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 301–400 of 1,000
The future of global environmental assessments: Making a case for fundamental change
Castree, N., Bellamy, R., & Osaka, S. (2020) · The Anthropocene Review · doi:10.1177/2053019620971664 · Cited by 61
“Through this overall mixture of change and continuity (see Table 1), assessment 2.0 would be akin to what Pielke (2007), in his highly cited book about the science-policy interface, calls ‘honest brokering’ of alternative courses of possible action.”
BackgroundInfluentialTransformative research for sustainability: characteristics, tensions, and moving forward
Horcea‐Milcu, A., Dorresteijn, I., Leventon, J., Stojanovic, M., Lam, D. P. M., Lang, D. J., Moriggi, A., Raymond, C. M., Stålhammar, S., Weiser, A., et al. (2024) · Global Sustainability · doi:10.1017/sus.2024.12 · Cited by 60
Above the din but in the fray: environmental scientists as effective advocates
Meyer, J. L., Frumhoff, P. C., Hamburg, S. P., et al. (2010) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/090143 · Cited by 58
Gagnon, M., & Labonté, R. (2013) · Globalization and Health · doi:10.1186/1744-8603-9-24 · Cited by 58
Brundiers, K., Wiek, A., & Kay, B. R. (2013) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su5114614 · Cited by 58
Communicating Policy-Relevant Science
Druckman, J. N. (2015) · PS Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s1049096515000438 · Cited by 59
Essl, F., Hulme, P. E., Jeschke, J. M., Keller, R. P., Pyšek, P., Richardson, D. M., Saul, W., Bacher, S., Dullinger, S., Estévez, R. A., et al. (2016) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biw160 · Cited by 59
The critical role of risk in setting directions for water, food and energy policy and research
Gallagher, L., Dalton, J., Bréthaut, C., Allan, T., Bellfield, H., Crilly, D., Cross, K., Gyawali, D., Klein, D., Laine, S., et al. (2016) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.10.002 · Cited by 60
Vogt, M., & Weber, C. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12072811 · Cited by 72
From sociology of quantification to ethics of quantification
Saltelli, A., & Fiore, M. D. (2020) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00557-0 · Cited by 60
Smolka, M., & Böschen, S. (2023) · Journal of Responsible Innovation · doi:10.1080/23299460.2023.2207937 · Cited by 62
Implementing Room for the River: narratives of success and failure in Kampen, the Netherlands
Warner, J. F., & van Buuren, A. (2011) · International Review of Administrative Sciences · doi:10.1177/0020852311419387 · Cited by 57
Lidskog, R. (2014) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2013.898820 · Cited by 62
“…scientists as well as representatives from other areas of society, but also professionals who are located between science and politics and whose task is to communicate and mediate between the two spheres (cf. Miller 2001, Pielke 2007, Huitema and Turnhout 2009, Hisschemöller and Sioziou 2013).”
BackgroundSuhay, E., & Druckman, J. N. (2015) · The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716214559004 · Cited by 61
Basic Research as a Political Symbol
Pielke, R. A. (2012) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-012-9207-5 · Cited by 57
“From the perspective of the scientific community, basic researchers stand at the top of a hierarchy of activities worth pursuing, reflecting a sense of purity and nobility (Science 1883; cf. Daniels 1967; Pielke 2007).”
BackgroundSelf-citationIs Indonesia utilising its international partners? The driving forces behind Forest Management Units
Sahide, M. A. K., Maryudi, A., Supratman, S., et al. (2016) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.04.002 · Cited by 57
“Thus, referring to Pielke (2007), we can say that the position of consultants in the FIP in relation to the ADB is that of an ‘honest broker of policy alternatives’ (Pielke, 2007) instead of a ‘science arbiter’ (Ekayani et al., 2015).”
BackgroundNesshöver, C., Vandewalle, M., Wittmer, H., Balian, E., Carmen, E., Geijzendorffer, I., Görg, C., Jongman, R., Livoreil, B., Santamaría, L., et al. (2016) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1127-5 · Cited by 56
Sociological Perspectives on Earth System Modeling
Grundmann, R., & Rödder, S. (2019) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms001687 · Cited by 64
“While the value of having expert knowledge in technical matters is undisputable, this linear view overemphasizes and overcharges the role and relevance of scientists, knowledge and consensus in the world of politics (Sarewitz, 2011; Wynne, 2010).”
