Harmonizing Science and Society: A Change Management Approach to Align Scientific Endeavors with Societal Needs

Abstract

The pursuit of scientific knowledge has long been humanity’s most potent tool for comprehending the natural world and driving technological advancements. However, a persistent paradox exists within the scientific enterprise: the occasional disconnect, be it slight or complete, between scientific inquiry and tangible societal impact. This misalignment can occur from differences between what may be esoteric scientific priorities and the immediate practical needs of society. Misalignment can be problematic because many global challenges, such as climate change, infectious diseases, and resource scarcity, demand research that informs actionable strategies that more immediately benefit society. The gap between scientific outcomes and societal needs is sometimes broadened via ineffective communication, sensationalized media portrayal of research, and a lack of collaboration. This article is written to (a) articulate a method to ensure that scientific outcomes align with societal needs (in cases where alignment is important) and (b) inspire discussion about the purposefulness of scientific research. An organizational change leadership approach, rooted in business management principles, is presented that can be applied to scientific research to bridge this gap and unlock science’s transformative and tangible potential. This novel approach involves crafting a clear vision, practicing effective communication, empowering researchers, shifting success metrics, and cultivating a research enterprise culture that values societal engagement. An example application is provided to catalyze transformative change in the mining industry. By adopting a change management method, researchers can ensure their work addresses real-world needs, garners stakeholder buy-in, and enhances societal acceptance of scientific endeavors.

1. Introduction

Science has been humanity’s most powerful tool for progress in understanding the natural and abiotic world. With each discovery, innovation, and breakthrough, science paves the way for technological advancements and a deeper comprehension of the universe. However, there remains a paradox within the scientific enterprise. That paradox has to do with scientists’ tireless pursuit of research, the collection of unspeakable amounts of data, and the publishing of enumerable papers, only to see efforts fall short in generating tangible change in areas they seek to influence. This problem illustrates a disconnect between scientific inquiry and tangible impact. Previous research highlighted the limitations of many conventional research approaches in capturing stakeholders’ needs and, subsequently, delivering impactful problem-focused (tangible) outcomes [1]. Conversely, other authors have argued for the autonomy of scientific inquiry, suggesting that it should be protected from political and social influence to ensure accurate information dissemination [2]. There is merit to this argument, as too much focus on tangible outcomes may narrow scientific discovery. Fuqua and Walgren [3] noted that breakthroughs in esoteric and fundamental research areas often prove to be as much or more effective in producing societal benefits than incremental progress in highly developed near-application technology. Warner 1980 [4] highlighted the unpredictable nature of basic research and its potential for producing unanticipated future benefits. Ultimately, previous studies affirm that investing in research programs with future practical applications is of value to society. Still, others argue for further evaluations of societal and economic impacts in the context of research outcomes, suggesting a great need for additional research that identifies the relevance and importance of linking scientific inquiry to societal needs [5]. Regardless, and despite the state of understanding, the relentless pursuit of knowledge does not always translate into transformative societal change. However, it may not have to be that way in many cases.

One obvious factor contributing to disconnects between scientific inquiry and tangible impact is the potential for misaligned (or non-existent) communication regarding desired outcomes between scientific priorities and the tangible needs of society. For example, Farrell [6] emphasized the lack of focused communication on the consequences of climate change on human health and welfare, calling for a coordinated effort to include social and medical sciences in global change research to supply the public with the immediate information they need. McDermott [7] provided an argument for a disparity between scientists and the public and tangible outcomes, presenting evidence of disagreement in outcome priorities and coupled declining science aspirations among youth. Sinatra [8] focused on the challenges of public understanding of science, suggesting educational and policy implications to address these challenges. Carleial [9] highlighted various problems in scientific and academic practice, including accessibility, equity, reproducibility, credibility, and the rise of misinformation, emphasizing the need for urgent attention and improvement in science for the benefit of society.

Ultimately, while scientists are often driven by intellectual curiosity, societal progress often demands a focus on practical solutions that address pressing problems [10]. For example, it is accepted that the urgency to address global challenges, such as climate change, infectious diseases, and resource scarcity, necessitates research that directly informs actionable strategies [11]. However, pursuing esoteric topics that might not have immediate applications can dominate research industries, such as academia, leading to an unintentional detachment from the practical needs of the general population [12,13,14]. This detachment may further contribute to a slow separation between the research institution and the needs of society [15,16] and result in reduced appreciation of the value of many scientific fields of inquiry and the contributions they may bring to current societal needs. Indeed, Gallup recently reported that only approximately one-third of Americans have confidence in higher education outcomes [17,18,19,20], which most often includes the tripartite mission of teaching, research, and service [21,22,23].

