Pub Date : 2021-09-17DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1978691
Rachel Emas, J. C. Jones
Abstract In communities across the U.S., there is growing awareness of food system issues which exerts greater pressure on public servants to help build a better food system for their community. Drawing from interviews with local and state-level public administrators and elected officials in two metropolitan regions in Ohio and New Jersey, and supporting interviews from food producers and nonprofit leaders in those areas, this paper examines what roles public administrators believe they could and should take regarding food system development in their community. From this qualitative data analysis, the research identified commonalities in administrators’ positive and negative perceptions of the potential for development of their community’s local food system (LFS) despite their lack of background knowledge regarding these systems. Given food systems’ interdisciplinarity and complexity, LFS development likely requires multi-sectoral alliances via partnership governance. The alliance itself and each of its components is simultaneously a complete entity and a part of a larger, more complex entity; such entities are called holons. These alliances have greater capacity to manage more complicated problems than can be addressed by subordinate holons. In examining the potential role of local public administrators in LFS development, this paper constructs the concept of the policy intrapreneur to clarify our understanding and discussions of how public administrators, decision-makers, and other stakeholders view their roles and responsibilities in the creation and governance of local food systems.
{"title":"Setting the table for policy intrapreneurship: public administrator perspectives on local food system governance","authors":"Rachel Emas, J. C. Jones","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1978691","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1978691","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In communities across the U.S., there is growing awareness of food system issues which exerts greater pressure on public servants to help build a better food system for their community. Drawing from interviews with local and state-level public administrators and elected officials in two metropolitan regions in Ohio and New Jersey, and supporting interviews from food producers and nonprofit leaders in those areas, this paper examines what roles public administrators believe they could and should take regarding food system development in their community. From this qualitative data analysis, the research identified commonalities in administrators’ positive and negative perceptions of the potential for development of their community’s local food system (LFS) despite their lack of background knowledge regarding these systems. Given food systems’ interdisciplinarity and complexity, LFS development likely requires multi-sectoral alliances via partnership governance. The alliance itself and each of its components is simultaneously a complete entity and a part of a larger, more complex entity; such entities are called holons. These alliances have greater capacity to manage more complicated problems than can be addressed by subordinate holons. In examining the potential role of local public administrators in LFS development, this paper constructs the concept of the policy intrapreneur to clarify our understanding and discussions of how public administrators, decision-makers, and other stakeholders view their roles and responsibilities in the creation and governance of local food systems.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"245 - 259"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43865597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-03eCollection Date: 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1972517
Scott Douglas, Thomas Schillemans, Paul 't Hart, Chris Ansell, Lotte Bøgh Andersen, Matthew Flinders, Brian Head, Donald Moynihan, Tina Nabatchi, Janine O'Flynn, B Guy Peters, Jos Raadschelders, Alessandro Sancino, Eva Sørensen, Jacob Torfing
In this programmatic essay, we argue that public governance scholarship would benefit from developing a self-conscious and cohesive strand of "positive" scholarship, akin to social science subfields like positive psychology, positive organizational studies, and positive evaluation. We call for a program of research devoted to uncovering the factors and mechanisms that enable high performing public policies and public service delivery mechanisms; procedurally and distributively fair processes of tackling societal conflicts; and robust and resilient ways of coping with threats and risks. The core question driving positive public administration scholarship should be: Why is it that particular public policies, programs, organizations, networks, or partnerships manage do much better than others to produce widely valued societal outcomes, and how might knowledge of this be used to advance institutional learning from positives?
