Scientists increasingly strive to produce “actionable science,” research that directly informs management policies, plans, and decisions. But science is often framed as being actionable to a vague, idealized “manager” rather than to a clearly identified set of intended users. Without identifying who will use research results, what decisions they make, or how scientific information fits into their work, scientists can struggle to design research that truly meets decision-making needs 

In a recent article published in Conservation Science and Practice, a team of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists, including staff from the Climate Adaptation Science Centers, introduces a framework to help scientists develop a more precise understanding of the people who use scientific information. 

The paper, “Debunking the Myth of the Quintessential Resource Manager: Precision in Actionable Science,” argues that a lack of specificity about who management partners are can make it difficult to design research that addresses real-world needs, evaluate whether scientific products are ultimately useful, and foster adoption and implementation of findings. To help scientists better align science with management needs, the authors propose a simple but powerful framework built around six basic questions: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How.  

“With this straightforward framework, we aim to empower scientists conducting, reviewing, or sponsoring actionable research to focus on exactly who their science is meant to serve,” said lead author Amanda Cravens, a USGS research social scientist. 

The framework encourages scientists to identify who their intended partners are, understand what responsibilities those partners hold, determine when information is needed within decision cycles, consider where and at what geographic scale decisions need to be made, explore why partners make particular decisions given specific institutional and social contexts, and understand how scientific information is used in practice. 

Answering these questions can improve research design, strengthen partnerships, and support the development of relevant and usable scientific products. The framework can also improve scientific transparency and reproducibility by encouraging scientists to document how they identified intended users and how those users’ needs influenced project development. 

The paper highlights that the actionability of science depends not only on the quality of scientific information, but also on understanding the decision environments in which that information will be applied. Factors such as agency mandates, funding cycles, organizational culture, geographic jurisdictions, and individual perspectives all influence how people evaluate and use science. 

By using this framework and documenting these factors, scientists can move beyond generic descriptions of “managers” and instead recognize the broad range of individuals who steward natural resources and make decisions affecting landscapes and communities. 

“There is no quintessential manager,” the authors conclude. By taking the time to understand who their partners are and how they work, scientists can create more rigorous and impactful actionable science. 

The study was authored by Amanda E. Cravens, Nicole M. Herman-Mercer, Aparna Bamzai-Dodson, Megan A. Moore, Richard E. W. Berl, Nicholas W. Cole, Oronde O. Drakes, Diamond V. Ebanks, David C. Fulton, Megan S. Jones, Dawn M. Kotowicz, Alex C. McInturff, James R. Meldrum, Kathryn A. Powlen, Aaron D. Russell, Stefan G. Tangen, and Emily J. Wilkins and was published in Conservation Science and Practice.