Policy Advocacy in Science: Prevalence, Perspectives, and Implications for Conservation Biologists
Various aspects related to the prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservations biologists were discussed. It was observed that three hundred and five questionnaires about advocacy in science were completed. Over 70% of respondents thought Conservation biology articles advocated policy p...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Conservation biology 2007-02, Vol.21 (1), p.29-35 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 35 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 29 |
| container_title | Conservation biology |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | SCOTT, J. MICHAEL RACHLOW, JANET L. LACKEY, ROBERT T. PIDGORNA, ANNA B. AYCRIGG, JOCELYN L. FELDMAN, GABRIELLE R. SVANCARA, LEONA K. RUPP, DAVID A. STANISH, DAVID I. STEINHORST, R. KIRK |
| description | Various aspects related to the prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservations biologists were discussed. It was observed that three hundred and five questionnaires about advocacy in science were completed. Over 70% of respondents thought Conservation biology articles advocated policy preferences. These results suggested that conservation scientists perceived advocacy as pervasive in the research literature review, which was consistent with the results from the literature review. The percentage of respondents who indicated that policy advocacy should be included was higher for Conservation In practice. Comments that supplemented negative response included that implications of alternative policy should be addressed and that conservation considerations can easily be written without advocacy by clarifying outcomes of practices and speaking to priorities. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00641.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69008663</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>4124639</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>4124639</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5151-91b168600ecdc6ec54c9d8360fb7e93edd4ffe2cc30dbe7f1a2d1c6972ccc9ef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkV2L1DAYhYMo7rj6D0SCF15ta9KkaSJ4sVt0HVjc8QsvQ5u-ldROMyadcebfm26HEbxZAyGHvM85JByEMCUpjet1l9I8YwktmEozQkQaN6fp_gFanAYP0YJIKRMpVXaGnoTQEUJUTvljdEaLTMmcyAWqV6635oAvm50zVRR2wF-MhcHAG7zysKv6SV_gFfiwATPaHYQLXA0NXq430VqN1g0Bt87jMgrwu7sbfGVd737YMIan6FFb9QGeHc9z9O39u6_lh-Tm9npZXt4kJqc5TRStqZCCEDCNEWByblQjmSBtXYBi0DS8bSEzhpGmhqKlVdZQI1QRr4yClp2jV3PuxrtfWwijXttgoO-rAdw2aKEIkUKwe8GMcE4VJfeClEvCczmBL_8BO7f1Q_xtDKOcs1ypCMkZMt6F4KHVG2_XlT9oSvRUq-701J6e2tNTrfquVr2P1hfH_G29huav8dhjBN7OwG_bw-G_g3V5e7WMKvqfz_4ujM6f_JxmXLDp6ck8jn3C_jSu_E8tClbk-vvHa52tShGZT_oz-wNlyMnq</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>201443599</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Policy Advocacy in Science: Prevalence, Perspectives, and Implications for Conservation Biologists</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>SCOTT, J. MICHAEL ; RACHLOW, JANET L. ; LACKEY, ROBERT T. ; PIDGORNA, ANNA B. ; AYCRIGG, JOCELYN L. ; FELDMAN, GABRIELLE R. ; SVANCARA, LEONA K. ; RUPP, DAVID A. ; STANISH, DAVID I. ; STEINHORST, R. KIRK</creator><creatorcontrib>SCOTT, J. MICHAEL ; RACHLOW, JANET L. ; LACKEY, ROBERT T. ; PIDGORNA, ANNA B. ; AYCRIGG, JOCELYN L. ; FELDMAN, GABRIELLE R. ; SVANCARA, LEONA K. ; RUPP, DAVID A. ; STANISH, DAVID I. ; STEINHORST, R. KIRK</creatorcontrib><description>Various aspects related to the prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservations biologists were discussed. It was observed that three hundred and five questionnaires about advocacy in science were completed. Over 70% of respondents thought Conservation biology articles advocated policy preferences. These results suggested that conservation scientists perceived advocacy as pervasive in the research literature review, which was consistent with the results from the literature review. The percentage of respondents who indicated that policy advocacy should be included was higher for Conservation In practice. Comments that supplemented negative response included that implications of alternative policy should be addressed and that conservation considerations can easily be written without advocacy by clarifying outcomes of practices and speaking to priorities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0888-8892</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1523-1739</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00641.