{"title":"Rising to Ostrom's challenge: an invitation to walk on the bright side of public governance and public service.","authors":"Scott Douglas, Thomas Schillemans, Paul 't Hart, Chris Ansell, Lotte Bøgh Andersen, Matthew Flinders, Brian Head, Donald Moynihan, Tina Nabatchi, Janine O'Flynn, B Guy Peters, Jos Raadschelders, Alessandro Sancino, Eva Sørensen, Jacob Torfing","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1972517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1972517","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this programmatic essay, we argue that public governance scholarship would benefit from developing a self-conscious and cohesive strand of \"positive\" scholarship, akin to social science subfields like positive psychology, positive organizational studies, and positive evaluation. We call for a program of research devoted to uncovering the factors and mechanisms that enable high performing public policies and public service delivery mechanisms; procedurally and distributively fair processes of tackling societal conflicts; and robust and resilient ways of coping with threats and risks. The core question driving positive public administration scholarship should be: Why is it that particular public policies, programs, organizations, networks, or partnerships manage do much better than others to produce widely valued societal outcomes, and how might knowledge of this be used to advance institutional learning from positives?</p>","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 4","pages":"441-451"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8596500/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39898555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-18DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1950349
P. Guha
Abstract School-based management reforms continue to be popular in developing countries, but they may have the effect of increasing educational inequalities if (a) advantaged schools adopt them early while disadvantaged schools do not, and (b) they lead to quality improvements in adopting schools. It is therefore instructive to examine the adoption behavior of advantaged and disadvantaged schools. This article examines the correlation between aspects of school (dis)advantage and the time to adoption of school-based management arrangements in Indian government schools. It finds that better-resourced schools – those with greater levels of school infrastructure and more educated teachers – did adopt faster. On the other hand, keeping everything else constant, schools catering to rural and socio-economically disadvantaged communities also adopted faster. The results suggest that low levels of school resources pose barriers to early adoption, and hence effective embedding of SBM reforms is likely to require targeted support for poorly resourced schools.
{"title":"Are disadvantaged schools slow to adopt school-based management reforms? Evidence from India","authors":"P. Guha","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1950349","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1950349","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract School-based management reforms continue to be popular in developing countries, but they may have the effect of increasing educational inequalities if (a) advantaged schools adopt them early while disadvantaged schools do not, and (b) they lead to quality improvements in adopting schools. It is therefore instructive to examine the adoption behavior of advantaged and disadvantaged schools. This article examines the correlation between aspects of school (dis)advantage and the time to adoption of school-based management arrangements in Indian government schools. It finds that better-resourced schools – those with greater levels of school infrastructure and more educated teachers – did adopt faster. On the other hand, keeping everything else constant, schools catering to rural and socio-economically disadvantaged communities also adopted faster. The results suggest that low levels of school resources pose barriers to early adoption, and hence effective embedding of SBM reforms is likely to require targeted support for poorly resourced schools.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"517 - 533"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1950349","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46893753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1946251
L. Carson, L. Given
Abstract The term ‘impact’ is everywhere. Organizations and individuals want to fund projects for impact, measure impact, and showcase the impact of effort, expertise and financial investment, but clear definitions and understandings of what having an impact really means for people and institutions appear lacking or ad-hoc. This paper explores ‘impact’ in the areas of education and research into government practice. For governments, the impact agenda involves operating in increasingly tight fiscal environments with mounting pressure to articulate and demonstrate return on investment. For education providers, there are increasing calls to justify and prove why investment in education is an efficient and effective endeavor. For universities, this includes a shift from a traditional publication-focused research impact culture to a wider societal impact one that demonstrates direct and indirect benefits to society. This paper conceptualizes impact as a “puzzle” with many pieces, with education and research making up key pieces that can and need to fit together better. In doing so, the paper identifies four problem areas to help guide thinking toward clarity about what ‘impact’ entails. To aid collective progress in this space, we detail key issues facing the education and research sectors. Based on our analysis we arrive at a set of questions intended to help guide thinking and actions toward collectively increasing the ability to generate and demonstrate the impact of both into government practice and society at large.
