Matching Items (2)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

153406-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Without scientific expertise, society may make catastrophically poor choices when faced with problems such as climate change. However, scientists who engage society with normative questions face tension between advocacy and the social norms of science that call for objectivity and neutrality. Policy established in 2011 by the Intergovernmental Panel on

Without scientific expertise, society may make catastrophically poor choices when faced with problems such as climate change. However, scientists who engage society with normative questions face tension between advocacy and the social norms of science that call for objectivity and neutrality. Policy established in 2011 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) required their communication to be objective and neutral and this research comprised a qualitative analysis of IPCC reports to consider how much of their communication is strictly factual (Objective), and value-free (Neutral), and to consider how their communication had changed from 1990 to 2013. Further research comprised a qualitative analysis of structured interviews with scientists and non-scientists who were professionally engaged in climate science communication, to consider practitioner views on advocacy. The literature and the structured interviews revealed a conflicting range of definitions for advocacy versus objectivity and neutrality. The practitioners that were interviewed struggled to separate objective and neutral science from attempts to persuade, and the IPCC reports contained a substantial amount of communication that was not strictly factual and value-free. This research found that science communication often blurred the distinction between facts and values, imbuing the subjective with the authority and credibility of science, and thereby damaging the foundation for scientific credibility. This research proposes a strict definition for factual and value-free as a means to separate science from advocacy, to better protect the credibility of science, and better prepare scientists to negotiate contentious science-based policy issues. The normative dimension of sustainability will likely entangle scientists in advocacy or the appearance of it, and this research may be generalizable to sustainability.
ContributorsMcClintock, Scott (Author) / Van Der Leeuw, Sander (Thesis advisor) / Klinsky, Sonja (Committee member) / Chhetri, Nalini (Committee member) / Hannah, Mark (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
135667-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This work challenges the conventional perceptions surrounding the utility and use of the CMS Open Payments data. I suggest unconsidered methodologies for extracting meaningful information from these data following an exploratory analysis of the 2014 research dataset that, in turn, enhance its value as a public good. This dataset is

This work challenges the conventional perceptions surrounding the utility and use of the CMS Open Payments data. I suggest unconsidered methodologies for extracting meaningful information from these data following an exploratory analysis of the 2014 research dataset that, in turn, enhance its value as a public good. This dataset is favored for analysis over the general payments dataset as it is believed that generating transparency in the pharmaceutical and medical device R&D process would be of the greatest benefit to public health. The research dataset has been largely ignored by analysts and this may be one of the few works that have accomplished a comprehensive exploratory analysis of these data. If we are to extract valuable information from this dataset, we must alter both our approach as well as focus our attention towards re-conceptualizing the questions that we ask. Adopting the theoretical framework of complex systems serves as the foundation for our interpretation of the research dataset. This framework, in conjunction with a methodological toolkit for network analysis, may set a precedent for the development of alternative perspectives that allow for novel interpretations of the information that big data attempts to convey. By thus proposing a novel perspective in interpreting the information that this dataset contains, it is possible to gain insight into the emergent dynamics of the collaborative relationships that are established during the pharmaceutical and medical device R&D process.
Created2016-05