National Academies Press: OpenBook

Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities (2005)

Chapter: Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl

« Previous: References
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

Appendix A
When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?

Rebecca J. Romsdahl

This appendix describes a body of literature that is relevant to understanding the conditions under which decision makers are likely to use social science information in environmentally significant decisions. The literature was identified by contacting selected researchers and searching numerous databases (AGRICOLA, BIOSIS Previews, CSA Environmental Science and Pollution Management, EconLit, Elsevier-ScienceDirect, EMBASE, InfoTrac OneFile, National Technical Information Service, ProQuest General Reference, HtmlResAnchor PsycINFO, Public Affairs Information Service [PAIS International], Social Sciences Citation Index, Sociological Abstracts) using combinations of the following topics: environmental, decision making, policy making, social science, knowledge utilization, and information utilization. The search was not exhaustive, but it is presented as representative of the field.1 This appendix characterizes the literature, lists some of the reoccurring conclusions found in the studies, and concludes with an annotated bibliography containing 54 citations. The annotations summarize the following questions for each article:

  • What is the empirical basis, if any?

  • What is the social science and environmental domain?

  • Who are the decision makers involved?

  • What are the conclusions, if any, on how social science was/is/ would be used?

  • Are there recommendations or any other relevant pieces of information?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

Very few of the studies directly address the use of social science information in environmental decision making. The majority are from fields of social policy (e.g., education, health), but a few provide examples from other fields. One study (Rosen, 1977) reviews literature on the use of social science in judicial policy making; this study provides interesting but limited insight in this area of decision making. Another limited study (Deshpande, 1981) addresses the use of social science research in business decisions. Given the focus of this bibliography on the utilization of social science, no attempt was made to summarize studies on the use of natural science in decision making; however, one illustrative study is included (Powell, 1999). This study addresses the use of natural science information, in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that is of direct relevance to regulatory decision making. In addition, although it is recognized that claims are often made about the misuse of scientific information in government decision making, the time frame of this review precluded a search for literature to examine such claims in regard to social science information. Most of the literature in this bibliography comes from the study of “knowledge utilization,” a popular research area in the 1970s and early 1980s. Interest in this field of research seems to rise and fall periodically and it has been less active in recent years; however, as this panel study shows, questions about social science utilization persist and recent studies do build on and advance earlier work.

SOCIAL SCIENCE UTILIZATION IN GOVERNMENT DECISION MAKING

The most recent studies in this field (Landry, Amara, and Lamari, 2001; Landry, Lamari, and Amara, 2003) are significant for their broad examination of decision-making offices, including social and environmental, and their critique of the knowledge utilization literature. In their analyses, Landry et al. (2001, 2003) consider organizational and communication factors and find that both influence utilization. For example, they highlight the importance of policy domain: university research reached its highest levels of utilization in the fields of education and information technology (Landry et al., 2003).

Many of the early studies on knowledge utilization focus on federal government decision makers primarily in areas of social policy. The studies reviewed here present some useful insights into how government decision makers use social science information. Among these are practical typologies of social science roles in decision-making processes. It is useful for the present purpose to highlight two broad categories:

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
  • the conceptual or enlightenment role—social science providing a broad information base for decisions (Caplan, Morrison, and Stambaugh, 1975; Dunn, 1983; Nelson, Roberts, Maederer, Wertheimer, and Johnson, 1987; Oh, 1996a; Oh and Rich, 1996; Patton et al., 1977; Pollard, 1987; Weiss, 1977, 1979; Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1977, 1980; Wilensky, 1997)

  • the instrumental role—information put to use for specific decisions or requested by decision makers for specific projects (Deshpande, 1981; Knorr, 1977; Oh, 1996b; Weiss, 1979)

The literature also identifies other roles, including justifying or legitimating decisions already reached (Caplan et al., 1975; Knorr, 1977; Oh, 1996b; Scott and Shore, 1979; Weiss, 1979) and serving as a substitute for or justification for postponing actual decisions (Knorr, 1977; Oh, 1996b; Scott and Shore, 1979; Weiss, 1979).

Several studies address how information comes to be utilized in these roles by exploring two major competing hypotheses (Greenberg and Mandell, 1991; Majchrzak, 1986; Oh, 1996a, 1996b, Oh and Rich, 1996; Rich, 2001). One hypothesis focuses on the characteristics of the information: if the information is “relevant, timely, and comprehensible, it will be used” (Majchrzak, 1986). The other focuses on organizational or bureaucratic factors, suggesting, for instance, that information will be used “when the rewards and incentives of the organizational structure encourage its use” (Majchrzak, 1986) or when the information is consistent with the ideology and interests of the organization and/or its members (Weiss, 1983).

Other studies identify additional characteristics of the most frequently utilized information:

  • it is in the form of social statistics (Caplan, 1976)

  • it comes from internal agency sources (Caplan et al., 1975; Nelson et al., 1987; Oh, 1996a, 1997; Oh and Rich, 1996)

  • it supports decisions that have been made on other grounds (Knorr, 1977; Oh, 1996b; Scott and Shore, 1979)

  • it is perceived to support the decision-maker’s perception of the agency’s best interests (Oh, 1996a)

  • it provides means to improve the sponsoring agencies’ bureaucratic efficiency (Caplan, 1976; Scott and Shore, 1979)

  • it was specifically requested by the decision maker (Caplan, 1976; Landry et al., 2001, 2003)

In addition to reviewing these broadly based studies, the search extended to documents from U.S. government agencies responsible for natural resource management. The bibliography includes two studies that examine social science utilization by such agencies—the National Oceanic

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Minerals Management Service (MMS) under the U.S. Department of the Interior.

NOAA recently published a report on the findings of its external social science review panel. Two general findings were presented: (1) “The capacity of NOAA to meet its mandates and mission is diminished by the under-representation and under-utilization of social science” and (2) “Assistant Administrators are responsive to discussing opportunities for an enhanced role for social science within their line offices” (NOAA, 2003). The report also compares NOAA to several other regulatory environmental agencies and finds it lacking. “The line office budgets for social science research, education and staffing do not seem comparable to the social science budgets at other agencies with environmental assessment and stewardship responsibilities such as U.S. Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” (NOAA, 2003). Overall, the report concludes that “the position of social science within NOAA is weak” but it presents an array of recommendations for improving the use of social science research in the agency (NOAA, 2003). Some of these recommendations include having headquarters and each line office develop social science research plans that identify goals and implementation strategies to help the agency accomplish its mission, creating a chief social scientist position in each line office, and using external experts to help educate personnel about potential contributions of social science to NOAA’s goals.

The MMS report (Luton and Cluck, 2000) is an internal assessment conducted by two social scientists employed by the service. The authors find that

the MMS uses social science data and analysis throughout the various phases of decisionmaking: 5-year planning, prelease and leasing activities, exploration, development, production, and decommissioning of offshore platforms. The MMS designs studies to address the data and analytical needs arising from these specific phases in order to aid in the decision-making process.

The researchers also describe eight broad categories of social and economic research components that are used by the service, including issues identification, national economic analysis, and community- and individual-level analysis. For each category they identify the data needs and level of detail required in order for research in that category to support decisions at the various stages of policy making.