Other issues arise, such as the increasing specialization within disciplines or the academic mandate to publish. Publishing is arguably the cornerstone of scientific communication, enabling researchers to disseminate their discoveries globally, albeit sometimes somewhat disconnected from society [24,25]. On this basis, it seems clear that prioritizing effective communication between the sciences and society is at the heart of bridging the gap between science and tangible impact [26,27]. It may, therefore, follow that in the current higher-education climate, the challenge of low acceptance by society may be primarily attributed to ineffective communication, resulting in reduced societal comprehension and, therefore, buy-in to the contemporary higher-education industry [28]. This observation is supported by Liu [29], who emphasized the need to improve science communication to enhance public understanding and science literacy. Cheng [30] discussed the insufficient development of the science-society dialogue and the lack of an influential communication culture in the science and technology sector, which hampers public acceptance of scientific innovations. Sung and Kim [31] showed a positive influence of using research methods that integrate stakeholder participation and communication to perpetuate tangible outcomes. Carrad et al. [32] identified factors such as leadership, organizational culture, and government support as facilitators and potential barriers to tangible research success. Backhaus et al. [33] noted that in this era of rapid scientific progress, biological sciences knowledge doubles every five years, and environmental science advances similarly, illustrating a crucial need for in-tandem communication efforts with the public. Higher education institutions are increasingly encouraged to integrate stakeholder-supported sustainability initiatives into their structure and organization. A systematic quantitative review by Rieg et al. [34] was conducted to assess the existing literature on this topic. The results emphasized the importance of organizational change processes, human factors, and stakeholder input for achieving sustainability, serving as a valuable impetus for future research and practice. Despite progress, these insights are seldom included in research projects or program decision-making processes, which can become overwhelmed by the sheer volume of specialized scientific literature. Effective science communication is essential to bridge this gap, requiring concise summaries of scientific findings for non-experts. Therefore, scientists must also avoid the temptation to assume that merely providing additional facts can overcome the resistance to their findings. This realization is important because messaging strongly influences public acceptance of scientific evidence, leading to polarization and hindering effective communication and decision-making. Indeed, many authors have acknowledged that scientists often struggle to convey the significance of their findings in accessible terms, making it challenging for non-experts to grasp the implications [35,36,37,38].

Additionally, the media’s portrayal of scientific research can sometimes sensationalize results or misrepresent nuanced conclusions, leading to a skewed and skeptical public understanding [39,40]. Striking a balance between accuracy, comprehensibility, and need and effectively articulating balanced messaging is vital for ensuring scientific knowledge informs decisions at all levels of society. Addressing these challenges requires multifaceted approaches that re-evaluate scientific research priorities, promote interdisciplinary collaboration, improve communication strategies, and emphasize ethical considerations. Through concerted efforts to bridge the gap between research and application, science can fulfill its transformative potential, reverse a culture of skepticism from the public, and address, with stakeholder buy-in, some of the most pressing challenges. It may be that treating scientific projects and progress as organizational change moments could make a difference.

Organizational change concepts were developed primarily in business management and organizational behavior studies [41,42,43,44]. The concepts emerged as a response to recognizing that successfully implementing significant organizational changes goes beyond new (and sometimes abrupt) processes or technologies [45,46,47,48]. Instead, it involves understanding and managing change’s human and cultural aspects and navigating the challenges associated with shifting mindsets, behaviors, and practices within a complex organizational context. The core principles (phases) of organizational change management generally include creating the conditions for change (preparation), engaging and enabling change (implementation), and implementing and sustaining change [49,50]. This approach has proven effective across various industries for successfully implementing organizational changes while minimizing resistance and disruptions [49,51,52,53]. For example, the method is accepted in industries such as the business and corporate sector [54], information technology [55], healthcare [56,57,58], manufacturing [59], education [60], nonprofits and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [61], energy [62], finance and banking and aerospace and defense [43,63,64,65]. In the environmental sector, change management has shifted towards eco-friendly practices and technologies while managing employee and stakeholder transitions [66,67]. Despite these accepted applications, the research industry seldom uses the organizational change approach.

