Skip to main content

Anne Toomey - Five Way Interview

Anne Toomey is an Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Science at Pace University in New York City. Her research explores how science can be applied to solve real-world environmental and policy challenges and she is the author of the award-winning 2024 book Science with Impact: How to Engage People, Change Practice, and Influence Policy. Anne holds a Ph.D. in Human Geography from Lancaster University, a dual M.A. in Natural Resources and Sustainable Development from American University and the University for Peace, and a B.A. in Communications and Political Science from the University of Rhode Island. She is also co-founder and executive director of Participatory Science Solutions LLC, which supports collaborative, science-based decision-making in communities, organizations, and governments. Her new book is Science with Impact.

Why science?

Science is such a powerful tool, but it’s also one that’s often misunderstood. What excites me about science isn’t really the discoveries - it’s the process. The fact that we have a systematic way to ask better questions about the world and get to a closer understanding of the answers. But it also means we need to be thoughtful about how science is done, who it’s for, and how it connects to the big issues we care about as a society. 

Why this book?

So many researchers really care about making a difference, but there’s still a lot of confusion around how research actually leads to impact. People often imagine a neat pipeline: basic science that leads to applied research that leads to dissemination that leads to impact. But social change isn’t linear, and hearing about new facts doesn’t automatically lead to changed minds or better policies. So how does impact emerge from research? This book begins with that question and explores the answer through real-life examples shared by researchers, science communicators, and policymakers from around the world.

Do you think hype in university press releases is part of the problem? (And if so, how could it be done better?)

Definitely, and not just press releases, but a lot of popular science media that tends to focus on the 'breakthroughs' and leave out the most interesting part: how science actually happens and the stories of the people involved. A growing body of scholarship is showing that what builds trust in science is seeing the human side and acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in the process. If we could share more of the real journeys (and the struggles) that researchers go through, I think it would make science feel more relatable, honest, and inspiring.

What’s next?

Right now I’m working on open access curricula for students that grow out of the book, to train the next generation of researchers to think (and act) differently. One project is a new course called 'Research Methods with Impact' to help undergraduate and graduate students design and conduct research that engages more directly with real world issues. Please email me if you’re interested in these free materials!

What’s exciting you at the moment?

Together with an interdisciplinary team of researchers at Michigan State University, I’ve been doing a series of interviews with scientists, asking them why they do what they do and how their research is related to their personal values. We’re currently in the analysis phase (my favorite part of the research process), so I’m spending my days thinking about what we’re learning from the interviews. It’s helping me understand more about what makes research impactful, which I think will be a lifelong question for me!

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more