BackgroundInfluentialMoser, S. C. (2009) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9539-1 · Cited by 57
“…of adaptive management systems, or the design of forecasting, research, and assessments processes that maximize the usefulness of their outputs in decision-making at various scales (e.g., Callon 1999; Rayner et al. 2005; Farrell and Jäger 2006; Stringer et al. 2006; Pielke 2007; NRC 2008).”
BackgroundAsayama, S., Sugiyama, M., & Ishii, A. (2017) · Geoforum · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.01.012 · Cited by 56
“This assumption is problematic because it would reproduce a linear model of the science–policy interface (e.g., Pielke, 2007; Beck, 2010) and reinforce the scientism that supposes ‘more knowledge’ can provide a decisive answer to social problems, thus defusing political controversy and public…”
BackgroundLiu, X. (2013) · Cultural studies of science education · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4563-6_2 · Cited by 56
Ekayani, M., Nurrochmat, D. R., & Darusman, D. (2015) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.01.001 · Cited by 56
Mapping the Landscape of Public Attitudes on Synthetic Biology
Akin, H., Rose, K. M., Scheufele, D. A., Simis-Wilkinson, M., Brossard, D., Xenos, M. A., & Corley, E. A. (2016) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biw171 · Cited by 55
“First, scientists can act as political advocates (Pielke 2007) and as policy advisors who play integral roles in the policymaking process (Jasanoff 1990).”
BackgroundMebane, C. A., Sumpter, J. P., Fairbrother, A., Augspurger, T. P., Canfield, T. J., Goodfellow, W. L., Guiney, P. D., LeHuray, A. P., Maltby, L., Mayfield, D. B., et al. (2019) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1002/ieam.4119 · Cited by 58
“Stealth advocacy is the use of value-laden language in scientific writing that assumes a policy preference (Lackey 2007; Pielke 2007).”
BackgroundThe application of reflexivity for conservation science
Beck, J. M., Elliott, K. C., Booher, C. R., Renn, K. A., & Montgomery, R. A. (2021) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109322 · Cited by 55
The challenges of building cosmopolitan climate expertise: the case of Germany
Beck, S. (2011) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.151 · Cited by 56
Palmer, J. (2011) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.643477 · Cited by 56
Bureaucratic expertise, overconfidence, and policy choice
Liu, X., Stoutenborough, J. W., & Vedlitz, A. (2016) · Governance · doi:10.1111/gove.12257 · Cited by 56
Communication on the Science-Policy Interface: An Overview of Conceptual Models
Sokolovska, N., Fecher, B., & Wagner, G. G. (2019) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications7040064 · Cited by 62
What does success look like for air quality policy? A perspective
Monks, P. S., & Williams, M. L. (2020) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0326 · Cited by 54
Climate change engagement of scientists
Dablander, F., Sachisthal, M. S. M., Cologna, V., Strahm, N., Bosshard, A., Grüning, N., Green, A. J. K., Brick, C., Aron, A. R., & Haslbeck, J. M. B. (2024) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-024-02091-2 · Cited by 61
Implementation of a framework for multi-species, multi-objective adaptive management in Delaware Bay
McGowan, C. P., Smith, D. R., Nichols, J. D., Lyons, J. E., Sweka, J. A., Kalasz, K. S., Niles, L. J., Wong, R. A., Brust, J., Davis, M., et al. (2015) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.038 · Cited by 54
Hajer, M. A. (2012) · Critical Policy Studies · doi:10.1080/19460171.2012.730758 · Cited by 53
Clark, S. G., Rutherford, M. B., Auer, M. R., Cherney, D. N., Wallace, R. L., Mattson, D. J., Clark, D. A., Foote, A. L., Krogman, N., Wilshusen, P. R., et al. (2011) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9619-2 · Cited by 56
Confronting dynamics and uncertainty in optimal decision making for conservation
Williams, B. K., & Johnson, F. A. (2013) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025004 · Cited by 55
The "Problem of Extension" revisited: new modes of digital participation in science
Dickel, S., & Franzen, M. (2016) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.15010206 · Cited by 54
NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing
Helliwell, R., Hartley, S., & Pearce, W. (2019) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/s10460-019-09956-9 · Cited by 57
“The conclusion is not that Nuffield needs to become an issue advocate (Pielke 2007), but to recognise that both Nuffield and NGOs engaged with GM, due to their different roles, institutional contexts, and positions in the UK polity, both provide valuable ethical insights and offer different…”
BackgroundScience-policy interfaces for biodiversity: dynamic learning environments for successful impact
Tinch, R., Balian, E. V., Carss, D. N., de Blas, D. E., Geamănă, N., Heink, U., Keune, H., Neßhöver, C., Niemelä, J. K., Sarkki, S., et al. (2016) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1155-1 · Cited by 60
“The role of honest broker may enhance the perception of scientific credibility, but may limit impact and motivations for participation (Pielke 2007).”