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17298508</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject>Bibliometrics ; Common fisheries policy ; Conservation biology ; Conservation Focus: Policy Advocacy and Conservation Science ; Conservation of Natural Resources - methods ; Conservation of Natural Resources - trends ; Conservation policy ; Consumer Advocacy ; Environmental conservation ; Natural resources conservation ; Normativity ; Peer Review, Research ; Primary literature ; Research Personnel ; Science - ethics ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United States environmental policy ; Wildlife conservation ; Wildlife policy</subject><ispartof>Conservation biology, 2007-02, Vol.21 (1), p.29-35</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2007 Society for Conservation Biology</rights><rights>2007 Society for Conservation Biology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5151-91b168600ecdc6ec54c9d8360fb7e93edd4ffe2cc30dbe7f1a2d1c6972ccc9ef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5151-91b168600ecdc6ec54c9d8360fb7e93edd4ffe2cc30dbe7f1a2d1c6972ccc9ef3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4124639$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4124639$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554,57995,58228</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17298508$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>SCOTT, J. MICHAEL</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RACHLOW, JANET L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LACKEY, ROBERT T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PIDGORNA, ANNA B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AYCRIGG, JOCELYN L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FELDMAN, GABRIELLE R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SVANCARA, LEONA K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RUPP, DAVID A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>STANISH, DAVID I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>STEINHORST, R. KIRK</creatorcontrib><title>Policy Advocacy in Science: Prevalence, Perspectives, and Implications for Conservation Biologists</title><title>Conservation biology</title><addtitle>Conserv Biol</addtitle><description>Various aspects related to the prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservations biologists were discussed. It was observed that three hundred and five questionnaires about advocacy in science were completed. Over 70% of respondents thought Conservation biology articles advocated policy preferences. These results suggested that conservation scientists perceived advocacy as pervasive in the research literature review, which was consistent with the results from the literature review. The percentage of respondents who indicated that policy advocacy should be included was higher for Conservation In practice. Comments that supplemented negative response included that implications of alternative policy should be addressed and that conservation considerations can easily be written without advocacy by clarifying outcomes of practices and speaking to priorities.</description><subject>Bibliometrics</subject><subject>Common fisheries policy</subject><subject>Conservation biology</subject><subject>Conservation Focus: Policy Advocacy and Conservation Science</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources - methods</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources - trends</subject><subject>Conservation policy</subject><subject>Consumer Advocacy</subject><subject>Environmental conservation</subject><subject>Natural resources conservation</subject><subject>Normativity</subject><subject>Peer Review, Research</subject><subject>Primary literature</subject><subject>Research Personnel</subject><subject>Science - ethics</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>United States environmental policy</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>Wildlife policy</subject><issn>0888-8892</issn><issn>1523-1739</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkV2L1DAYhYMo7rj6D0SCF15ta9KkaSJ4sVt0HVjc8QsvQ5u-ldROMyadcebfm26HEbxZAyGHvM85JByEMCUpjet1l9I8YwktmEozQkQaN6fp_gFanAYP0YJIKRMpVXaGnoTQEUJUTvljdEaLTMmcyAWqV6635oAvm50zVRR2wF-MhcHAG7zysKv6SV_gFfiwATPaHYQLXA0NXq430VqN1g0Bt87jMgrwu7sbfGVd737YMIan6FFb9QGeHc9z9O39u6_lh-Tm9npZXt4kJqc5TRStqZCCEDCNEWByblQjmSBtXYBi0DS8bSEzhpGmhqKlVdZQI1QRr4yClp2jV3PuxrtfWwijXttgoO-rAdw2aKEIkUKwe8GMcE4VJfeClEvCczmBL_8BO7f1Q_xtDKOcs1ypCMkZMt6F4KHVG2_XlT9oSvRUq-701J6e2tNTrfquVr2P1hfH_G29huav8dhjBN7OwG_bw-G_g3V5e7WMKvqfz_4ujM6f_JxmXLDp6ck8jn3C_jSu_E8tClbk-vvHa52tShGZT_oz-wNlyMnq</recordid><startdate>200702</startdate><enddate>200702</enddate><creator>SCOTT, J. MICHAEL</creator><creator>RACHLOW, JANET L.</creator><creator>LACKEY, ROBERT T.</creator><creator>PIDGORNA, ANNA B.</creator><creator>AYCRIGG, JOCELYN L.</creator><creator>FELDMAN, GABRIELLE R.</creator><creator>SVANCARA, LEONA K.</creator><creator>RUPP, DAVID A.</creator><creator>STANISH, DAVID I.