The role of science in policy making

This thesis aims to consider the role played by science in policy making. Firstly, two decision models are considered, synoptic rationality which depends heavily on formal information and comprehensive planning, and disjointed incrementalism, under which decisions are made in a fragmented and remedial manner via the interaction of interested partisans and with little necessity for formal information. Secondly, different descriptions of scientific activity are discussed and a broadly Kuhnian view of science is supported, with what is regarded as a `fact' being heavily influenced by social factors. It is suggested that scientific controversies are more likely to occur in policy related science but for reasons that are intrinsic to science rather than due to some correctable aberration. A number of case studies, including two `in-depth' studies into maternal deprivation and the relationship between hyperactivity and food additives, support this contention and also show that whilst scientific findings can raise issues they cannot aid in the resolution of these as the synoptic model suggests that they should. Instead information supports and legitimates value based policy views, with actual policy decisions arrived at via negotiation and aiming at a balancing of partisan pressures, as suggested by the incremental model. Not only does information not aid the resolution of policy disputes, it cannot do so. When policy is disputed, scientific findings are also likely to be disputed and further research merely attracts more highly destructive criticism. This is termed the over critical model. When policy is decided then there is reduced impetus to critically test scientific ideas; this is termed the under critical model. Both of these situations act to the detriment of science. The main conclusion drawn is that the belief that science is essential to decision making is misleading and may serve to mask rather than illuminate areas of dispute.

Submission for the degree of Doctor of Science in the University of Aston in Birmingham

DUE TO COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION AT ASTON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES WITH PRIOR ARRANGEMENT

The reality of cross-disciplinary energy research in the United Kingdom:a social science perspective

Cross-disciplinary research is essential in understanding and reducing energy usage, however the reality of this collaboration comes with many challenges. This paper provides an insight into the integration of social science in energy research, drawing on the expertise and first hand experiences of a range of social science researchers (predominantly Early Career Researchers (ECRs)) working on UK cross-disciplinary projects in energy demand. These researchers, participants in a workshop dedicated to understanding the integration of social science in energy research, identified four groups of challenges to successful integration: Differing expectations of the role of social scientists; Working within academia; Feeling like a valued member of the team; and Communicating and comprehension between disciplines. Suggestions of how to negotiate those challenges included: Management and planning; Increasing contact; Sharing experience; and Understanding team roles. The paper offers a definition of ‘success’ in cross-disciplinary energy research from the perspective of social science ECRs, comprising external, internal and personal components. Using the logics of interdisciplinarity, this paper suggests that integration of the social sciences in the projects discussed may be partial at best and highlights a need to recognise the challenges ECRs face, in order to achieve full integration and equality of disciplines.

Science or practice? UK undergraduate experiences and attitudes to the MPharm degree

Objective: The debate surrounding the science/practice balance in the teaching of undergraduate pharmacy has been played out in the professional literature for years. The objective of this work was to explore the attitudes of pharmacy undergraduates on the practice-science debate. Setting: The study was undertaken as part of a national study of teaching, learning and assessment methods in United Kingdom (UK) schools of pharmacy. Method: Six focus groups were carried out. The sample was 44 volunteer students from nine UK schools of pharmacy, representing all 4 years of the MPharm programme. Groups were tape recorded and transcribed. Analysis of the transcripts was theme based by topic. Main Outcome Measure: Qualitative data on student attitudes and experiences. Results: Most students thought that there was too strong an emphasis placed on the science components of the course in the early part of their studies. Later in the course they realised that the majority of the science was necessary; it just had not been apparent to them at the time. There were strongly held attitudes across all 4 years that it would be beneficial to include more practice-related material at the beginning of their studies. This would be beneficial for three reasons: to make the course more interesting, to aid in the contextualisation of the science component and to assist the students in any early placement or vacational work. Conclusion: Internationally, changes to the role of the pharmacist from a traditional supply function to a more clinical role has resulted in differing educational needs for the pharmacist of the future. Pharmacy will remain a degree built on a strong scientific background, but students advise that the contextualisation and sequencing of material within the degree could make a considerable improvement to their learning. Consulting students helps us to understand the teaching, learning and assessment experience better by giving insights into ways of improving the delivery. In the case of the UK, there are legislative changes impending which may provide an opportunity to review the balance of practice-and science in the curriculum. © 2006 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

University-industry-relations - their role in technological innovation:the case of biotechnology in the UK

Biotechnology is one of a series of new `generic technologies' that have been identified by western governments as possessing stategic economic opportunities. In this thesis I examine the characteristics of the technology and the government policies that have been developed to both promote and exploit the underpinning scientific research for biotechnology. The approach I have taken involves an in-depth analysis of the role of university-industry research relations in the development of biotechnology. To this end I carried out a detailed survey of biotechnology companies in the UK on the nature of their interactions and objectives. Through individual case studies of the SERC and DTI club mechanisms in biotechnology, I provide a contemporary appraisal of the development of new mechanisms involving co-ordination and cooperation between industry, government and academia, established to couple state funded science and national economic development. The public policy implications of the club funding systems for science in the UK are examined.