Other federal natural resource agencies were contacted including the U.S. Forest Service, which employs social scientists but appears to be examining its use of science in a much broader sense at present; the National Park Service, which employs a visiting chief social scientist and has an ongoing national program in social science research, but application of that

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

research to decision making is described as decentralized2; the Bureau of Land Management, which employs social scientists and has a chief social scientist but has not conducted a broad assessment of its social science utilization; and the Fish and Wildlife Service, which does not appear to have a chief social scientist and has not responded to inquiries.

CHALLENGES TO SOCIAL SCIENCE UTILIZATION

Some of the studies present barriers to utilization that might be overcome by actions social scientists can take:

  • failure to produce results in the form of generalized principles or politically feasible recommendations (Boggs, 1990; Caplan et al., 1975; Freudenburg, 1989; Freudenburg and Keating, 1985; Greenberg and Mandell, 1991; Jones, Fischhoff, and Lach, 1999; Scott and Shore, 1979; Useem, 1977; Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1980)

  • lack of clarity on research questions and/or policy objectives (Corwin and Louis, 1982; Freudenburg, 1989; Fricke, 1985; Jones et al., 1999; Rich, 2001)

  • disagreement on findings, i.e., a lack of consistent or cumulative research results on a given subject (Gismondi, 1997; Lindblom and Cohen, 1979; Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1980)

Some findings identify barriers that social science is unlikely to address; some of these might be addressed by changes in the organizations that use social science information:

  • a lack of clear roles for scientists in decision-making processes (Boggs, 1990; Freudenburg, 1989; Webber, 1987)

  • political influences (Corwin and Louis, 1982; Freudenburg, 1989; Freudenburg and Keating, 1985; Gismondi, 1997; Patton et al., 1977)

  • unavailability of social science research results until after a decision must be made (Dreyfus, 1977; Greenberg and Mandell, 1991; Healy and Ascher, 1995; Jones et al., 1999; Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1980)

  • low credibility of social science information relative to natural science information (Gismondi, 1997; Sabatier, 1978)

Some other research conclusions are also worth mentioning. Weiss (1977) found that decision makers in the mental health field were open to controversial research that made them reassess comfortable assumptions; these decision makers found it possible that others in their fields would also consider such research in their decision-making processes. Weiss and

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

Bucuvalas (1980) found four situations when decision makers in the mental health field commonly sought new information:

  • when they faced new circumstances

  • when they had to make decisions that involved important or expensive outcomes

  • when they might request consultants’ help on issues where they lacked expertise

  • in situations where they wanted authoritative backup because their judgment might be challenged

In a study of legislative decision makers, Webber (1987) found that most were unlikely to use policy information or social science if left to their own tendencies. Legislators were more likely to use these sources if they already viewed social science as valid and useful information; if the research supported views they already held; or if their constituents had requested such information, asked questions about it, or demanded that attention be paid to issues covered by it.

STUDIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING

In environmental decision making, there is a great deal more research on the use of natural science than social science. A quick search through the database Elsevier-ScienceDirect, on science and environmental policy, for example, will bring up dozens of articles. These range in topic from examinations of risk assessment and scientific uncertainty in policy making to incorporating long-term monitoring and environmental impact assessments. No attempt was made to review this literature.

Studies of social science use in environmental decision making are sparse overall and tend to focus on case studies of social impact assessment, but a couple of insights are worth mentioning. Freudenburg (1989) highlights that social scientists must overcome the hurdle of explaining to nonsocial science background persons the many ways in which environmental policies are social and the need for environmental decision making to use social science information. Fricke (1985) discusses an important factor in environmental decisions that is also mentioned in articles on social policy—the need for better communication between researchers and decision makers before research begins in order to clarify the objectives of and required knowledge for projects and planning.

INSIGHTS FROM SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE

Although this field of research would likely add another valuable per-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

spective to the analysis of social science utilization, this review examined it only briefly, as it surfaced late in the study time frame. One example where this field of study could provide valuable insights is in understanding how researchers interact with those who will be using their research findings. Freudenberg and Gramling (2002) discuss the variety of ways that natural scientists often struggle to remain unbiased in conducting their work, especially when they are asked to provide information in policy-making situations.

The authors provide an insightful analysis of Paul Hirt’s 1994 book, Conspiracy of Optimism. In examining the U.S. Forest Service policy for promoting “sustained yield” of wood production, the authors’ focus on Hirt’s conclusion that even when Forest Service scientists were committed to carrying out balanced research and believed that they were doing so, their findings often resulted in significant short-term benefits for those interests that were focused on exploitation of the resource over the broader interests of the resource and the public interest. Freudenberg and Gramling (2002) explain this phenomenon in terms of how the research process can be limited by blind spots and scientific limitations. “Few of those scientists have had any difficulty in recognizing this pattern in retrospect; equally few of them, unfortunately, appear to have been able to recognize it in advance. The authors go on to suggest that natural science researchers in this situation may have benefited from interaction with social scientists, especially those who would be familiar with “unseen, structural biasing pressures” present in many research scenarios. Social science analyses of the relationships between researchers and those requesting the research would likely benefit not only from study outcomes but also their utilization.

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE REVIEWED LITERATURE

What Social Science Researchers Can Do to Improve Utilization

Some of the studies make recommendations for improving utilization of social science by government decision makers. Francis, King, and Riddlesperger (1980) suggest that researchers should “[target] evaluations to the interests of the administrators or legislators, [and] use an appropriate justification when suggesting programmatic or policy changes.” In contrast, Landry et al. (2001, 2003) find that focusing research on users’ needs does not improve utilization any more than research focused on the advancement of scholarly knowledge. Other studies suggest that

  • researchers should explore alternative approaches and roles in policy making, such as forming groups who can translate university research into policy recommendations or translate policy issues into research-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

able questions, seeking appointment to science policy committees or encouraging interest groups to push for committee members who will listen to social scientists (Boggs, 1990; Caplan, 1977; Catalano, Simmons, and Stokols, 1975; Freudenburg and Gramling, 2002; Freudenburg, 1989)

  • social scientists’ policy recommendations should be based on appropriate political factors (Caplan, 1977; Patton et al., 1977)

Dissemination of social science research is presented as an important positive influence on utilization in at least four studies. One study (Huberman, 1990) finds that greater contacts, including face-to-face and follow-up interactions, between researchers and decision makers throughout a study often lead to increased promotion and distribution of research findings in later stages of the dissemination process. Another study (Greenberg and Mandell, 1991) states that results might be underutilized if researchers do not take the initiative to distribute their studies directly to practitioners.

The most recent studies (Landry et al., 2001, 2003) also suggest that utilization can be increased by emphasizing links between researchers and decision makers and by encouraging researchers to take the initiative in dissemination so that research is more widely available to decision makers. One example is to compensate or reward researchers for the costs of directly distributing their research. Some researchers recommend that government decision makers take some responsibility in this process by actively involving social scientists at the beginning of planning projects (Fricke, 1985; Gans, 1971; Gismondi, 1997).

CONCLUSIONS

This appendix presents a brief summary of the state of knowledge in the field of social science utilization. The references included in the annotated bibliography were chosen for their broad representation of this field and their applicability to the question of how decision makers use social science. For additional references, see Landry et al. (2003); this article appears to be the most current analysis of the knowledge utilization literature and its application to government decision making.