</creator><creator>STEINHORST, R. KIRK</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><general>Blackwell Science</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200702</creationdate><title>Policy Advocacy in Science: Prevalence, Perspectives, and Implications for Conservation Biologists</title><author>SCOTT, J. MICHAEL ; RACHLOW, JANET L. ; LACKEY, ROBERT T. ; PIDGORNA, ANNA B. ; AYCRIGG, JOCELYN L. ; FELDMAN, GABRIELLE R. ; SVANCARA, LEONA K. ; RUPP, DAVID A. ; STANISH, DAVID I. ; STEINHORST, R. KIRK</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5151-91b168600ecdc6ec54c9d8360fb7e93edd4ffe2cc30dbe7f1a2d1c6972ccc9ef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Bibliometrics</topic><topic>Common fisheries policy</topic><topic>Conservation biology</topic><topic>Conservation Focus: Policy Advocacy and Conservation Science</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources - methods</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources - trends</topic><topic>Conservation policy</topic><topic>Consumer Advocacy</topic><topic>Environmental conservation</topic><topic>Natural resources conservation</topic><topic>Normativity</topic><topic>Peer Review, Research</topic><topic>Primary literature</topic><topic>Research Personnel</topic><topic>Science - ethics</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>United States environmental policy</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Wildlife policy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>SCOTT, J. MICHAEL</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RACHLOW, JANET L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LACKEY, ROBERT T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PIDGORNA, ANNA B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AYCRIGG, JOCELYN L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FELDMAN, GABRIELLE R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SVANCARA, LEONA K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RUPP, DAVID A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>STANISH, DAVID I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>STEINHORST, R. KIRK</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Conservation biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>SCOTT, J. MICHAEL</au><au>RACHLOW, JANET L.</au><au>LACKEY, ROBERT T.</au><au>PIDGORNA, ANNA B.</au><au>AYCRIGG, JOCELYN L.</au><au>FELDMAN, GABRIELLE R.</au><au>SVANCARA, LEONA K.</au><au>RUPP, DAVID A.</au><au>STANISH, DAVID I.</au><au>STEINHORST, R. KIRK</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Policy Advocacy in Science: Prevalence, Perspectives, and Implications for Conservation Biologists</atitle><jtitle>Conservation biology</jtitle><addtitle>Conserv Biol</addtitle><date>2007-02</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>29</spage><epage>35</epage><pages>29-35</pages><issn>0888-8892</issn><eissn>1523-1739</eissn><abstract>Various aspects related to the prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservations biologists were discussed. It was observed that three hundred and five questionnaires about advocacy in science were completed. Over 70% of respondents thought Conservation biology articles advocated policy preferences. These results suggested that conservation scientists perceived advocacy as pervasive in the research literature review, which was consistent with the results from the literature review. The percentage of respondents who indicated that policy advocacy should be included was higher for Conservation In practice. Comments that supplemented negative response included that implications of alternative policy should be addressed and that conservation considerations can easily be written without advocacy by clarifying outcomes of practices and speaking to priorities.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><pmid>17298508</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00641.x</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0888-8892 |
| ispartof | Conservation biology, 2007-02, Vol.21 (1), p.29-35 |
| issn | 0888-8892 1523-1739 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69008663 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Jstor Complete Legacy |
| subjects | Bibliometrics Common fisheries policy Conservation biology Conservation Focus: Policy Advocacy and Conservation Science Conservation of Natural Resources - methods Conservation of Natural Resources - trends Conservation policy Consumer Advocacy Environmental conservation Natural resources conservation Normativity Peer Review, Research Primary literature Research Personnel Science - ethics Surveys and Questionnaires United States environmental policy Wildlife conservation Wildlife policy |
| title | Policy Advocacy in Science: Prevalence, Perspectives, and Implications for Conservation Biologists |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T17%3A07%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Policy%20Advocacy%20in%20Science:%20Prevalence,%20Perspectives,%20and%20Implications%20for%20Conservation%20Biologists&rft.jtitle=Conservation%20biology&rft.au=SCOTT,%20J.%20MICHAEL&rft.date=2007-02&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29&rft.epage=35&rft.pages=29-35&rft.issn=0888-8892&rft.eissn=1523-1739&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00641.x&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E4124639%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=201443599&rft_id=info:pmid/17298508&rft_jstor_id=4124639&rfr_iscdi=true |