K. L. Akerlof, Maria Carmen Lemos, Emily T. Cloyd, Erin Heath, Selena Nelson, Julia Hathaway and Kristin M. F. Timm
This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Science communication in Congress: for what use?’
A new model published in Evidence & Policy explains the factors that enable and constrain science communication in the U.S. Congress. We depict how the use of scientific information is most often called upon to support established positions, as opposed to formulating new policies, and that this changes the nature of the barriers to science communication. We studied this in the context of two types of Congressional staff: 1) science and engineering fellows who spend a year serving primarily in the personal offices of members (hereafter referred to as fellows), and 2) the legislative staff with whom they work. We found that fellows serving on the Hill experience fewer barriers to use of scientific information than legislative staff, which suggests the importance of scientific fluency for building congressional capacity.
To assess the model, we evaluated the frequency of two types of information use among congressional staff and fellows and whether there are differences in the science communication needs of these decision-makers whether: 1) supporting or defending a previously established policy, or 2) substantiating a new policy decision. The four dimensions of the model include: 1) who bears the cost of information transfer (information users or producers), 2) issue polarisation, 3) type of information use (substantive or strategic), and 4) communication factors that lower barriers to use of the information, and hence increase its usability (fit, interplay and interaction; Figure 1).
We hypothesised that fellows, given their scientific fluency and expertise, should 1) experience fewer barriers to science use for policy than other staff, and 2) because their year-long-presence arguably builds office resources and capacity for more in-depth issue exploration, they would engage in more substantive use.
We found that science use is typical for energy, environment and science issues at least as background information and in office discussions. But staff reported both higher rates of experienced barriers in substantive use than strategic use, and of differing types, aligning with our hypothesised model. We had anticipated that users — fellows and staff — would have to pay the ‘costs’ for acquiring new scientific information on less politically polarised issues in which advocacy organisations are less likely to facilitate information access. Indeed, lack of time, contacts, access and difficult presentation were more challenging with substantive than strategic use for staffers.
Further, as hypothesised in the model, fellows faced fewer barriers in using science for policy than staff members, illustrating their fluency in scientific communication, and success in transferring contacts and access within the institution. But, fellows did not engage in higher rates of substantive use than staff as hypothesised. Instead, they showed similarity in how they used science, using science more often in support of policies that have already been decided by the office than in areas where a decision has not already been made, in almost the exact same ratios as staff. This speaks to the limits imposed by the structure and culture of the U.S. Congress itself, demonstrating both the strengths of expertise and its limitations to set norms and decision-making routines.
The portrait of congressional use of science by staffers and fellows that this study paints is nuanced. Placing scientists and engineers in Congress as fellows augments capacity by broadly contributing to staffing and institutional expertise. Communication — whether in floor speeches, hearings, media releases or conversation — is one of the most frequent ways in which scientific information is used within Congress. With the heightened focus of Congress on communication and constituent services, both legislative staff and science and engineering fellows serving in the offices of elected representatives take on the role of science communicators, in which the lack of scientific fluency can serve as a barrier to use.
Indeed, a new type of barrier not previously identified in other studies is that of fluency — the difficulties staff members face in communicating science. While training for scientists in science communication is increasingly de rigueur, similar programs are rare for staff in Congress. The focus of Congress on communication over legislation further emphasises the importance of staff as science communicators.
Image credit: Image created with the assistance of DALL·E 3.
K. L. Akerlof is an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Science & Policy, George Mason University, United States. Her research focuses on the intersection of governance with science and risk communication. Visit her institutional profile here. Twitter/X: @klakerlof
Maria Carmen Lemos is a Professor at the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Her research focuses on actionable knowledge in support of solving sustainability problems, especially climate change.
Emily T. Cloyd is the former Director of the American Association for Advancement of Science’s Center for Public Engagement. She is now Associate Director, Fisheries and Wildlife Division, at the District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment. Twitter/X: @TreeRese.
Erin Heath is the Director of Federal Relations of the American Association for Advancement of Science. View her full bio here. Twitter/X: @PublicHeath
Selena Nelson earned her Masters in Science Communication from George Mason University and is currently at Spectrum Science.
Julia Hathaway earned her PhD from George Mason University and currently is in the Office of Atmospheric Protection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Kristin M. F. Timm is a research assistant professor at the Internationl Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, United States. Her research is focused on science communication and actionable science. Visit her institutional profile here.
Read the original research in Evidence & Policy:
Akerlof, K.L. Lemos, M.C. Cloyd, E.T. Heath, E. Nelson, S. Hathaway, J. & Timm, K.M.F. (2023). Science communication in Congress: for what use? Evidence & Policy, DOI: 10.1332/17442648Y2023D000000013.
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading:
How legislators define research evidence
Use of research evidence in legislatures: a systematic review OPEN ACCESS
Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Evidence & Policy Blog 