The literature suggests actions that can be taken by both sides to expand the use of social science research. Researchers can take the initiative to meet with policy makers at regular intervals during the research process or directly distribute their findings to those policy makers who might be able to utilize the research. Policy makers and research funders can provide incentives to encourage social science researchers to be more proactive in distributing their research and to consider political factors when making policy recommendations. Policy makers can also take the initiative to more actively involve social scientists at the beginning stages of planning projects.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

The field of social science utilization is one that would greatly benefit from additional research. “We know little about the factors that induce professionals and managers in government agencies to use university research in their professional activities” (Landry et al., 2003). The question of how social science is used in government decision making should not simply be an academic pursuit; government agencies’ use or nonuse of social science information has significant impacts on the lives of citizens as officials make decisions and create policies. This is only one reason why social science research on science utilization can contribute to better environmental decision making.

NOTES

1.  

For instance, the search did not include variants of the phrase “evidence-based decision making.”

2.  

For additional information see the National Park Service web site: HtmlResAnchor http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/index.htm (last visited June 2004).

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boggs, J.P. 1990 The use of anthropological knowledge under NEPA. Human Organization 49(3):217-226.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Use and influence of social science under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was examined

• Decision makers were at the federal level

• Conclusions: The study found that social science fails to produce results in the form of generalized principles that can be applied to particular cases. Practitioners need closer, more effective open links with basic social sciences.

• Recommendation: The author suggested the development of a professional role for social science under NEPA that is grounded in the basic social sciences.

Caplan, N. 1976 Social research and national policy: What gets used, by whom, for what purposes, and with what effects? International Social Science Journal 28(1):187-194.

Notes:

• 204 face-to-face, recorded interviews (dataset from Caplan et al., 1975, report)

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

• Social science research utilization and policy formation were examined

• Decision makers represented high-level civil servants or political appointees from across the entire range of government activities

• Conclusions: The study found that social statistics were the most frequently used data. Most of the information used in a decision was sponsored by the deciding agency, and most of the knowledge utilization was applied toward improving bureaucratic efficiency. Policy makers’ information processing style (clinical, academic, or advocacy orientation) stood out as having special influence on the level of their utilization. Policy makers also emerged as playing an active role in prescribing the information that they wanted and would ultimately use.

1977 A minimal set of conditions necessary for the utilization of social science knowledge in policy formulation at the national level. In Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, C.H. Weiss, ed. (Policy Studies Organization Series.) Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Notes:

• 204 face-to-face, recorded interviews (dataset from Caplan et al., 1975, report)

• Social science research utilization and policy formation were examined

• Decision makers represented high-level civil servants or political appointees from across the entire range of government activities

• Conclusions: The study found that the most frequent reason given for nonutilization of relevant social science information was that the implications are politically unfeasible. So, to increase utilization, the gap between social scientists and policy makers’ perspectives must be bridged, but there does not necessarily need to be more direct contacts.

• Recommendations: The author suggested the formation of a group of individuals representing different roles and skills in research and policy making who can make realistic and rational appraisals of available social science information, make appropriate translations from university research to policy-making situations, recast policy issues into researchable terms, identify and distinguish between scientific and “extrascientific” knowledge needs, deal with the value issues and bureaucratic factors that influence both the development and the use of scientific results, and gain policy makers trust and sufficient understanding of the policy pro-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

cess in order to introduce social science in ways that will increase its utilization.

Caplan, N., A. Morrison, and R.J. Stambaugh 1975 The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level: A Report to Respondents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Notes:

• Statistical analysis of 204 face-to-face recorded interviews

• Social science research utilization and policy formation were examined

• Decision makers represented high-level civil servants or political appointees from across the entire range of federal government activities including environmental and natural resource management

• Conclusions: The study found that decision makers used social science in diverse ways including such examples as a basis for planning, evaluating, and determining feasibility of programs and increasing bureaucratic efficiency. Most of the information used was from internal sources or directly funded by the agency. Sociology ranked highest in frequency of use as did the methodology of program evaluation. Newspapers and government reports were the most frequently mentioned sources of social science information, with staff assistance and books listed second and professional journals third. Decision makers perceived social science information as most important in sensitizing policy makers to social needs. Factors that influenced utilization included decision makers interest and receptivity to social science information, a lack of understanding and/or mistrust between policy makers and researchers (two communities theory), a perceived objectivity of the data, findings that were counterintuitive to policy makers personal beliefs were often rejected, political feasibility, policy maker’s information processing style, and policy maker’s career plans—if they were unsatisfied with their position and planning to change careers, they were less likely to use social science information.

Catalano, R., S.J. Simmons, and D. Stokols 1975 Adding social science knowledge to environmental decision making. Natural Resources Lawyer 8(1):41-58.

Notes:

• Case study

• Environmental Impact Report process in California was examined

• Decision makers were at the state level

• Conclusions: The study suggested three ways for social scien-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

tists to contribute to the environmental impact assessment process: (1) through direct participation as a citizen, (2) by teaching social science methods to professionals in environmental management, and (3) by turning research attention to the development of predictive models of social impacts for future types of environmental impact assessment projects.

Corwin, R.G., and K. Seashore Louis 1982 Organizational barriers to the utilization of research. Administrative Science Quarterly 27:632-640.

Notes:

• Secondary analysis of case studies, retrospective interviews

• Education demonstration programs were examined

• Decision makers were at the federal level

• Conclusions: The study found that many organizational characteristics were barriers to research utilization, including a lack of clear research questions, conflicts over and vagueness in research designs—especially tensions between theory- versus policy-driven designs, a lack of consistent policy options and objectives, high rates of personnel turnover and changing policy contexts, overlapping bureaucratic jurisdictions and interagency rivalries resulted in poor interagency coordination and cooperation, and decentralized decision making and lack of ties between policy research and long-term operational programs isolated the potential influence of information.

Deshpande, R. 1981 Action and enlightenment functions of research. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 2(3):317-330.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis (over 60 articles), personal interviews, and mail survey (92 respondents, all from businesses)

• Information utilization in private organizations was examined, and public and private decision making were compared

• Decision makers were policy-making private executives in consumer products and services manufacturing and distribution

• Conclusions: The study found that private organizations used instrumental information and in most cases contracted research agencies for the exact purpose of obtaining information on specific questions whereas public organizations used conceptual information and it had a more indirect influence on decision making.

Dreyfus, D.A. 1977 The limitations of policy research in congressional decision making. In Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, C.H. Weiss, ed. (Policy Studies Organization Series.) Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Policy information was examined

• Decision makers were federal-level policy makers in Congress

• Conclusions: The study found that by the time an issue reaches Congress for a decision, decision makers do not have time to consider new information on the subject. They play a summary role where the use of more information would be excessive.

Dunn, W.N. 1983 Measuring knowledge use. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 5(1):120-133.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• An inventory of concepts, procedures, and measures from social science studies of knowledge was conducted

• Decision makers were social scientists in their capacity as researchers

• Conclusions: The study found that little is known about the use of science and experiential knowledge by individuals and collectives. The author recommended areas for further research.

• Recommendations: The author suggested that the following are needed: a better understanding of the convergent and discriminant validity of constructs for the assessment of subjective properties, concepts that capture the sociocognitive complexity of knowledge use processes, examination of both the benefits of using science and professional knowledge and the drawbacks and the various reference frames and social systems of which researchers and policy makers are also members, and identification and development of concepts to distinguish the range of expected general and specific effects of knowledge use including general organizational and government learning and public enlightenment.