InfluentialSteins, N. A., Kraan, M., van der Reijden, K. J., Quirijns, F. J., van Broekhoven, W., & Poos, J. J. (2019) · Fish and Fisheries · doi:10.1111/faf.12423 · Cited by 52
Bosomworth, K. (2018) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.1806 · Cited by 52
A Boundary Tool for Multi-stakeholder Sustainable Business Model Innovation
Velter, M., Bitzer, V., & Bocken, N. M. P. (2021) · Circular Economy and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43615-021-00103-3 · Cited by 53
A Hierarchical Evaluation of Regional Climate Simulations
Leung, L.-Y. R., Ringler, T. D., Collins, W. D., et al. (2013) · Eos · doi:10.1002/2013eo340001 · Cited by 52
The role of expertise in governance processes
Grundmann, R. (2008) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2008.09.005 · Cited by 52
“…of the growing importance of scientific expertise for decision making several problems have been identified (e.g. Haas, 2004; Oreskes et al., 1994; Pielke, 2007): - Scientific consensus is often suspect because the scientists themselves are part of a broader cultural discourse, and thus lack…”
BackgroundStokes, L. C., & Selin, N. E. (2014) · Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences · doi:10.1007/s13412-014-0183-y · Cited by 52
Benham, C. F., & Daniell, K. A. (2016) · Ocean & Coastal Management · doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.04.005 · Cited by 51
Beyond problem solving: Engineering and the public good in the 21st century
El‐Zein, A., & Hedemann, C. J. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.129 · Cited by 52
Soil Capability: Exploring the Functional Potentials of Soils
Bouma, J., van Ittersum, M. K., Stoorvogel, J. J., Batjes, N. H., Droogers, P., & Pulleman, M. (2016) · Progress in soil science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43394-3_3 · Cited by 56
de Chazal, J. (2010) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.1058 · Cited by 52
Addressing Animal Welfare through Collaborative Stakeholder Networks
Fernandes, J. N., Blache, D., Maloney, S. K., Martin, G. B., Venus, B. K., Walker, F. R., Head, B. W., & Tilbrook, A. J. (2019) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture9060132 · Cited by 56
Hadorn, S., Sager, F., Mavrot, C., Malandrino, A., & Ege, J. (2022) · Politische Vierteljahresschrift · doi:10.1007/s11615-022-00382-x · Cited by 56
Soil Security in Sustainable Development
Bouma, J. (2019) · Soil Systems · doi:10.3390/soilsystems3010005 · Cited by 51
Re-conceptualizing the role(s) of science in biodiversity conservation
Evans, M. (2021) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892921000114 · Cited by 58
Science, Values, and the New Demarcation Problem
Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2023) · Journal for General Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s10838-022-09633-2 · Cited by 49
Value-entanglement and the integrity of scientific research
Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2019) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A · doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.12.011 · Cited by 49
Affolderbach, J., Clapp, R. A., & Hayter, R. (2012) · Annals of the Association of American Geographers · doi:10.1080/00045608.2012.706567 · Cited by 53
The emergence of the geoengineering debate in the UK print media: a frame analysis
Gannon, K. E., & Hulme, M. (2013) · Geographical Journal · doi:10.1111/geoj.12003 · Cited by 50
Global change and conservation triage on National Wildlife Refuges
Johnson, F. A., Eaton, M. J., McMahon, G., Nilius, R., Bryant, M. R., Case, D. J., Martin, J., Wood, N., & Taylor, L. O. (2015) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-07986-200414 · Cited by 50
“It also helps promote a role for analysts and scientists in conservation decision making as “honest brokers” (Pielke 2007) rather than as advocates for a particular course of action.”
