What is “Responsible Advocacy” in Science? Good Advice.

Goodwin, Jean

doi:10.31274/sciencecommunication-180809-65

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…; Rhee & Fiss ). These dimensions are either omitted or listed as entities that exist separately from credibility (e.g., Blockstein ; Goodwin ). We submit that conservation scientists could more effectively enhance their credibility by emphasizing appropriate combinations of these dimensions in response to situational demands.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Credibility and advocacy in conservation science

Horton

Peterson

Banerjee

et al. 2015

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation policy sits at the nexus of natural science and politics. On the one hand, conservation scientists strive to maintain scientific credibility by emphasizing that their research findings are the result of disinterested observations of reality. On the other hand, conservation scientists are committed to conservation even if they do not advocate a particular policy. The professional conservation literature offers guidance on negotiating the relationship between scientific objectivity and political advocacy without damaging conservation science's credibility. The value of this guidance, however, may be restricted by limited recognition of credibility's multidimensionality and emergent nature: it emerges through perceptions of expertise, goodwill, and trustworthiness. We used content analysis of the literature to determine how credibility is framed in conservation science as it relates to apparent contradictions between science and advocacy. Credibility typically was framed as a static entity lacking dimensionality. Authors identified expertise or trustworthiness as important, but rarely mentioned goodwill. They usually did not identify expertise, goodwill, or trustworthiness as dimensions of credibility or recognize interactions among these 3 dimensions of credibility. This oversimplification may limit the ability of conservation scientists to contribute to biodiversity conservation. Accounting for the emergent quality and multidimensionality of credibility should enable conservation scientists to advance biodiversity conservation more effectively.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Credibility and advocacy in conservation science

Horton

Peterson

Banerjee

et al. 2015

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Advice for responsible advocacy by scientists inevitably includes an instruction to separate science from values (Goodwin 2012;Schaefer & Beier 2013). It is this selfchecking step that is seen as the one that makes the subsequent activity "responsible."…”

Section: Advocating Responsibly Not Inadvertentlymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Advice for responsible advocacy by scientists inevitably includes an instruction to separate science from values (Goodwin ; Schaefer & Beier ). It is this self‐checking step that is seen as the one that makes the subsequent activity “responsible.” If we accept that this is often impossible and indeed, self‐deceiving, then we need a new way of thinking about what we consider responsible action and approaches for avoiding inadvertent advocacy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Advocacy: Making Space for Conservation Scientists in Public Debate

Garrard

Fidler

Wintle

et al. 2015

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The topic of advocacy by scientists has been debated for decades, yet there is little agreement about whether scientists can or should be advocates. The fear of crossing a line into advocacy continues to hold many scientists back from contributing to public discourse, impoverishing public debate about important issues. We believe that progress in this debate is limited by a misconception about the relationship between scientific integrity and objectivity. We begin by unpacking this relationship and debunking three common misconceptions about advocacy by scientists: namely, that advocacy is harmful to scientific credibility, beyond the scope of science, and incompatible with science, which is value-free. We propose new ways of thinking about responsible advocacy by conservation scientists, drawing on practices from the health sciences, where researchers and professional bodies are empowered to act as health advocates. In so doing, we hope to open further space for conservation scientists to actively and legitimately engage in public debate about conservation issues.

show abstract

“…Central issues in the debate have been scientific credibility and objectivity (Hilborn 2006, Noss 2007, Scott et al 2007, Meyer et al 2010, Ruggiero 2010, Queenborough and Comita 2011, Goodwin 2012, Wilhere 2012. Members have argued that presenting science in response to potential decisions and/or appearing to have a position, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Full Issue

2014

The Condor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is “Responsible Advocacy” in Science? Good Advice.

Cited by 10 publications

References 37 publications

Credibility and advocacy in conservation science

Credibility and advocacy in conservation science

Beyond Advocacy: Making Space for Conservation Scientists in Public Debate

Full Issue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About