A Kuhnian crisis in neo-Darwinism

Policy issues which receive large inputs of scientific and technical information are frequently marred by acrimonious controversies between contributing experts. There are few if any examples of a public policy decision being based on a firm consensus of scientific and technical experts. Such a consensus is taken for granted by the `Rational' model of decision making and its derivatives. Comparing the dynamics of conflict in policy-relevant issues with those of conflict in `pure' science, one is struck by their great similarity. In both cases we witness examples of rhetorical statements about incompetence, conflicting interpretations of data, and interdisciplinary communication problems. Noting this similarity, this thesis attempts to answer the question, `Is there a similarity of cause: do the same causes lie at the roots of conflict in policy-relevant and policy-irrelevant science?' In answering this question this thesis examines recent controversies in a generally policy-irrelevant science - evolutionary biology. Three episodes of conflict are studied: the `Neutral Allele Theory', `Punctuated Equilibrium', and `Structuralist versus Functionalist approaches to evolution'. These controversies are analysed in terms of both Kuhn's account of scientific `crises' and Collingridge and Reeve's (1986) `Overcritical Model'. Comparing its findings with those of Collingridge and Reeve, this thesis concludes that, (a) there is a Kuhnian crisis in contemporary evolution theory and, (b) that common causes do lie at the roots of conflict in policy-relevant and policy-irrelevant science. Science has an inherent tendency to degenerate into acrimonious conflict but at the same time has mechanisms which eventually resolve such conflicts. Unfortunately, when science is incorporated into the policy arena these mechanisms are prevented from operating. This thesis reinforces Collingridge and Reeve's conclusion that science is of little use to policy.

‘Let’s talk about feedback’:an exploration of academic feedback practices in pharmacy education

Feedback is considered one of the most effective mechanisms to aid learning and achievement (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). However, in past UK National Student Surveys, perceptions of academic feedback have been consistently rated lower by final year undergraduate students than other aspects of the student experience (Williams and Kane, 2009). For pharmacy students in particular, Hall and colleagues recently reported that almost a third of students surveyed were dissatisfied with feedback and perceived feedback practice to be inconsistent (Hall et al, 2012). Aims of the Workshop: This workshop has been designed to explore current academic feedback practices in pharmacy education across a variety of settings and cultures as well as to create a toolkit for pharmacy academics to guide their approach to feedback. Learning Objectives: 1. Discuss and characterise academic feedback practices provided by pharmacy academics to pharmacy students in a variety of settings and cultures. 2. Develop academic feedback strategies for a variety of scenarios. 3. Evaluate and categorise feedback strategies with use of a feedback matrix. Description of Workshop Activities: Introduction to workshop and feedback on pre-reading exercise (5 minutes). Activity 1: A short presentation on theoretical models of academic feedback. Evidence of feedback in pharmacy education (10 minutes). Activity 2: Discussion of feedback approaches in participants’ organisations for differing educational modalities. Consideration of the following factors will be undertaken: experiential v. theoretical education, formative v. summative assessment, form of assessment and the effect of culture (20 minutes, large group discussion). Activity 3: Introduction of a feedback matrix (5 minutes). Activity 4: Development of an academic feedback toolkit for pharmacy education. Participants will be divided into 4 groups and will discuss how to provide effective feedback for 2 scenarios. Feedback strategies will be categorised with the feedback matrix. Results will be presented back to the workshop group (20 minutes, small group discussion, 20 minutes, large group presentation). Summary (10 minutes). Additional Information: Pre-reading: Participants will be provided with a list of definitions for academic feedback and will be asked to rank the definitions in order of perceived relevance to pharmacy education. References Archer, J. C. (2010). State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Medical education, 44(1), 101-108. Hall, M., Hanna, L. A., & Quinn, S. (2012). Pharmacy Students’ Views of Faculty Feedback on Academic Performance. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 76(1). Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112. Medina, M. S. (2007). Providing feedback to enhance pharmacy students’ performance. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 64(24), 2542-2545.