Post

The research probably does have implications, but more often than not, what those implications are for policy isn’t made explicit.

Researchers aren’t always sure how far they can go in drawing policy conclusions without overstepping. Vagueness becomes a form of caution. Better to imply relevance than to assert it and risk being wrong. The problem is that vague implications aren’t really implications at all.

A manager responsible for a fisheries decision or a protected area boundary needs something more specific. Does this research tell me something useful about the decision I’m actually facing?