Applied Filters
- Science Applications Forum
- Science and SocietyRemove filter
Journal Title
Topics
Publication Date
Author
- Bradford, Lori2
- Appels, Willemijn M1
- Arcand, Melissa M1
- Ban, Natalie C1
- Bartram, Isabelle1
- Bear, Ken1
- Beckett, Robyn1
- Bubela, Tania1
- Bucerius, Sandra1
- Caulfield, Timothy1
- Chun, Kwok P1
- Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong1
- Clarke, Amanda1
- Clifford, Tammy1
- Coles, Anna E1
- Conger, Tugce1
- Crewe, Ben1
- Donaldson, Michael R1
- Fahim, Christine1
- Ford, Adam T1
- Fox, Caroline H1
- Gamble, Alfred1
- Gauthier, Danielle1
- Germain, Ryan R1
- Green, Stephanie J1
Access Type
1 - 12of12
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSFor science communication to be effective, scientists must understand which sources of information their target audiences most frequently use and trust. We surveyed academic and non-academic scientists, natural resource managers, policymakers, students, and the general public about how they access, trust, and communicate scientific information. We found trust and use of information sources was related to participant age and group identity, but all groups had high levels of use and trust of personal experience and colleagues. Academic journals were the most trusted source by all groups, and social media the least trusted by most groups. The level of communication between target groups was not always bilateral, with the public generally perceiving their interaction with all other groups as low. These results provide remarkable insight into the flow of scientific information. We present these findings in the context of facilitating information flow between scientists and other stakeholders of scientific information.
- OPEN ACCESSScience helps us identify problems, understand their extent, and begin to find solutions; it helps us understand future directions for our society. Scientists bear witness to scenes of change and discovery that most people will never experience. Yet the vividness of these experiences is often left out when scientists talk and write about their work. A growing community of practice is showing that scientists can share their message in an engaging way using a strategy that most are already familiar with: storytelling. Here we draw on our experiences leading scientist communication training and hosting science storytelling events at the International Marine Conservation Congress to share basic techniques, tips, and resources for incorporating storytelling into any scientist’s communication toolbox.
- OPEN ACCESSWe reviewed the strategy for Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) adopted by the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). The objective was to examine ICRISAT’s research strategy related to the twin challenges of resilience and profitability in developing technologies aimed at improving the livelihoods of smallholder farmers in the drylands of Africa. To do this, we examined the expected impact on resilience and profitability of its present program and the realized impact of ICRISAT’s previous research. We argue that the current CGIAR Research Programs led by ICRISAT envisage separate product lines for resilience and profitability, targeted at two groups, i.e., subsistence- and market-oriented smallholders. This approach, expected to make technology more appropriate for farmers’ needs, risks overlooking the interconnectedness of the two targets if they are too rigorously separated. Although our review of ICRISAT’s previous research program suggests that success stories have taken numerous forms—some increasing resilience, others profitability—our review also suggests that it is possible to develop win–win technologies that improve both targets. Finding ways to replicate win–win technologies will require that ICRISAT tests the resulting technologies and their implementation in specific contexts to improve and replace them as the research programs evolve.