Florio, E., and J.R. Demartini 1993 The use of information by policy-makers at the local-community level. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 15(1):106-123.

Notes: Full text unavailable for review

Abstract: The goal of this study was to examine how policy makers at the local community level use social science information in making decisions. The assumption that guided the study is that the use of social science information is related to how it interacts with other information and with the ideology and interests of the policy maker in the decision-making process. Findings from the study revealed that policy makers drew on a variety of information

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

sources. The use of social science information was dependent on the ideology and interests of the decision makers and on the specific circumstances that shaped the decision-making process.

Francis, W.L., J.D. King, and J.W. Riddlesperger 1980 Problems in the communication of evaluation research to policy makers. Policy Studies Journal 8:1184-1194.

Notes: Full text unavailable for review

Abstract: There are three probable causes for lack of receptivity to evaluation research: (1) a nonacceptance of scientific orientation to public policy problems, (2) critical differences between evaluators and users as to what constitutes a problem, and (3) preferences for alternative policy justifications. These causes are examined with data from an interview survey of 15 agency administrators and 15 legislators. The first cause was found to be unlikely and the last two probable. The lesson for evaluators is to key evaluations to the interests of the administrators or legislators, and to use an appropriate justification when suggesting programmatic or policy changes.

Freudenburg, W.R. 1989 Social scientists’ contributions to environmental management. Journal of Social Issues 45(1):133-152.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Factors limiting the use of social science in environmental decisions were examined

• Decision makers were at the federal agency level

• Conclusions: The study found that the lack of social science inclusion in environmental decision making can be attributed to many factors, including social scientists limiting their own effectiveness by not communicating effectively with decision makers or failing to offer realistic suggestions for policy changes; social scientists must also overcome the hurdle of explaining to those with a nonsocial science background the many ways in which environmental policies are social, the imbalance between resources and expectations for social science results versus other sciences, and political influences may be a large factor because scientists have a limited role in policy-making processes.

• Recommendations: The author suggests that scientists should explore alternative approaches and roles in policy making and pay greater attention to political factors, especially the balance of access to scientific resources.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

Freudenburg, W.R., and R. Gramling 2002 Scientific expertise and natural resource decisions: Social science participation on interdisciplinary scientific committees. Social Science Quarterly 83(1):120-136.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Factors limiting the use of social science in environmental decisions were examined

• Decision makers were at the federal agency level

• Conclusions: The study found that there is a need for more social science knowledge across disciplines and specifically in natural resource policy-making arenas. The authors argue that additional social science involvement could help biophysical scientists reflect on their role in the policy process and in doing so help them recognize subtle pressures that may result in biased research.

• Recommendations: The authors argue that social scientists should seek out greater roles in policy making, specifically membership on interdisciplinary scientific committees in natural resources policy making.

Freudenburg, W.R., and K.M. Keating 1985 Applying sociology to policy: Social sciences and the environmental impact statement. Rural Sociology 50(4):578-605.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Factors limiting the use of social science (specifically social impact assessments) in environmental impact statements were examined

• Decision makers were federal agencies

• Conclusions: The study found that the limiting factors included the overall difficulty of conducting social impact assessments, their anticipatory nature as compared to empirical data, limited funding, inertia in the discipline of social science, organizational resistance, and the political nature of the process.

• Recommendations: The authors suggested changes that could overcome the limiting factors, including cooperating with environmental or public interest groups that are litigating against the environmental impact statement; assisting state and local groups in adversarial actions; and working simultaneously for both sides in a dispute.

Fricke, P.H. 1985 The use of sociological information in the allocation of natural resources by federal agencies: A comparison of practices. Rural Sociologist 5(2):96-103.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Use of social impact assessments (SIAs) in natural resource decision making was examined

• No distinct decision makers were identified; instead National Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) policy processes were compared

• Conclusions: The study found that the National Forestry Service has successfully ensured the inclusion of SIAs in its policy process through its long-standing practice of developing agency-wide directives for new procedures. The NMFS has not had as much time to develop its operating procedures and was still required to work with regional management councils. These two groups could not agree on the validity of SIAs and therefore the assessments were not being incorporated into NMFS’s planning processes.

• Recommendations: The author suggested that the key to successful management of common pool resources is prior agreement on objectives and knowledge required for planning and integration of all elements (social, economic, biological, etc.) at the lowest levels (i.e., the plan-development teams).

Gans, H.J. 1971 Social science for social policy. In The Use and Abuse of Social Science, First Edition. I.L. Horowitz, ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Social science for policy making was considered

• Decision makers were at the federal level

• Conclusions: The study found that policy making needs social science in its design stages to assist in decisions about which program will achieve the desired goals. Policy makers need as much empirical evidence as they can get to support their decisions and determine if it is possible to achieve the desired goals. Social science should provide policy makers with empirical models of all the components, stages, and consequences of alternatives. The author identified factors that make social science research problematic for policy making, including a detached researcher perspective, impersonal universalism, high generality, conceptual abstractions, metaphysical assumptions, and inattention to theories and concepts of power.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

Gismondi, M. 1997 Sociology and environmental impact assessment. Canadian Journal of Sociology-Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 22(4):457-479.

Notes:

• Case study

• Environmental impact assessment (EIA) process in Canada was examined

• Decision makers were at the federal level and interested public citizens were included

• Conclusions: The study examined EIA literature and a specific EIA case. It found the following challenges to the utilization of social research: Some social questions were screened out of the EIA process by political influences, research priority setting was not open to the public early in the EIA process, social science still needs to be elevated to an equal regard with natural science, and experts often disagree on research findings about the same issue.

• Recommendations: The author suggested that social science could contribute to EIAs by quantifying the number of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed research studies supporting a given proposal and assessing them for bias, context, and alternatives presented. Other recommendations included that social science could identify the extent to which natural and physical scientists bias their findings with personal value-based inputs and it could provide understanding of the social interaction of public speaking in contexts of unequal power.

Greenberg, D.H., and M.B. Mandell 1991 Research utilization in policymaking: A tale of two series (of social experiments). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 10(4): 633-656.

Notes:

• Case study

• Social experiments in general and two specific projects were examined—income maintenance and welfare demonstration

• Decision makers were at the federal level

• Conclusions: The study found that one project resulted in symbolic and persuasive use—to give support to those arguing one side of the issue, while the other project resulted in more concrete elaborative use by providing input toward the development of new legislation. It also summarized, from the literature, that utilization was influenced by two sets of factors. One focused on five characteristics of the information: credibility, timeliness, communicability, and visibility, generalizability, and relevance. The other focused on characteristics of the policy environment. The study also

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

highlighted the importance of dissemination efforts as emphasized by the utilization literature.

Healy, R.G., and W. Ascher 1995 Knowledge in the policy process: Incorporating new environmental information in natural resources policymaking. Policy Sciences 28(1):1-19.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Implications of using new information (i.e., ecosystem management, valuation of ecosystem functions) in natural resource policy making were examined

• Decision makers were the National Forest Service and other government and nongovernment natural resource policy makers

• Conclusions: The study found that advances in new knowledge were expected to improve policy legitimacy, acceptance, and implementation. But new information sometimes left nonexperts more powerless to influence decisions, polarized debates over the appropriate use of resources, and delayed decisions.

Huberman, M. 1990 Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal 27(2):363-391.

