Table 1.
Questions for analysis and the statistical methods applied.
Fig 1.
Self-reported demographic information of participants.
A. Gender (n = 268 individual respondents). B. Ethnic group (n = 245 individual respondents). C. Age bracket (years; n = 268 individual respondents). D. Location of work (n = 207 individual respondents). E. Career stage (see Methods for definitions; n = 215 individual respondents). F. Science discipline (n = 262 individual responses that were classifiable by JACS 3.0).
Fig 2.
The proportion of participants that reported previous engagement that had at least heard of the option.
Number of individual respondents who had at least heard of the option indicated in the y-axis. Abbreviations: RaISe, Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Service; SPICe, Scottish Parliament Information Centre; NAfW, National Assembly for Wales; POST, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.
Fig 3.
The proportion of participants that reported previous engagement that had at least heard of the option while also providing gender information.
Number of individual respondents who had at least heard of the option per gender indicated on the graph. Male participants were significantly more likely to report engagement. Abbreviations: RaISe, Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Service; SPICe, Scottish Parliament Information Centre; NAfW, National Assembly for Wales; POST, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.
Fig 4.
The reported motivations for providing evidence for policy-making (n = 205 individual respondents).
Looking at those responses where gender information was also provided, male participants (MP) were significantly more likely to select sense of duty than female participants (FP) (n = 175 individual respondents; as indicated by MP > FP).
Fig 5.
The reported encouragements for contributing to an academic-policy initiative such as the EIS (n = 287 individual respondents).
Looking at those responses where gender information was also provided, female participants (FP) were significantly more likely to select the two guidance-related options than male participants (MP) (n = 267 individual respondents; as indicated by FP > MP). Looking at those responses where career information was also provided, ‘early-career’ were significantly more likely and ‘mid-career’ least likely to select acknowledgement of contributions(s) from line manager/university (see Methods for definitions of career stage; n = 210 individual respondents; as indicated by C). Looking at those responses where science discipline information was also provided, ‘social sciences/arts and humanities’ (SSAH) were significantly more likely to select the public and REF-related recognition options (n = 255 individual respondents; as indicated by SSAH > NS).
Fig 6.
The reported challenges for contributing to an academic-policy initiative such as the EIS (n = 281 individual respondents).
Looking at those responses where gender information was also provided (n = 260 individual respondents), (i) female participants (FP) were significantly more likely to select concerns regarding confidentiality, and (ii) male participants (MP) were significantly more likely to select personal motivation (as indicated by FP > MP and MP > FP respectively). Looking at those responses where career information was also provided, ‘senior-career’ were significantly more likely to select schedule and least likely to select self-confidence than ‘early-career’ or ‘mid-career’ (see Methods for definitions of career stage; n = 211 individual respondents; as indicated by C1 and C2 respectively). Looking at those responses where science discipline information was also provided (n = 251 individual respondents), ‘social sciences/arts and humanities’ (SSAH) were significantly (i) more likely to select the recognition and reward options, and (ii) less likely to select previous experience, than natural sciences (as indicated by SSAH > NS and NS > SSAH respectively).