- OPEN ACCESSCities are under pressure to operate their services effectively and project costs of operations across various timeframes. In high-latitude and high-altitude urban centers, snow management is one of the larger unknowns and has both operational and budgetary limitations. Snowfall and snow depth observations within urban environments are important to plan snow clearing and prepare for the effects of spring runoff on cities’ drainage systems. In-house research functions are expensive, but one way to overcome that expense and still produce effective data is through citizen science. In this paper, we examine the potential to use citizen science for snowfall data collection in urban environments. A group of volunteers measured daily snowfall and snow depth at an urban site in Saskatoon (Canada) during two winters. Reliability was assessed with a statistical consistency analysis and a comparison with other data sets collected around Saskatoon. We found that citizen-science-derived data were more reliable and relevant for many urban management stakeholders. Feedback from the participants demonstrated reflexivity about social learning and a renewed sense of community built around generating reliable and useful data. We conclude that citizen science holds great potential to improve data provision for effective and sustainable city planning and greater social learning benefits overall.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Aerin L. Jacob,
- Jonathan W. Moore,
- Caroline H. Fox,
- Emily J. Sunter,
- Danielle Gauthier,
- Alana R. Westwood, and
- Adam T. Ford
Since being elected in 2015, Canada’s federal Liberal government has taken steps to overhaul major environment-related laws and policies, including federal environmental assessment (EA) and regulatory processes. During 2016–2017, a government-appointed panel toured Canada and received >1000 suggestions from diverse sectors of society regarding EA reform. Yet, different sectors of society may have different views concerning scientific components of EA. We analyzed written submissions during public consultation (categorized into five sectors) regarding five key scientific components of EA: (1) openly sharing information, (2) evaluating cumulative effects, (3) scientific rigour, (4) transparency in decision-making, and (5) independence between regulators and proponents. On the whole, submissions from Indigenous groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals/academics supported strengthening all five components. In contrast, most contributions from industry/industry associations, and, to a lesser extent, government bodies or agencies, suggested that there was no need for increased scientific rigour or increased independence. These findings indicate that there is cross-sectoral support for strengthening some scientific aspects of EA. However, the degree to which the Government of Canada strengthens the scientific rigour and independence of EA will indicate whether environmental decision-making in Canada is aligned with preferences from industry or the rest of Canada. - OPEN ACCESSA key dimension of our current era is Big Data, the rapid rise in produced data and information; a key frustration is that we are nonetheless living in an age of ignorance, as the real knowledge and understanding of people does not seem to be substantially increasing. This development has critical consequences, for example it limits the ability to find and apply effective solutions to pressing environmental and socioeconomic challenges. Here, we propose the concept of “knowledge in the dark”—or short: dark knowledge—and outline how it can help clarify key reasons for this development: (i) production of biased, erroneous, or fabricated data and information; (ii) inaccessibility and (iii) incomprehensibility of data and information; and (iv) loss of previous knowledge. Even in the academic realm, where financial interests are less pronounced than in the private sector, several factors lead to dark knowledge, that is they inhibit a more substantial increase in knowledge and understanding. We highlight four of these factors—loss of academic freedom, research biases, lack of reproducibility, and the Scientific tower of Babel—and offer ways to tackle them, for example establishing an international court of arbitration for research and developing advanced tools for research synthesis.
- OPEN ACCESSPlanning for adaptation to climate change requires regionally relevant information on rising air and ocean temperatures, sea levels, increasingly frequent and intense storms, and other climate-related impacts. However, in many regions there are limited focused syntheses of the climate impacts, risks, and potential adaptation strategies for coastal marine areas and sectors. We report on a regional assessment of climate change impacts and recommendations for adaptation strategies in the NE Pacific Coast (British Columbia, Canada), conducted in collaboration with a regional planning and plan implementation partnership (Marine Plan Partnership for the North Pacific Coast), aimed at bridging the gaps between climate science and regional adaptation planning. We incorporated both social and ecological aspects of climate change impacts and adaptations, and the feedback mechanisms which may result in both increased risks and opportunities for the following areas of interest: “Ecosystems”, “Fisheries and Aquaculture”, “Communities”, and “Marine Infrastructure”. As next steps within the region, we propose proactive planning measures including communication of the key impacts and projections and cross-sectoral assessments of climate vulnerability and risk to direct decision-making.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Melissa M. Arcand,
- Lori Bradford,
- Dale F. Worme,
- Graham E.H. Strickert,
- Ken Bear,
- Anthony Blair Dreaver Johnston,
- Sheldon M. Wuttunee,
- Alfred Gamble, and
- Debra Shewfelt