However, given its transferability and successes in other industries, the method could advance scientific agendas, programs, careers, and societal acceptance through efforts to garner early stakeholder buy-in and engagement. This article is written to (a) articulate a novel method for researchers interested in ensuring that scientific outcomes align with societal needs and (b) inspire discussion about the purposefulness of scientific research. The organizational change method is described, and an example is developed to assist the reader in adapting the technique to their circumstances. Accompanying citations serves as an entry point for the reader wishing to learn more. It is not the intent to present all the available literature or possible methods. This article is instead an attempt to introduce the technique’s integrative potential to the research practice and serve as a springboard to further inquiry.

2. The Change Management Approach

Organizational change leadership and management approaches are a strategic framework leaders use to guide and manage significant organizational change initiatives [43,48,49,50,51,68,69]. This approach implies that successful change requires more than just implementing new processes or technologies; it involves addressing the human and cultural aspects that impact an organization’s ability to adapt and thrive. As a pertinent aside, while change leadership and change management are related, they are distinct concepts. Change leadership involves envisioning and initiating change, while change management focuses on implementing and sustaining change [70]. Thus, change leadership is characterized by vision, values, strategy, empowerment, and inspiration [71]. Transformational leadership, in particular, is well suited for leading change, as it focuses on articulating a vision, fostering acceptance of group goals, and motivating followers [72,73]. Despite their differences, change leadership and management are both necessary in the context of organizational structures and dynamics. Notably, operating in a state of management in this context implies that leadership has first occurred. Given their integrative nature, the terms will be used somewhat synonymously from here forward.

Applying a change management approach ensures that research projects, programs, and initiatives address the needs of society. Meeting the needs of society is vital in addressing the challenge of conducting research and science that results in tangible impact. The process should always start with developing a clear and compelling vision of the desired outcome. In the context of the research enterprise, the vision could involve bridging the gap between scientific research and tangible (societal) impact. Incidentally, a similar approach could be taken for academic and other training and development programs. The vision should be communicated effectively to pertinent stakeholders, including scientists, researchers, policymakers, funding agencies, and the public, to align efforts toward a common goal and maximize buy-in and engagement in the initiative [49,51]. Designating influential “Change Champions,” including respected scientists who buy into a vision, can encourage peers to adopt a broader perspective on research significance (Figure 1). Interdisciplinary collaboration should be requisite, where researchers, policymakers, industry experts, and community representatives collaborate, thereby fostering research with tangible applications at its core, at the outset. Effective communication (messaging) is pivotal; a strategic or master plan should be employed to translate complex scientific findings into accessible language, facilitating understanding among policymakers and the public. Empowering researchers through training in communication, policy advocacy, and collaboration will enable them to engage with stakeholders, amplifying their capacity to drive impactful change. Shifting success metrics from purely academic achievements to a holistic evaluation encompassing practical applications, collaborations, policy influence, and public engagement will incentivize researchers to align their work with tangible needs. Scott [74] corroborates this idea, emphasizing the importance of policy competencies, and recommends combining direct instruction and experiential learning in policy training to support effective societal engagement. King [75] stressed the importance of researchers being involved in policy development and acquiring non-cognitive skills to enhance the social impact of their work. Massat [76] discussed principles for empowering research participants (collaborators), highlighting the need to respect and unite various groups. These previous author’s observations are important to consider because cultivating a research culture that values collaboration, interdisciplinary work, and societal engagement will motivate researchers to approach (pre-empt) their work with a broader stakeholder engagement-centric perspective. An adaptive leadership approach can be most effective to these ends. Particularly in the ongoing changing research landscape, with researchers remaining open to feedback and adaptable to evolving needs and challenges of society, ensuring continuous progress in advancing impactful, tangible scientific outcomes. Indeed, Norris [77] emphasized that adaptive leadership encourages flexible thinking, double-loop learning, and transformative changes in adult learning and organizational research. Arthur-Mensah [78] furthers this argument, noting the importance of adaptive leadership in handling the challenges of unpredictable and complex changes, suggesting that it can address the human side of change. Overall, previous studies indicate that an adaptive leadership approach, characterized by flexibility, openness to feedback, and responsiveness to evolving needs and challenges, is crucial for continuous progress and tangible scientific outcomes. This concept is somewhat analogous to the adaptive management concept used in many environmental and land management sciences [79,80,81,82]. Ultimately, the organizational change approach provides a roadmap to navigate this process, yielding tangible outcomes (Figure 1).