Notes:

• Multicase tracer study

• Education research and practice were examined

• Decision makers were education practitioners

• Conclusions: The study found that the greater the formal and informal contacts between researchers and practitioners during a study, the greater the collaboration afterward. In addition, the informal contacts developed during the study energized intermediaries who aggressively disseminated and promoted the use of study results.

Jones, S.A., B. Fischhoff, and D. Lach 1999 Evaluating the science-policy interface for climate change research. Climatic Change 43(3):581-599.

Notes:

• Case study, interviews

• Previous topic literature was examined and interviews were conducted with 14 policy makers in the Pacific Northwest salmon issue

• Decision makers were at the federal and state level

• Conclusions: The study recommended four conditions necessary for science research to be utilized in decision making: (1) Research results must be relevant to currently pending decisions.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

(2) Research results must be compatible with existing policymaking processes and models. (3) Research results must be accessible to the appropriate policy makers. (4) Policy makers must be receptive to the research results.

• Recommendations: The authors recommend the use of integrated assessments to improve the utilization of science in policy making and suggest that this type of model could be adapted to other research areas as well.

Knorr, K.D. 1977 Policy makers’ use of social science knowledge: Symbolic or instrumental? In Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, C.H. Weiss, ed. (Policy Studies Organization Series.) Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Notes:

• 70 face-to-face interviews

• Government-contracted social science projects were considered

• Decision makers were medium-level policy makers in Austrian federal and municipal government

• Conclusions: The study categorized four functions of social science research utilized by government: census, motivation, acquisition, and rationalization functions. It also identified four roles social science played in decision making: (1) as an information base for actual decisions, (2) as a direct translation of results into practical measures and action strategies, (3) as a substitution for an actual decision or other action, and (4) to legitimize a decision made for different reasons (this one is less common than perceived). Overall, the study found that use of social science information is characterized as diffuse, indirect, difficult to pinpoint who uses it where in the process, and as having a “delayed discursive processing” of results.

Landry, R., N. Amara, and M. Lamari 2001 Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy 30(2):333-349.

Notes:

• Survey composed of 1,229 interviews, multiple regression analysis

• Decision makers were Canadian social science scholars

• Conclusions: The study found that the assumption of underutilization of social science by decision makers might be explained by the narrow definition of knowledge utilization limited to instrumental use. It also suggested that some researchers and decision makers have overlooked more recent empirical studies of

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

knowledge utilization. Study found that important determinants of utilization included the mechanisms linking the researchers to the users, the dissemination efforts, the adaptation of research outputs undertaken by the researchers, and the users’ context and the publication assets of the researchers.

Landry, R., M. Lamari, and N. Amara 2003 The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review 63(2):192-205.

Notes:

• Survey, multiple regression

• Decision makers were 833 Canadian government officials in a broad number of agencies including environmental fields

• Conclusions: The study found that utilization cannot be explained by research characteristics, a focus on the advancement of scholarly knowledge, or on users’ needs. Good predictors of research utilization included users’ adaptation of research, users’ acquisition efforts, links between researchers and users, and users’ organizational contexts.

Lester, J.P. 1993 The utilization of policy analysis by state agency officials. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion,Utilization 14(3):267-290.

Notes: Full text unavailable for review

Abstract: Findings from a 1988 survey of U.S. state officials working in the areas of hazardous wastes, economic development, welfare, and education suggest that these officials do not appear to rely heavily on policy analysis from research organizations or from university faculty; instead, they rely principally on policy advice from their peers in other state agencies, newspapers, their counterparts in federal agencies, and staff from the governors’ office. In attempting to understand knowledge utilization, the study found that, among the variables considered, utilization of policy formation is best explained by state contextual variables and user characteristics That is, agency officials in wealthier, more conservative, moralistic states used policy analysis in their work more than officials in poorer, more traditional, liberal states. In addition, more experienced and better educated officials used policy advice less than inexperienced and less educated officials.

Lindblom, C.E., and D.K. Cohen 1979 Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

• No distinct decision makers are identified, instead, the book provides a broad review of social science and problem solving in order to consider uses in government, business, and other situations.

• Conclusions: The study found that social science and research are not well understood by their own researchers and that this misunderstanding is a significant factor in the lack of utilization. The primary problem is discussed as neglect on the part of social scientists to consider the wide range of possible inputs when they study the role of social science in problem solving. Specifically, the authors stated the importance of including interactive problem solving, social learning, and ordinary knowledge in these considerations. Other problems included misplaced beliefs in authoritativeness, the high costs of social science research, the lack of conclusive answers in light of limited human cognition and complexity of the social world, wasted resources on overstudied topics, and impossible tasks assigned to overextended agencies. These have led to a situation where the authors see social problem solving as being removed from “rational problem solving.”

• Recommendation: The authors suggested that social problem solving must be coupled with interactive problem solving and analysis. Social science research could be improved by combining it with social interaction.

Luton, H., and R.E. Cluck 2000 Applied Social Science for MMS: A Framework for Decision Making. Washington, DC: Minerals Management Service Environmental Studies Program.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Social science research in the Minerals Management Service (MMS) was examined

• Decision makers were at the federal government level

• Conclusions: The study outlined why MMS conducts social science research and described eight broad categories of ongoing social and economic research at MMS. The categories are issues identification, national economic analysis, regional-level analysis, community- and individual-level analysis, resource use issues, adaptive policy studies, mitigation, and monitoring. The study then identified the data needs and level of details required for research in these areas to support decisions in various policy stages. The study concluded that the MMS has given increased emphasis to socioeconomic research in recent years.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

Majchrzak, A. 1986 Information focus and data sources: When will they lead to use? Evaluation Review 10(2):193-215.

Notes:

• Interviews with 90 respondents from capital cities of seven states, statistical analysis of relationships between decision types

• Social service domain was examined

• Decision makers were at the state government level

• Conclusions: The study categorized four types of decisions: performance appraisal, resource requirement, program change, and those establishing criteria for assessing effectiveness. It identified nine types of information used by the decision makers and grouped those into four categories: inputs, processes, outputs, and impacts. The study also identified eight sources of information used by the decision makers: agency archival, evaluation or special studies, reviews of client records or observations, performance reports, comparison reports, advocacy or public comments, needs assessments, and other more specific sources such as service providers. The study found that utilization was influenced by the decision maker’s role in the organization and their role was related to the type of decision but not to the information focus.

Mooney, C.Z. 1992 Putting it on paper—The content of written information used in state lawmaking. American Politics Quarterly 20(3):345-365.

Notes: Full text unavailable for review

Abstract: What kinds of information do state legislators consider in their legislative deliberations? This article examines four dimensions of the content of the written information state representatives in Indiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon used in 1989: whether it was policy or political information, one sided or multisided, in agreement or disagreement with the position of the legislator using it, and whether it had any hard or soft scientific content. Legislators are found to use information heavily dosed with political preferences, and they tend to look only at one side of an issue—the one with which they agree. However, they also use a substantial amount of scientific information.

Murphy, N., and S. Krimsky 2003 Implicit precaution, scientific inference, and indirect evidence: The basis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of genetically modified crops. New Genetics and Society 22(2):127-143.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

• Regulation of genetically modified organisms was examined

• Decision makers were federal bureaucrats with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• Conclusions: The study found that the Environmental Protection Agency used a precautionary approach when developing regulations under scientific uncertainty. The agency relied on extrapolation from limited scientific knowledge and thus presented an example of science-based policy making that was guided more by normative judgments than science.