Agriculture is practiced on 3–4 million acres of First Nations reserve lands in the Saskatchewan Prairies—predominantly by non-Indigenous farmers. A confluence of factors including an increase in agricultural land holdings on reserve and greater autonomy in land management have renewed conversations on how First Nations can realize the full economic benefits and exert greater control over agricultural activities that affect the reserve land base. We hosted a Forum on Indigenous Agriculture to share current knowledge on the contemporary status of Indigenous agriculture and to co-formulate research, capacity building, and policy priorities. First Nations’ roles in agriculture are diverse and were categorized in three broad contexts: as farmers, relying on traditional Indigenous or western practice, or a synergy of both; as landlords negotiating lease agreements; and as agribusiness entrepreneurs. Five themes emerged from the forum: centring Indigenous knowledge and traditional relationships to the land, capacity building, building respectful partnerships and relationships, financing farming and equitable economies, and translating research to policy and legislation. The forum provided foundational data to inform research and capacity building to meet community-defined goals in agriculture on reserve lands and by First Nations people. - OPEN ACCESSCOVID science is being both done and circulated at a furious pace. While it is inspiring to see the research community responding so vigorously to the pandemic crisis, all this activity has also created a churning sea of bad data, conflicting results, and exaggerated headlines. With representations of science becoming increasingly polarized, twisted, and hyped, there is growing concern that the relevant science is being represented to the public in a manner that may cause confusion, inappropriate expectations, and the erosion of public trust. Here we explore some of the key issues associated with the representations of science in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these issues are not new. But the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on the biomedical research process and amplified the adverse ramifications of poor public communication. We need to do better. As such, we conclude with 10 recommendations aimed at key actors involved in the communication of COVID-19 science, including government, funders, universities, publishers, media, and the research communities.
- OPEN ACCESSCorrectional services, both institutional and within the community, are impacted by COVID-19. In the current paper, we focus on the current situation and examine the tensions around how COVID-19 has introduced new challenges while also exacerbating strains on the correctional system. Here, we make recommendations that are directly aimed at how correctional systems manage COVID-19 and address the nature and structure of correctional systems that should be continued after the pandemic. In addition, we highlight and make recommendations for the needs of those who remain incarcerated in general, and for Indigenous people in particular, as well as for those who are serving their sentences in the community. Further, we make recommendations for those working in closed-custody institutions and employed to support the re-entry experiences of formerly incarcerated persons. We are at a critical juncture—where reflection and change are possible—and we put forth recommendations toward supporting those working and living in correctional services as a way forward during the pandemic and beyond.
- OPEN ACCESSThe drivers of the harassment and intimidation of researchers are complex, widespread, and global in their reach and were being studied across many disciplines even before COVID-19. This policy briefing reviews some of the scholarship on this wide-ranging problem but focuses on what can be done to help ensure that Canadians fully benefit from the work of Canada’s researchers while also preserving the security and safety of those researchers. It identifies policies and actions that can be implemented in the near term to gather information on the problem, better frame public research communications, and ensure that mechanisms are readily available to support researchers who are threatened. The policy briefing is concerned with researchers, but these behaviours are also harming journalists, politicians, public health communicators, and many others more fully in the public eye than researchers. Some recommendations here may help to address this wider problem.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Sharon E. Straus,
- Robyn Beckett,
- Christine Fahim,
- Negin Pak,
- Danielle Kasperavicius,
- Tammy Clifford, and
- Bev Holmes
The Royal Society of Canada Working Group on Health Research System Recovery developed actionable recommendations for organizations to implement to strengthen Canada’s health research system. Recommendations were based on input from participants from G7 countries and Australia and New Zealand. Participants included health research funding agency leaders; research institute leaders; health, public health, and social care policy-makers; researchers; and members of the public. The recommendations were categorized using the World Health Organization’s framework for health research systems and include governance/stewardship: (1) Outline research logistics as part of emergency preparedness to streamline research in future pandemics. (2) Embed equity and inclusion in all research processes. (3) Facilitate streamlined, inclusive, and rigorous processes for grant application preparation and review. (4) Create knowledge mobilization infrastructure to support the generation and use of evidence. (5) Coordinate research efforts across local, provincial, national, and international entities. Financing: (6) Reimagine the funding of health research. Capacity building: (7) Invest in formative training opportunities rooted in equity, diversity, and anti-racism. (8) Support researchers’ career development throughout their career span. (9) Support early career researchers to establish themselves. Producing and using research: (10) Strengthen Indigenous health research and break down systemic barriers to its conduct. (11) Develop mechanisms to produce novel research. (12) Enhance research use across the health research ecosystem.