BackgroundScolobig, A., & Lilliestam, J. (2016) · Resources · doi:10.3390/resources5040037 · Cited by 51
Rodela, R., Bregt, A. K., Ligtenberg, A., Pérez‐Soba, M., & Verweij, P. (2017) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.015 · Cited by 56
Hot topics in governance for forests and trees: Towards a (just) transformative research agenda
Larson, A., Mausch, K., Bourne, M., Luttrell, C., Schoneveld, G. C., Cronkleton, P., Locatelli, B., Catacutan, D. C., Cerutti, P., Chomba, S., et al. (2021) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102567 · Cited by 57
Mormina, M. (2022) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2022.2103750 · Cited by 59
van Herk, S., Zevenbergen, C., Rijke, J., & Ashley, R. (2011) · Journal of Flood Risk Management · doi:10.1111/j.1753-318x.2011.01113.x · Cited by 55
van Stigt, R., Driessen, P., & Spit, T. J. M. (2014) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.002 · Cited by 49
Engaged scholarship: Steering between the risks of paternalism, opportunism, and paralysis
Strumińska‐Kutra, M. (2016) · Organization · doi:10.1177/1350508416631163 · Cited by 49
“…never gain sufficient legitimacy under the currently dominant model of science due to its basic assumption about the separation of facts from values and knowledge production from knowledge implementation (for further discussion, see Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993; Nowotny et al., 2001; Pielke, 2007).”
BackgroundExpanding our understanding of K* (KT, KE, KTT, KMb, KB, KM, etc.)
Shaxson, L., Bielak, A. T., Ahmed, I., et al. (2012) · UNU Collections (United Nations University) · Cited by 49
Perspectives on Uncertainty for Technical Communication Scholars
Walsh, L., & Walker, K. C. (2016) · Technical Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1080/10572252.2016.1150517 · Cited by 49
Scientists as experts: A distinct role?
Gundersen, T. (2018) · Studies in history and philosophy of science · doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.02.006 · Cited by 37
Citizen-science programs: Towards transformative biodiversity governance
Couvet, D., & Prévot, A. (2014) · Environmental Development · doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2014.11.003 · Cited by 52
Clark, S. G., Rutherford, M. B., Auer, M. R., Cherney, D. N., Wallace, R. L., Mattson, D. J., Clark, D. A., Foote, A. L., Krogman, N., Wilshusen, P. R., et al. (2011) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9635-2 · Cited by 49
A framework to bridge science and policy in complex decision making arenas
Smajgl, A., & Ward, J. R. (2013) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.07.002 · Cited by 53
Scientific advice in integrated ocean management: The process towards the Barents Sea plan
Knol-Kauffman, M. (2009) · Marine Policy · doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2009.07.009 · Cited by 48
The methodology of normative policy analysis
Robert, C., & Zeckhauser, R. (2011) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.1002/pam.20578 · Cited by 57
Lodge, M. C., & Matus, K. (2014) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/psj.12065 · Cited by 48
Stimulating Demand for Research Evidence: What Role for Capacity-building?
Newman, K., Fisher, C., & Shaxson, L. (2012) · IDS Bulletin · doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2012.00358.x · Cited by 29
Engaging over data on fracking and water quality
Brantley, S. L., Vidić, R. D., Brasier, K. J., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aan6520 · Cited by 48
The need for formal reflexivity in conservation science
Boyce, P., Bhattacharyya, J., & Linklater, W. L. (2021) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13840 · Cited by 50
Pielke, R. A. (2007) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.05.004 · Cited by 48
“How one ultimately evaluates the Stern Review’s treatment of disaster losses and climate change will depend upon how one views the purpose of the Stern Review as a source of advice to government (cf. Pielke, 2007).”
