Search

With their increasing popularity, there is a need for more research clarifying the potential strengths and weaknesses of the comic format for education. The panelled comic format may be particularly effective for educating adults on the scientific aspects of processes (sequences of events, occurring over time, in a series of discrete steps). We tested change in performance in adults (n = 879) in correctly ordering the stages in four processes before and after being exposed to educational material about these processes. The material was presented in a random selection of one of seven experimentally manipulated formats based on characteristics of comic books. Overall, participant performance improved after seeing the educational material. There were significant differences in learning between the processes, suggesting that the benefits, or detriments, of the comic format may be subject-specific. Performance was significantly better when images were subdivided into panels, and worse when an explanatory agent (character) was included, though these differences in performance did not survive adjustment for multiple comparisons. This study presents some evidence that the panelled nature of the comic format supports learning about scientific processes in adults. Given results differed notably between the specific topics to be learned, there is substantial scope for further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy makers globally often claim to use evidence when making policy decisions, but few studies have documented and evaluated the sources of evidence they rely on. This poses challenges to researchers and decision makers alike, as they struggle to assess the impact of research on policy. This study analysed citations in Australian federal parliamentary committee reports to better understand the role that academic sources play in shaping policy. Results show that academic sources are rarely cited by federal parliamentary committees, and of those that are cited, most are academic inquiry submissions or oral evidence, with very few citations of peer‐reviewed research. This finding points towards a need for academics seeking policy impact to engage more pro‐actively with government inquiry submission processes. To incentivise this approach, we suggest that changes be made to the way that academic impact is measured within the university sector in order to avoid disincentivising researchers from making submissions to parliamentary inquiries. Our study draws on previous literature and develops a method to assess the use of academic evidence in federal parliamentary committee reports. Our results demonstrate that little peer‐reviewed evidence is cited, and that for researchers to 'impact' the committee process they need to engage directly with government through writing submissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geoengineering technologies – deliberate, large-scale interventions to alter the Earth's climate – present an opportunity to ameliorate the effects of climate change; an opportunity policy-makers are beginning to consider. However, the safety and efficacy of geoengineering strategies is uncertain, and there is concern advancing these technologies engenders a range of non-physical risks; in particular, moral hazard. In economics, moral hazard occurs when insured agents no longer bear the full consequences of risk-taking, and consequentially increase their exposure to risk. However, while certainly analogous, the way the term is used in the geoengineering literature is ambiguous, describing a patchwork of mechanisms of action, hazardous behaviours, and undesirable outcomes. Importantly, as moral hazard concerns are likely to inform policy-making and regulatory responses to these technologies, this unclear specification could impede scholarly, policy, and public debate. This article charts this ambiguity, documenting the range of meanings of moral hazard in the geoengineering literature. Results suggest moral hazard is used at least eight different ways in the literature, with the three most common frames being Insurance, Unwilling and Avoid. With this, we suggest that those articulating moral hazard concerns about geoengineering technologies work to articulate as clearly as possible what the problem actually is. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]