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2003 Social Science Research Within NOAA: Review and Recommendations. Washington, DC: National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration.

Notes:

• Expert social science review panel conducted interviews and literature review and analysis

• Regulatory decision making for marine and fisheries resources

• Decision makers were federal bureaucrats with NOAA

• Conclusions: The review panel presented two general findings and eight detailed findings. Overall, it reported that “Assistant Administrators were receptive to discussing the role of social science within their line offices. These discussions revealed that the full potential for social science is not being realized throughout NOAA. While social science is sometimes applied to calculate the value of scientific plans and programs, it is less often used to help identify the scope and content of science plans and programs, to evaluate the degree to which NOAA products and services are satisfying constituent needs, or to develop a more informed and participatory constituency through education and outreach programs.”

• Recommendations: The review panel presented recommendations for each specific finding but in general it encouraged NOAA to focus on developing social science research priorities in two areas: (1) Programmatic: mission-driven social science research focusing on questions that provide background and operational information that will help NOAA define and effectively carry out the mandates of each line office. (2) Organizational: institutional social science research focusing on providing information related to how NOAA and each of the line offices should be organized to enhance the ability to perform required services and produce necessary outputs.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

Nelson, C.E., J. Roberts, C.M. Maederer, B. Wertheimer, and B. Johnson 1987 Utilization of social science information by policymakers. American Behavioral Scientist 30(6):569-577.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Use of social science in policy decisions was examined

• Decision makers were at the federal level

• Conclusions: The study presented factors influencing use: internal sources were more likely to be used; validity and reliability were checked against one’s own experience and beliefs; policy makers preferred anecdotal and soft language information over statistics; policy issues must be well defined if social science information was to have an impact on decisions; and social science information was more likely to be used if it was easily accessible and there were opportunities to clarify results and implications with the researchers. Policy makers who have a reasonable appreciation of both scientific and political aspects were more likely to use social science information. In policy making, social science information was often used in decision preparations so it provided a base on which decisions were made versus in business; such information was used directly because there was a higher cost visibility and objectives were easy to quantify, and there were also fewer constituencies to please.

Oh, C.H. 1996a Information searching in governmental bureaucracies: An integrated model. American Review of Public Administration 26(1):41-70.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis, multiple regression, integrated model, and path model of information searching

• Mental health policies in service provision and financing were examined

• Decision makers were bureaucrats at federal (60), state, and local (419) levels (same dataset as Oh and Rich, 1996, article)

• Conclusions: The study summarized past research findings and those from this study, including decision makers faced with familiar unambiguous problems generally sought information within their agency—this was also true if they had a negative attitude toward social science information; however, if the problem was unusual they were likely to seek information from a wide variety of external sources; organizational norms and rules strongly influenced how information was used, for example, a decision maker’s position in the organizational hierarchy determines what

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

information they can use and how; decision makers often used information that supported their perception of the organization’s interests; decision makers’ attitude toward and need for certain types of information influenced utilization; demand for information was often strongly related to its cost so this also led to utilization of internal sources; decision makers concerned about quality of methodology often turn to external sources; the more organizations had incentives for using information, the more decision makers were encouraged to seek sources outside their organization, but this varied dependent on where information processing took place in the organization.

1996b Linking Social Science Information to Policy-Making. (Political Economy and Public Policy Series), W. Breit and K.G. Elzinga, eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis, multiple regression, integrated path model, study examined mental health policies in service provision and financing

• Mental health policies in service provision and financing were examined

• Decision makers were bureaucrats at federal (60), state, and local (419) levels (same dataset as Oh and Rich, 1996, article)

• Conclusions: The study presented findings similar to the author’s other articles but this one had a more detailed analysis of literature. It presented three roles of information in policy making: (1) an instrumental role in which information is used to directly influence a decision, (2) a justification role in which information is used to legitimize a set decision or the process itself, and (3) a conceptual and enlightenment role in which information is used to identify new issues and options. The following factors were found to influence social science utilization in this study: rapidly changing policy issues, organizational incentives, the decision makers’ position in the organization and their attitude toward research, and information sources and types. The impact of the information was better explained by information characteristics, such as amount available or the source of it, than by other factors.

1997 Explaining the impact of policy information on policy-making. Knowledge Policy: International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 10(3):25-55.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis, statistical data analysis, integrated path model

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

• Mental health policies in service provision and financing were examined

• Decision makers were bureaucrats at federal (60), state, and local (419) levels (same dataset as Oh, 1996a, b, and Oh and Rich, 1996, articles)

• Conclusions: The study findings were similar to the author’s other articles but this one presented a more detailed search for causal linkages among characteristics of organizations, decision makers, and information. The study found that demographic factors, such as age and education, rarely have an influence on the impact of social science information on policy making. It also found that decision makers consciously judge how much information will be helpful rather than just assuming that the information has an impact simply because they used it. Information source was found to be the most important variable in accounting for impact; decision makers were more likely to believe that information influenced the decision-making process if it came from internal sources.

Oh, C.H., and R.F. Rich 1996 Explaining use of information in public policymaking. International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 1996 9(1):3-35.

Notes:

• Multiple regression, integrated path model, literature review and analysis

• Mental health policies in service provision and financing were examined

• Decision makers were bureaucrats at federal (60), state, and local (419) levels (same dataset as Oh, 1996a, b, article)

• Conclusions: The study found that information utilization was directly and indirectly influenced by a variety of factors and the links between them. Three examples included (1) Policy makers are more likely to use information in making decisions when they are faced with unfamiliar problems. In such cases they will seek a wide variety of information from a variety of sources because they need to reduce the uncertainty. (2) Information utilization was more complex in the financing area because the more technical issues and greater expertise and professional knowledge required finance decision makers to break trends—meaning that even if they had a negative attitude toward policy information, they would use it because they needed to cope with problems and persuade their colleagues. (3) Information source was the most influential factor in accounting for information use. Information from internal sources was more likely to be used, perhaps because

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

it was easier or less expensive to obtain. The authors suggested that organizational incentive systems could facilitate wider information searches but could not guarantee information use in decision making. This can be explained with the idea that too much information from too many sources could confuse decision makers so they do not know what information to use.

Patton, M.Q., P.G. Smith, K.M. Guthrie, N.J. Brennan, B. Dickey Grench, and D.A. Blyth 1977 In search of impact: An analysis of the utilization of federal health evaluation research. In Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, C.H. Weiss, ed. (Policy Studies Organization Series.) Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Notes:

• A random sample of 20 case studies, interviews with decision makers from each case

• National health program evaluations were examined

• Decision makers were at the federal level

• Conclusions: The study found that utilization may often be defined too narrowly to include the most common uses of information in policy making. Policy makers use social science information in more subtle ways than researchers might desire. It was often used to reduce uncertainty in the decision process, such as supporting already known facts, resolving confusion or misunderstandings, improving credibility, etc. Eleven factors were analyzed for their impact on utilization: methodological appropriateness, timeliness, lateness of report, positive-negative findings, surprise of findings, central-peripheral program objectives evaluated, presence or absence of related studies, political factors, government-evaluator interactions, and resources available for the study. Two factors emerged as having significant influence on social science utilization: methodological quality and appropriateness and political factors.

