Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37567957›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental management2023

Becoming an Actionable Scientist: Challenges, Competency, and the Development of Expertise.

Julia B Goolsby, Amanda E Cravens, Mary Ann Rozance

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Julia B GoolsbyCooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
Amanda E CravensU.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA. aecravens@usgs.gov.ORCID 0000-0002-0271-7967
Mary Ann RozanceUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Agreement G17AC000218U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Adaptation Science Center
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Demand has grown for actionable science to support real-world decision-making around climate change and related environmental management challenges. Producing actionable science requires scientists to hold a distinct set of competencies, yet relatively little is known about what these competencies are or how to train scientists to develop them. We conducted interviews with mid- and late-career scientists to empirically identify competencies they used when producing actionable science and to understand how they developed those competencies. We describe expertise in terms of 18 competencies-categorised as cognitive, interpersonal, or intrapersonal-that scientists integrated and applied to address the challenges associated with actionable science. We argue that scientists must engage in the social process of producing actionable science (i.e., learning by doing) to become an expert. Expert actionable scientists discussed the importance of learning through different contexts, processes, interactions, and relationships. By naming the competencies that constitute expertise, as well as methods for expertise development, our findings facilitate greater conscious awareness of the process of becoming an actionable scientist, a gradual process that starts during graduate training and continues as a career proceeds. Our results can inform the development of formal learning opportunities as well as the informal learning process that occurs whereby scientists take charge of their own learning.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesProfessional CompetenceScienceClimate ChangeDecision MakingHumansLearningActionable scienceCompetenciesLearning by doingLearning sciencesMetacognitionUsable science

Identifiers

PMID37567957
PMCPMC10570157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.