BackgroundSelf-citationToward Legitimate Governance of Solar Geoengineering Research: A Role for Sub-State Actors
Jinnah, S., Nicholson, S., & Flegal, J. A. (2018) · Ethics Policy & Environment · doi:10.1080/21550085.2018.1562526 · Cited by 44
“To the extent that forms of public engagement can open up expert discourse, these efforts can help to facilitate ‘honest brokering’ (Pielke, 2007) of policy options and ensure that parties with potentially quite different worldviews have an opportunity to be heard and responded to by each other…”
BackgroundEdler, J., Karaulova, M., & Barker, K. E. (2022) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-022-09459-8 · Cited by 58
Science, Society, and Water Resources in New Zealand: Recognizing and Overcoming a Societal Impasse
Weber, E. P., Memon, A., & Painter, B. D. M. (2011) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2011.564414 · Cited by 47
“This loss of influence has led to growing frustration on the part of government agency officials and scientists over their inability to have science exert as meaningful a role as they think appropriate in the consideration and selection of policy alternatives (Jasanoff, 1990; Pielke, 2007).”
BackgroundInfluentialMorton, L. W., Roesch-McNally, G. E., & Wilke, A. K. (2017) · Journal of Soil and Water Conservation · doi:10.2489/jswc.72.3.215 · Cited by 54
Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective
Clahsen, S., KAMP, I. V., Hakkert, B. C., Vermeire, T. G., Piersma, A. H., & Lebret, E. (2018) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13165 · Cited by 48
“Pielke (2007) distinguishes four idealtypical expert roles (see also Fig.”
BackgroundThe visual framing of climate change impacts and adaptation in the IPCC assessment reports
Wardekker, A., & Lorenz, S. (2019) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02522-6 · Cited by 37
Labeling opinions in the climate debate: a critical review
Howarth, C., & Sharman, A. (2015) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.332 · Cited by 47
The power of scientific knowledge: from research to public policy
(2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.50-6726 · Cited by 47
Unfree Radicals: Geoscientists, the Anthropocene, and Left Politics
Castree, N. (2015) · Antipode · doi:10.1111/anti.12187 · Cited by 48
“…and aesthetic concerns of ‘non-scientific’ disciplines.17 Overly tidy, and misleading, distinctions between facts and values or realities and 16As Roger Pielke (2007) rightly argued, only in what he called ‘tornado politics’ situations where social actors agree on the ‘problem’ they face and the…”
Backgroundvan der Steen, M. A., & van Twist, M. J. W. (2013) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.09.009 · Cited by 46
Hanssen, L., Rouwette, E. A. J. A., & van Katwijk, M. M. (2009) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-02884-140143 · Cited by 46
“If there are no clear answers, government officials interpret research conclusions in line with their own preferences and in general avoid discussions with stakeholders (Sarewitz 2004, Lawton 2007, Pielke 2007).”
BackgroundInfluentialHow Do Science and Technology Affect International Affairs?
Weiss, C. (2015) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-015-9286-1 · Cited by 46
Honest advocacy for nature: presenting a persuasive narrative for conservation
Rose, D. C., Brotherton, P. N. M., Owens, S. E., et al. (2016) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1163-1 · Cited by 46
Volcano alert level systems: managing the challenges of effective volcanic crisis communication
Fearnley, C. J., & Beaven, S. (2018) · Bulletin of Volcanology · doi:10.1007/s00445-018-1219-z · Cited by 46
de Jong, S. P. L., & Muhonen, R. (2018) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvy036 · Cited by 45
“6 academic journals, whereas others might actively advocate societal changes by engaging with stakeholders (Pielke, 2007).”
BackgroundDommett, K., & Pearce, W. (2019) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662519852038 · Cited by 46
Knowledge in the dark: scientific challenges and ways forward
Jeschke, J. M., Lokatis, S., Bartram, I., & Tockner, K. (2019) · FACETS · doi:10.1139/facets-2019-0007 · Cited by 45
Value and risks of the use of analytical theory in science for forest policy
Krott, M. (2010) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.12.004 · Cited by 45
Fobé, E., Brans, M., Vancoppenolle, D., & Damme, J. V. (2013) · Policy and Society · doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.07.004 · Cited by 47
Pregernig, M. (2014) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-014-0806-3 · Cited by 49
Negotiating climate change: A frame analysis of COP21 in British, American, and Chinese news media
Pan, Y., Opgenhaffen, M., & Gorp, B. V. (2019) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662518823969 · Cited by 45
Exploring and expanding the spaces between research and implementation in conservation science
Maas, B., Toomey, A., & Loyola, R. A. (2019) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108290 · Cited by 47
Fähnrich, B., Wilkinson, C. E., Weitkamp, E., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.795198 · Cited by 44
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