Pollard, W.E. 1987 Decision making and the use of evaluation research. American Behavioral Scientist 30(6):661-677.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Evaluation research was examined

• Decision makers were individuals and groups

• Conclusions: The study found that evaluation research could be used descriptively for creating awareness of problems; problem definition, determining who was affected, the scope of the problem; evaluation of alternative options for solutions; consequences

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

involved in outcomes; and assessing implementation and effectiveness of decisions.

Powell, M.R. 1999 Science at EPA: Information in the Regulatory Process. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Notes:

• Case study, interviews with over 100 respondents

• Use of scientific information in environmental decisions was examined

• Decision makers were federal bureaucrats in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• Conclusions: The study found that there was a weak-to-non-existent feedback loop between decision makers and science sources; internal gatekeepers and intermediaries had strong influences on what science gets communicated to EPA decision makers; the EPA must rely on external research sources due to budget constraints so it rarely has much say in the design of the studies on which it depends; and the availability of accepted data, methods, and scope of analysis influenced what information did or did not get communicated to EPA decision makers. This study also showed the common use of case studies in environmental research.

Rich, R.F. 1977 Uses of social science information by federal bureaucrats: Knowledge for action versus knowledge for understanding. In Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, C.H. Weiss, ed. (Policy Studies Organization Series.) Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Notes:

• 38 interviews

• Continuous National Survey data were examined

• Decision makers were federal bureaucrats in seven domestic service-oriented agencies

• Conclusions: The study found that policy makers valued survey research information; they were open to developing new information utilization in their agencies; they held some feelings of mistrust toward researchers but it did not seem to prevent the use of research results; and they were aware of the needs, expectations, and constraints that researchers face but were still eager to make use of available researchers and information.

1981 Social Science Information and Public Policy Making: The Interaction between Bureaucratic Politics and the Use of Survey Data. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Notes: Full text unavailable for review

Abstract: Published in the Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Sci-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

ence Series, with a Foreword by Kenneth Prewitt and a Preface by the author. Analyzed in seven chapters, are results of a National Science Foundation administrative experiment, the Continuous National Survey (CNS), to improve use of social science data by policy-making agencies, e.g., HEW and HUD. Interviews with CNS personnel (N = 38) over a two-year period suggested that policymakers’ use of information is determined by personal or agency interests rather than by data content, cost, or timeliness. Chapter (1) Experiment in the Application of Survey Research—describes the rationale of the CNS and indicates researcher/agency communication problems. (2) Continuous National Survey: Structure and Analysis—characterizes the multipurpose nature of the survey and analyzes knowledge-inquiry systems. (3) Development and Funding of the Survey Experiment—describes the role of the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in implementing the study and indicates priorities in determining the granting of funds. (4) Planning and Conducting the Project—describes problems arising between agencies and the NORC. (5) Assessing the Survey Experiment—points to factors of trust and agency procedure influencing data use and judges the success of the knowledge transfer mechanism. (6) Utilization of the Survey Information—suggests that data use is conditioned by involvement in collecting information. (7) Future of Survey Research for Meeting National Needs—designates bureaucratic practice as the main factor conditioning data use. four Appendixes: (A) Questionnaires; (B) Basic Coding Sheet and Summary Tables; (C) Agency Memos, I; (D) Agency Memos, II. 15 tables, references.

2001 Social Science Information and Public Policy Making, Second Edition. (NORC Series in Social Research: Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Notes:

• Case study analysis, 38 interviews

• Continuous National Survey data were examined (same dataset as from 1977 article)

• Decision makers were federal bureaucrats

• Conclusions: The study found that utilization was influenced by the clarity of initial definitions for specific policy applications, but information was often used for different purposes than it was initially requested for; the gap between researchers and policy makers was usually bridged easily once communication began through departmental decision-making channels; and bureaucrats sought to control information resources and processes in order to maximize the organization’s interests as they perceived them.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

Rich, R.F., and C.H. Oh 2000 Rationality and use of information in policy decisions—A search for alternatives. Science Communication 22(2):173-211.

Notes: Full text unavailable for review

Abstract: In the field of knowledge acquisition, dissemination and utilization, and impact, few studies have examined the appropriateness of rational actor theories as a theoretical framework. Rather the rational actor perspective has been simply taken for granted as a relevant analytical tool for explaining the use of information in policy making. This article singles out one major set of assumptions embedded in rational actor theories, those dealing with information acquisition and processing in individual decision making, and empirically examines to what extent the assumptions are realistic. It then puts forward an organizational interest and a communications perspective as alternative explanations for information processing in individual and organizational decision making. The findings of this article show that decision makers’ behavior does not conform to the assumptions put forward by the rational actor theorists. Instead, the organizational interest perspective is far more promising in accounting for the actual behavior of individuals in processing information in making policy decisions.

Rosen, P.L. 1977 Social science and judicial policy making. In Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, C.H. Weiss, ed. (Policy Studies Organization Series.) Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Study examined the use of social science in setting legal policy

• Decision makers were Supreme Court justices

• Conclusions: The study found that it was very difficult to determine the true use of social science in legal decision making. Sometimes it was inadmissible, sometimes it was used because findings were credible but not necessarily scientific so results were partisan instead of objective; if judges wanted to change or set policy, social science information could provide the basis of empirical knowledge needed to overcome precedent; judges who are “result oriented” may be more likely to look to social science for information on potential outcomes of decisions.

Sabatier, P. 1978 The acquisition and utilization of technical information by administrative agencies. Administrative Science Quarterly 23:396-417.

Notes:

• Literature review, multivariate analysis

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

• Science and technology information was examined

• Decision makers were federal-level administrative agencies

• Conclusions: The study identified and examined variables that affected the provision of technical information including available resources, characteristics of the issue, legal and political context, and the anticipated reaction of decision makers. It also presented variables that affected the influence of technical information on decision making, including resources of information source, content of the message (here the author noted that natural scientists had greater credibility than social scientists), timeliness of the message, and resources and perspective of the decision maker. Overall, the study found that technical information was most likely influential when it involved high-quality research of a specific issue by a notable scientist who held excellent credibility with the decision maker; the findings were generally consistent with those of other studies, presented in a timely and suitable manner, and did not imply substantial changes from the decision makers’ predisposed position. In addition, the influence was maximized on issues where there was high consensus on the objectives, but only moderate scientific complexity and information was most likely used in politically secure offices dominated by collegial professionals versus hierarchical managers or procedural lawyers.

Scott, R.A., and A.R. Shore 1979 Why Sociology Does Not Apply: A Study of the Use of Sociology in Public Policy. New York: Elsevier.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Social science research on issues of national domestic problems in the twentieth century was examined

• Decision makers were at the federal level

• Conclusions: The study reviewed past studies and found two primary factors: (1) Many applied social science studies have reported interesting findings, but few produced policy recommendations of any kind, and (2) in cases where recommendations were made, they were often rejected by federal policy makers as politically unfeasible, administratively undoable, or simply not practical. Two reasons for these outcomes were presented: (1) problems with the starting points in sociology, such as weak theory, primitive research methods, incomplete knowledge, and misperceptions on the part of sociologists of how social science research can be used by policy makers, and (2) problems with government receptivity of social science research, for example, using social science data to further agency aims, congressional members seeking social

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

science to reinforce preestablished positions, bureaucrats seeking it primarily to justify and refine administrative procedures and secondarily to accomplish policy, and the executive office seeking specific results to assist in developing comprehensive programs that are politically feasible. Overall, social science is most relevant to policy making as a source of methods and techniques and as providing scientific justification for one position or another. It is less relevant as a source of intellectual advice about broad policy questions or long-range implications and consequences of proposed policy alternatives. This is because the political process tends to develop policies that present a broad consensus rather than suggestions for changes that might be significant departures from the status quo.

