Chile needs better science governance and support

Nature ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 511 (7510) ◽  
pp. 385-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Astudillo Besnier
Keyword(s):  
Science Governance

scholarly journals About GaDS and PJGD

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Center For PanAfrican Journal of Governance and Development
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Conflict Management ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Peace And Conflict ◽  
Science Governance ◽  
Jimma University

 Multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary journal of Jimma University. Political science, governance, development, leadership, national and international law, globalization, human rights, economics, environmental science, public policy, international relations, international organizations, gender, peace and conflict management, international political economy, multiculturalism, civil society, etc.

scholarly journals The Many Faces of Participation in Science

2018 ◽  
pp. 77-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Schrögel ◽  
Alma Kolleck
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Current Trend ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Public Science ◽  
Participatory Science ◽  
Structural Differences ◽  
Do It Yourself ◽  
The Many ◽  
Descriptive Framework ◽  
Science Governance

Participatory and dialogic formats are the current trend in scientific communities across all disciplines, with movements such as Public Participation, citizen science, Do-It-Yourself-Science, Public Science and many more. While these formats and the names and definitions given to them, are prospering and diversifying, there is no integrative tool to describe and compare different participatory approaches. In particular, several theories and models on participatory science governance and citizen science have been developed but these theories are poorly linked. A review of existing typologies and frameworks in the field reveals that there is no single descriptive framework that covers the normative, epistemological and structural differences within the field while being open enough to describe the great variety of participatory research. We propose a three-dimensional framework, the participatory science cube, which bridges this gap. We discuss the framework’s openness for different forms of participation as well as potential shortcomings and illustrate its application by analysing four case studies.

scholarly journals Tough Problems, Science Gaps, and Investment Priorities for Forest-Sector Research: Conversations at Seven Dialogues

2019 ◽  
Vol 117 (5) ◽  
pp. 462-491
Author(s):  
Richard W Guldin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Small Group ◽  
Natural Resource ◽  
Interdisciplinary Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Forest Sector ◽  
Ecological Changes ◽  
Sector Research ◽  
Science Governance

Abstract At seven small-group dialogues held across the United States, field natural-resource professionals were asked to describe the toughest problems facing them over the next 10–15 years. Thirty-five problems were identified, spanning all three components of sustainability—ecological, economic, and social. Most were socioeconomic problems related to people’s choices and values. Key science gaps contributing to the problems’ toughness and top investment priorities to fill critical gaps were described. The problems and priorities identified were then compared to ones identified since 1996 by panels of experts who compiled previous national research reports. Field professionals’ views were consistent with the previous findings and illustrated they have detailed, nuanced understandings of the challenges facing them. Top priorities from the dialogues suggest that socioeconomic forces driving ecological changes are poorly understood. Potential mitigation measures will depend on broader interdisciplinary research delving into sciences beyond ecology, such as demographics, sociology, political science, governance, and economics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document