communication deadlock
Corner, A., & Groves, C. (2014) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2348 · Cited by 67
S&T indicators in the wild: Contextualization and participation for responsible metrics
Ràfols, I. (2018) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvy030 · Cited by 80
“However, uncertainty and lack of value consensus (or its outcome, value ambiguity) are often present when scientific knowledge is mobilised to support and legitimise policy decisions (see figure 2) (Stirling e al., 2007, p. 9; Pielke, 2007).”
InfluentialExpert involvement in policy development: A systematic review of current practice
Fischer, A. R. H., Wentholt, M. T. A., Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2013) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/sct062 · Cited by 65
Co-producing actionable science for water utilities
Vogel, J. M., McNie, E., & Béhar, D. (2016) · Climate Services · doi:10.1016/j.cliser.2016.06.003 · Cited by 65
“Reconciling the supply of useful climate information with user demands is difficult to do, and often users do not get the information they need to address their unique problem (Moss et al., 2013; Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007).”
Goodkind, D. M. (2017) · Demography · doi:10.1007/s13524-017-0595-x · Cited by 64
The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation
O’Leary, B. C., Kvist, K., Bayliss, H. R., Derroire, G., Healey, J. R., Hughes, K., Kleinschroth, F., Sciberras, M., Woodcock, P., & Pullin, A. S. (2016) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.012 · Cited by 65
“In addition, vested interests of multiple stakeholders can lead to selective use of evidence in political debates (e.g. Biber, 2012; Pielke, 2007; Sarewitz, 2004) giving an inflated impression of uncertainty of the science and reducing its potential to inform future policy.”
BackgroundKeshet, Y., & Popper‐Giveon, A. (2016) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.12.019 · Cited by 64
“Although the value-free ideal of science has beenwidely criticized by scholars (Pielke, 2007; Proctor, 1991; Shapin and Schaffer, 1985; Latour, 2007; Brown, 2015), and these critical views have penetrated the realm of medicine, the claim of neutrality is still maintained among medical professionals…”
BackgroundComprehensive school safety policy: A global baseline survey
Paci-Green, R., Varchetta, A., McFarlane, K., Iyer, P., & Goyeneche, M. (2019) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101399 · Cited by 62
“Instead, policy is often informed by institutional arrangements, cultural values, social contexts, and competing interests which shape or constrain policy choices and outcomes [52,53].”
BackgroundThe will for reason: voter demand for experts in office
Lavezzolo, S., Ramiro, L., & Fernández-Vázquez, P. (2020) · West European Politics · doi:10.1080/01402382.2020.1778917 · Cited by 71
Institutional Shaping of Research Priorities: A Case Study on Avian Influenza
Wallace, M. L., & Ràfols, I. (2016) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.005 · Cited by 61
“Since under conditions of uncertainty and lack of value agreement one cannot separate problem analysis from decision-making (Pielke, 2007), deliberations for research prioritization need to explore different perspectives about if and how the supply and demand are related, rather than allowing existing norms to “close…”
BackgroundInfluentialBalancing Scientific and Community Interests in Community-Based Participatory Research
Resnik, D. B., & Kennedy, C. E. (2010) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2010.493095 · Cited by 62
“…own sake as well as for its practical applications in informing public policy and in providing the theories, concepts, and laws that are used in engineering, medicine, public health, biotechnology, aeronautics, agriculture, and many other fields (Kitcher, 2003; Resnik, 2007; 2009a; Pielke, 2007).”
BackgroundHow to be a more effective environmental scientist in management and policy contexts
Fernández, R. J. (2016) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.006 · Cited by 62
“Terms borrowed from: (a) Shafer (2008); (b) Pielke (2007); (c) Sabatier (2007); (d) Sa how to live with them, and avoid and detect their tactical use as an excuse for inaction.”
BackgroundInternational Crime Statistics
Kakar, S. (2015) · The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment · doi:10.1002/9781118519639.wbecpx269 · Cited by 63
Communication of Science Advice to Government
Hutchings, J. A., & Stenseth, N. C. (2015) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.10.008 · Cited by 62
The structure of the climate debate
Tol, R. S. J. (2017) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.005 · Cited by 64
“perative (Grundmann 2016, Grundmann 2007, Matthews 2016). The science has spoken, and we must act. This is a categorical error. Science tells you what would happen if. It does not tell us what to do (Pielke 2007). For instance, science tells us that water rapidly withdrawing from the beach is a sign of an impending ts…”
BackgroundVanDyke, M. S., & Lee, N. M. (2020) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101953 · Cited by 61
Harambam, J. (2021) · Journal for Cultural Research · doi:10.1080/14797585.2021.1886424 · Cited by 70
Dismantling the Ivory Tower: Engaging Geographers in University–Community Partnerships
Klein, P., Fatima, M. T., McEwen, L. J., et al. (2011) · Journal of Geography in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03098265.2011.576337 · Cited by 61
“…involves encouraging universities, geographers (including students) and communities to work together to increase quality of life, sustainability and resilience, and enhance economic prosperity in regional regeneration and development (Sarewitz & Pielke, 2007; Vogel et al., 2007; Kasperson, 2010).”
BackgroundMoore, A., & MacKenzie, M. K. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m4039 · Cited by 60
Rungius, C., & Flink, T. (2020) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00585-w · Cited by 60
“…diplomacy remain almost entirely silent about the fact that scientific research depends on political regulation and distributions of public funds, they lean on the notion that science informs policymaking, as was e.g., captured by the metaphorical figure of the ‘honest broker’ (Pielke, 2007).”
BackgroundOne world or two? Science–policy interactions in the climate field
Sundqvist, G., Gasper, D., Clair, A. L. S., Hermansen, E. A. T., Yearley, S., Tvedten, I. Ø., & Wynne, B. (2017) · Critical Policy Studies · doi:10.1080/19460171.2017.1374193 · Cited by 61
Beall, L., Myers, T. A., Kotcher, J., Vraga, E. K., & Maibach, E. W. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187511 · Cited by 60
Redford, K. H., Brooks, T. M., MacFarlane, N., & Adams, J. S. (2019) · doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2019.05.en · Cited by 69
Blum, S. (2017) · European Policy Analysis · doi:10.1002/epa2.1029 · Cited by 59
Tran, T. A., & Rodela, R. (2019) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.02.004 · Cited by 59
“Such individuals are also often referred to as knowledge brokers and are defined as trusted individuals, or organisations, who connect and facilitate a two-way dialogue between those belonging to different (knowledge) groups (Pielke, 2007; Meyer, 2010; Fazey et al., 2013).”
BackgroundThe social status of climate change knowledge: an editorial essay
Lahsen, M. (2010) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.27 · Cited by 58
Dilling, L., Lackstrom, K., Haywood, B., et al. (2014) · Weather Climate and Society · doi:10.1175/wcas-d-14-00001.1 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Pielke, Jr.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2007-04-19
- OpenAlex
- W1527452312
- Cited by
- 2,020
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 112 · 2025: 108 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 126 · 2021: 121 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 149 · 2018: 103 · 2017: 129 · 2016: 147 · 2015: 119 · 2014: 146 · 2013: 119 · 2012: 95
- FWCI
- 66.69
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Science and Policy Research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
- Keywords
- science and politics, science and policy, role of scientists, scientific controversy, science communication, democracy, scientific integrity, science and society, public understanding of science
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