Useem, M. 1977 Research funds and advisors: The relationship between academic social science and the federal government. In Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, C.H. Weiss, ed. (Policy Studies Organization Series.) Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Notes:

• Questionnaire survey

• A random sample of 500 academic social scientists from each of the following disciplines: anthropology, economics, political science, and psychology (1,079 usable responses) was examined

• Decision makers were academic social scientists in their role as advisors for allocation of federal research funds

• Conclusions: The study found that substantial amounts of funding were awarded to researchers whose work was valued by professional colleagues but not generally by policy makers. Advisory positions were often filled with social scientists who have greater loyalties to their academic discipline than to the federal agency involved in the funding and research.

Webber, D.J. 1987 Legislators’ use of policy information. American Behavioral Scientist 30(5):612-631.

Notes:

• Structured interviews with a representative sample

• Social science analysis: “Policy information” was defined as scientific and technical information about the ways a policy actually works, or would work if it were to be adopted—information ranging from commonsense knowledge to academic research.

• Decision makers were state level—60 of the 100 members (65 Republicans and 35 Democrats) of the Indiana House of Representatives during the 1981 session.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

• Conclusions: The study found that decision makers were not likely to use policy information or social science if left to their own inclinations. They were more likely to use these sources if they already viewed social science as valid and useful information or if their constituents requested such information, asked questions about it, or demanded that attention be paid to issues covered by it.

• Recommendations: The author suggested that academic policy researchers need to reevaluate their role as educators to focus on more interdisciplinary, decision-focused training so that students become information-seeking decision makers. Policy researchers who are interested in the use of their work must alter the knowledge dissemination process so that their research more readily becomes common sense or ordinary knowledge.

Weiss, C.H. 1977 Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis 3(4):531-545.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis, 255 interviews (same data and results used in Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1977)

• Study explores use of social science for enlightenment of policy issues

• Decision makers were in federal-level mental health agencies

• Conclusions: The study presented the enlightenment model as a role for research as social criticism. It also identified characteristics decision makers used to judge information usefulness, including research quality, conformity to user expectations, action orientation, challenge to status quo, and relevance to issues the office dealt with. One unexpected finding was that decision makers were open to controversial research that made them reassess comfortable assumptions and they found it possible that others in their field would consider such research in their decision-making processes.

1979 The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review 39(5):426-431.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• The study explored the meaning of “using research.” It examined six models of knowledge utilization: (1) knowledge driven—from the natural sciences, basic research reveals opportunities that may be relevantly applied to policy; (2) problem solving—direct application of results from specific social science study to a pending decision; (3) interactive—incorporates linear order from research to decision and nonlinear interconnections; (4) po-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

litical—use of research to support a predetermined stand on an issue or decision; (5) tactical—strategic use of the research process or results, for example, the results may not be emphasized as much as the fact that research is being done on the issue; and (6) enlightenment—idea that social science data and generalizations permeate throughout informed publics and shape the way people think about issues.

• Conclusion: The study found that to better understand the complex ways social science is used in policy making, researchers must better define what it means to “use research.”

1983 Ideology, interests, and information: The basis of policy positions. In Ethics, the Social Sciences, and Policy Analysis, D. Callahan and B. Jennings, eds. (The Hastings Center Series in Ethics.) New York: Plenum Press.

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis

• Social science analysis of the policy process

• Conclusion: The author argues that every policy results from interactions among ideologies, interests, and information. She presents how research is influenced by these three factors and examines the role of power in determining whose ideology, interests, and information will determine outcomes in policy making. She also suggests that in order to better understand how research will influence policy, future studies need to consider the interplay of ideologies, interests, and existing information in the situation at hand.

Weiss, C.H., and M.J. Bucuvalas 1977 The challenge of social research to decision making. In Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, C.H. Weiss, ed. (Policy Studies Organization Series.) Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Notes:

• Examined 50 research studies: conducted 255 interviews, 510 (analytic) case studies clustered through factor analysis (same data and results from the Weiss, 1977, article)

• Information use from mental health areas was examined

• Decision makers were at the federal and state level

• Conclusions: The study identified characteristics decision makers used to judge information usefulness, including research quality, conformity to user expectations, action orientation, challenge to status quo, and relevance to issues dealt with.

1980 Social Science Research and Decision Making. New York: Columbia University Press.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

Notes:

• Literature review and analysis, 255 interviews (same data and results used in Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1977)

• Information use from mental health areas was examined

• Decision makers were at the federal and state level

• Conclusions: The study presented similar findings as Weiss’s other articles and book chapter but this one had a more detailed literature analysis. Study presented the following obstacles to research use: academic researchers were often not interested in policy-relevant issues; research questions did not match policy makers definitions of problem issues; researchers simplified problems to make them easier to study; social science had few broad theories that could be applicable to framing policy research; social science methodology was often limited (i.e., data were limited or inaccurate); problems were often conceptualized to fit the methods instead of fitting the nature of the policy question; social research often took more time than policy makers had before a decision must be made; social research concepts often did not match decision makers’ assumptions of social behavior; a great deal of social research examined issues that policy makers could do little to change (i.e., race, class, etc.); much of the research had inconclusive or repetitive findings or little guidance in the results; research was based on past experiences and may not match the present problems; researchers may be unwilling to make the leap required to go from data to recommendations; researchers political preferences, which influence their work, may be at odds with the perspectives of government officials; the same old social problems may not attract the interests of researchers even though decision makers still needed advice on them; results of studies in the same issue area may be divergent and contradictory. “[R]esearch is seldom used to affect decision deliberately. Rather it fills in the background, it supplies the context, form which ideas, concepts, and choices derive” (p. 155).

• Recommendation: The authors suggested that asking groups of decision makers what they want in research could be helpful for improving utilization.

Wilensky, H.L. 1997 Social science and the public agenda: Reflections on the relation of knowledge to policy in the United States and abroad. Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law 22(1):1241-1265.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×

Notes:

• Literature analysis and persuasion

• Effects of social science research on social issues, such as crime prevention and labor market policies in the United States compared with Europe were examined

• Decision makers were at the federal level

• Conclusions: The study found that social research increased the knowledge of policy makers in two ways: (1) It helped identify issues that were open to alternatives and possible to change and (2) it brought new options and a greater range of alternatives to light.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A When Do Environmental Decision Makers Use Social Science?--Rebecca J. Romsdahl." National Research Council. 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11186.
×
Page 174
Next: Appendix B Improving Environmental Decision Processes--Robin Gregory and Timothy McDaniels »
Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $61.00 Buy Ebook | $48.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

With the growing number, complexity, and importance of environmental problems come demands to include a full range of intellectual disciplines and scholarly traditions to help define and eventually manage such problems more effectively. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities is the result of a 2-year effort by 12 social and behavioral scientists, scholars, and practitioners. The report sets research priorities for the social and behavioral sciences as they relate to several different kinds of environmental problems.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!