It is worth restating that other approaches could be, and are, used to remain in sync with society’s science and research needs. The objective of this article is not to describe them all. The aim is to present a vetted, adaptable, and transferable method many industries accept that can serve as an entry point for interested parties. Applying an organizational change leadership approach may substantially address the challenge of developing research programs and projects that include stakeholder buy-in, thereby improving society’s perceptions of the research enterprise [44,67]. For example, Danter et al. [67] and Panagiotakopoulos [83] identified the usefulness and importance for scientists and practitioners to focus on organizational change methods, particularly regarding communication activities, to support the adoption and continuation of ecosystem management practices. They further presented a case study about how the United States Fish and Wildlife Service implemented organizational transformation to align with ecosystem approaches to natural resource management and tangible outcomes. Meidinger [84] corroborated these sentiments, emphasizing the organizational and legal challenges associated with ecosystem management, including the need for coordinated information gathering, analysis, and tangible outcomes. Ovchinnikov [85] assumed a broader perspective, articulating the paradigm shift in environmental management and the transition from a consumer attitude towards nature to a focus on sustainable human-environment interactions and ecosystem services. The need for organized, inclusive, and equitable methods to navigate changing consumer perceptions regarding connection to the environment was emphasized as critical to progress. Notably, the organizational change approach acknowledges the multifaceted complexity of sound science and societal acceptance and provides a strategic framework to bring about meaningful change amidst many divergent perspectives. Therefore, it encourages scientists to conduct tangible research thereby directly contributing to solving contemporary challenges while ensuring a positive difference in society and leaving less room for misinterpretation of value.

The Organizational Change Approach: Tangible Outcomes

Given its potential for positive impact, it is worth restating that organizational change leadership and management approaches offer a strategic framework for guiding significant organizational progress, emphasizing the importance of addressing technical and societal needs [44,46,50,63]. For these moments of progress, transformational leadership qualities like vision, values, strategy, empowerment, and inspiration are well-suited for leading change, with leadership and management playing essential roles in organizational dynamics. Applying a change management approach is critical for aligning research projects, programs, and management practices with societal needs, beginning with creating a clear vision and effective communication with stakeholders. Empowering researchers through professional development activities in communication, policy advocacy, and collaboration fosters their ability to drive change while shifting success metrics toward holistic evaluation, incentivizing alignment with practical needs [86]. Cultivating a culture valuing collaboration and societal engagement motivates researchers to adopt a broader, more inclusive perspective. Adaptive leadership allows for ongoing adjustments based on feedback and evolving societal requirements. Applying an organizational change leadership approach can significantly address the challenge of pre-empting research projects and programs with stakeholder buy-in. The result will include improved societal perception of the research enterprise, ultimately encouraging scientists to contribute to solving global challenges and ensuring a clear recognition of their value. The following section includes a brief example application of the change management process presented in Figure 1.

3. An Example Organizational Change Leadership Process Addressing AMD

Acid mine drainage (AMD) severely threatens water quality and ecosystem health in areas where mining activities occur [87,88,89]. The release of acidic and toxic runoff into water bodies can have devastating consequences for aquatic life and local communities that depend on these water sources [89,90,91]. For example, it is understood that acid mine drainage containing heavy metals poses a significant health risk to water resources and inhibits the activity of aquatic organisms. Soucek [92] highlighted the impacts of acid mine drainage on benthic macroinvertebrate communities and freshwater mussel populations in the Powell River watershed. Kumari [93] discussed the environmental impact of acid mine drainage, including its harmful effects on vegetation, aquatic life, and wildlife. Garland [94] raised the question of whether acid mine drainage can affect human health, emphasizing the need for further investigation. Despite the scientific understanding of AMD’s harmful effects, adequate mitigation measures and sustainable mining practices have been lacking in long-term efficacy and have been slow to be adopted. Aside from ineffective long-term solutions, it seems possible that slow adoption is partly due to inadequate stakeholder inclusion, buy-in, engagement, and investment. By applying an organizational change leadership approach, leaders can explore how to navigate the complexities of inclusive transitioning to responsible mining practices and implementing strategies to prevent AMD, ultimately safeguarding water quality and environmental well-being, and in so doing, gain the approval and support of society along the way (Figure 2).

