Communication between scientists and policymakers is critical for developing effective policies grounded in scientific evidence. However, actual communication between these two groups is often difficult, due to differences in training, communication styles, and motivation. While numerous “best practices” guides provide advice on science communication, many of these recommendations are based on personal experience rather than empirical data. To remedy this gap in the literature, researchers at the University of California, Davis conducted a literature review of scholarship on best practices in science communication, with an emphasis on finding reports based on empirical data rather than personal experience. The researchers synthesized their findings into a set of best practices for science communication and considered how scientific reputation affects engagement in the policy process.

View the NCST Project Webpage

Many scientific projects are intended to inform public policy, however there are often difficulties transferring or translating research from scientists to policy makers. This paper reviews the existing literature on the quality of communication between scientists or field experts and policy makers and the challenges they face in conveying their research. A majority of best practice recommendations related to effective communication are rooted in anecdotal evidence and have not yet been subjected to systematic scientific study. This is, in part, because the nature of public policy makes data collection, randomization, or correcting for confounding factors extremely challenging. Studies that do put these recommendations to the test are most commonly fielded as national surveys of field experts and policy makers in comparative contexts. Few studies examine this subject in the United States, however, and most find mixed results as to the efficacy of well-accepted scientific communication strategies. Further, existing work often fails to account for the impact of reputation on the willingness of scientists to engage in policymaking and the willingness of political actors to seek and accept expert input in the policymaking process, unless it confirms pre-existing biases. The authors explain how this gap in the literature has important consequences for the quality of policies produced and suggest future avenues of research in the pursuit of sincere evidence-based policymaking.

View the NCST Project Webpage

This dissertation examines how career expertise shapes legislative organization, behavior, and policy outcomes in the California State Legislature from 1993 to 2020. It delves into three main questions: the primary factors influencing committee assignments, the impact of career-committee congruence on legislative entrepreneurship, and the relationship between career expertise, committee membership, and bill viability.

Chapter 1, utilizing logistic regression models, reveals that career expertise significantly predicts committee assignments, surpassing district and partisan considerations. Chapter 2, employing zero-inflated negative binomial regressions, illustrates that career-committee congruent legislators introduce nearly double the bills within their expertise, albeit with fewer initial coauthors. Chapter 3, using 2-stage Heckman selection models, finds that bills authored by career-committee congruent legislators are more likely to advance through the legislative pipeline and garner higher support in committee and chamber floor votes.

In conclusion, this research underscores the dynamic roles of career expertise and committee membership in driving legislative entrepreneurship and producing viable policy proposals, enhancing our understanding of agenda-setting behind closed doors.