4.7 Article

Institutional insights on integrating social and environmental science for solutions-driven research

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY
Volume 101, Issue -, Pages 97-105

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.003

Keywords

Environmental social science; Interdisciplinary research; Solutions-driven research; Institutional science

Funding

  1. Intramural EPA [EPA999999] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Solving complex environmental problems requires interdisciplinary research involving the social and environmental sciences. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is working toward solutions-driven research and interdisciplinary integration within its Office of Research and Development. This article details the history of this process and discusses lessons learned from other federal agencies seeking to integrate social and biophysical research: finding the right combination of top down and bottom up approaches; balancing objectives of advancing science and/or supporting programmatic operations; using social science methods to inform the process; and engaging multiple stakeholders. Attention to the social context of scientific practice, including research processes and research use, fosters success. Three strategies for integrating social sciences to support solutions-driven environmental research are: weaving social science throughout the research process, strengthening social networks, and fostering interdisciplinary hubs. Integration into planning and carrying out research has greater transformative potential than integration into product development and distribution. This article provides insights into institutional considerations for advancing interdisciplinarity and the social context of scientific practice in government agencies. It illustrates the multiple decision contexts and inclusion of social science at the science-policy interface.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available