This scenario’s objective(s) includes transforming mining practices from those prioritizing short-term gains to those prioritizing human society and long-term environmental sustainability. This outcome may seem lofty and aspirational amidst varied and often conflicting wants and needs. However, the urgency for action lies in acknowledging the essential role of clean water in supporting ecosystems, human health, and local economies and the necessity to prevent AMD-related pollution. Preventing AMD is, therefore, a short and long-term vision that addresses society’s needs and wants of the moment while securing resources for those that do not yet have a voice, the human society of the future.

In this example, change champions emerge as influential figures in the mining industry, including land managers, scientists, mining executives, environmental experts, and community leaders (Figure 2). They champion responsible mining practices that embrace economic benefits and mitigate potentially severe consequences such as AMD. These champions advocate for transformative changes within mining operations, emphasizing environmental protection, water quality, and needed research. Interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists, engineers, environmentalists, regulatory bodies, and local communities is paramount in crafting comprehensive solutions ranging from selecting less harmful mining techniques to implementing effective AMD prevention and treatment strategies. Effective communication is crucial to gaining public and stakeholder support, fostering trust, buy-in, engagement, and a shared understanding and responsibility of sustainable mining. Key strategies may include empowering frontline mining workers through knowledge and skill development, involving them in decision-making, and shifting success metrics to have an environmental impact. Cultural transformation focuses on instilling responsibility for environmental stewardship, valuing water resources, fostering innovation, and recognizing the link between long-term profitability and natural ecosystem sustainability. Adaptive leadership is essential to navigating ongoing change, remaining flexible and responsive to evolving research, regulations, and public sentiment, and ensuring the continued effectiveness of strategies to mitigate AMD and safeguard water quality within the mining sector.

Implications and Tangible Outcomes

Acid mine drainage (AMD) often negatively affects water quality and ecosystems in mining regions, with well-documented consequences for aquatic life and local communities [87,88,89,90,91]. Unfortunately, despite acknowledging aquatic ecosystem detriments, adopting effective mitigation measures and sustainable mining practices has been slow. However, an organizational change leadership approach offers a path forward, aiming to transition to responsible mining practices, prevent AMD, and gain societal support. In doing so, mining priorities might shift from short-term gains to integrated long-term environmental sustainability, recognizing the critical role of clean water in supporting ecosystems, human health, and local economies. Research projects or programs should be designed to fit this process. Not the other way around. This implies pre-emptively developing a compelling vision, incentives, and deliberate messaging about the value of the work to science, industry, and society. Figure 2 illustrates how change champions advocate for the change movement, emphasizing communication and cultural transformation. This approach prioritizes environmental stewardship, innovation, and the connection between profitability and ecosystem sustainability, all underpinned by adaptive leadership to ensure ongoing success in combating AMD and preserving water quality within the mining industry. Notably, the change management methodological process is transferrable and adaptable to any scientific field. The advantage of the organizational change method is that it necessitates upfront inclusive efforts to promote transparency, critical thinking, accessibility, and a deeper understanding of the scientific process and its limitations while encouraging constructive dialogue between scientists and society. Future researchers may wish to (a) include these methods as a measure to justify future research (investigations, monitoring) proposals, (b) validate the effectiveness of this integrated method in terms of improved tangible societal outcomes, and (c) include evaluation of economic impact.

4. Conclusions

The organizational change leadership and management approach transcends industry boundaries and provides a model for facilitating successful organizational change initiative transitions. The organizational change approach focuses on understanding human dynamics and cultural influences during transformation. Its versatile application applies to sectors such as technology, science, healthcare, education, energy, and more, offering a structured framework to navigate intricate adjustments while working to develop stakeholder trust, buy-in, engagement, alignment, and efficient adoption. By advocating leadership support, transparent communication, and adaptable strategies, the approach empowers organizations to navigate change proactively, making it a cornerstone of effective transformation across diverse industries and initiatives.

The purpose of this article was to present a method that can help interested researchers ensure that scientific projects, programs, and outcomes align with societal needs. The principles of organizational change leadership can be instrumental in providing an accepted model to address the challenges associated with society’s perceptions and approval of academic research. Effective change leadership approaches within the research enterprise can promote transparency by encouraging open dialogue and fostering a culture of accountability, helping to mitigate confirmation bias and ethical concerns. Leaders can also prioritize research integrity, ensuring that commercial and political interests do not compromise scientific rigor while advocating for disseminating a broader range of research outcomes to combat publication bias. Additionally, change leaders can actively engage with the public, emphasizing explicit and accurate communication to counter misinterpretation and mistrust, ultimately strengthening the connection between academic research and societal approval.