{"title":"The societal impact puzzle: a snapshot of a changing landscape across education and research","authors":"L. Carson, L. Given","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1946251","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1946251","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The term ‘impact’ is everywhere. Organizations and individuals want to fund projects for impact, measure impact, and showcase the impact of effort, expertise and financial investment, but clear definitions and understandings of what having an impact really means for people and institutions appear lacking or ad-hoc. This paper explores ‘impact’ in the areas of education and research into government practice. For governments, the impact agenda involves operating in increasingly tight fiscal environments with mounting pressure to articulate and demonstrate return on investment. For education providers, there are increasing calls to justify and prove why investment in education is an efficient and effective endeavor. For universities, this includes a shift from a traditional publication-focused research impact culture to a wider societal impact one that demonstrates direct and indirect benefits to society. This paper conceptualizes impact as a “puzzle” with many pieces, with education and research making up key pieces that can and need to fit together better. In doing so, the paper identifies four problem areas to help guide thinking toward clarity about what ‘impact’ entails. To aid collective progress in this space, we detail key issues facing the education and research sectors. Based on our analysis we arrive at a set of questions intended to help guide thinking and actions toward collectively increasing the ability to generate and demonstrate the impact of both into government practice and society at large.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"323 - 340"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1946251","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46036638","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1946246
J. Barbara, N. Haley, Hannah McMahon, Timothea Turnbull
Abstract Much impact research focuses on how individual scholars can influence policy outcomes, leading to recommendations about how individual researchers can be more entrepreneurial and engage with policy cycles in innovative ways. This approach is problematic in that it reinforces assumptions about researchers as “heroic” individuals, obscuring consideration of how organizational contexts support or hinder the prospects for research impact. As a result, the importance of organizational context is frequently absent from universities’ impact strategies. This article seeks to address this gap by presenting a case study on the experiences of the Department of Pacific Affairs (DPA) at the Australian National University (ANU) in creating a context that supports research impact. DPA’s research approach has long included a strong policy focus, aided in part by long-term financial support from the Australian government to build a globally preeminent center of excellence for policy-relevant research on the Pacific. Concentrating on DPA’s organizational context as an impact mechanism, the article considers lessons learned that can inform the development of research contexts that serve as an inherently impactful approach to research.
{"title":"Building inherently impactful research programs: the role of organizational context","authors":"J. Barbara, N. Haley, Hannah McMahon, Timothea Turnbull","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1946246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1946246","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Much impact research focuses on how individual scholars can influence policy outcomes, leading to recommendations about how individual researchers can be more entrepreneurial and engage with policy cycles in innovative ways. This approach is problematic in that it reinforces assumptions about researchers as “heroic” individuals, obscuring consideration of how organizational contexts support or hinder the prospects for research impact. As a result, the importance of organizational context is frequently absent from universities’ impact strategies. This article seeks to address this gap by presenting a case study on the experiences of the Department of Pacific Affairs (DPA) at the Australian National University (ANU) in creating a context that supports research impact. DPA’s research approach has long included a strong policy focus, aided in part by long-term financial support from the Australian government to build a globally preeminent center of excellence for policy-relevant research on the Pacific. Concentrating on DPA’s organizational context as an impact mechanism, the article considers lessons learned that can inform the development of research contexts that serve as an inherently impactful approach to research.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"357 - 371"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48643016","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1921373
Anna Hopkins, K. Oliver, A. Boaz, S. Guillot-Wright, P. Cairney
Abstract “Impact” describes how research informs policy and societal change, and “impact agenda” describes strategies to increase engagement between research and policymaking. Both are notoriously difficult to conceptualize and measure. However, funders must find ways to define and identify the success of different research-policy initiatives. We seek to answer, but also widen, their implicit question: in what should we invest if we seek to maximize the impact of research? We map the activities of 346 organizations investing in research-policy engagement. We categorize their activities as belonging to three “generations” fostering linear, relational, and systems approaches to evidence use. Some seem successful, but the available evidence is not clear and organizations often do not provide explicit aims to compare with outcomes. As such, it is difficult to know where funders and researches should invest their energy. We relate these findings to studies of policy analysis, policy process research, and critical social science to identify seven key challenges for the “impact agenda”. They include: clarify the purpose of engagement, who it is for, if it is achievable in complex policymaking systems, and how far researchers should go to seek it. These challenges should help inform future studies of evidence use, as well as future strategies to improve the impact of research.
{"title":"Are research-policy engagement activities informed by policy theory and evidence? 7 challenges to the UK impact agenda","authors":"Anna Hopkins, K. Oliver, A. Boaz, S. Guillot-Wright, P. Cairney","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1921373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1921373","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract “Impact” describes how research informs policy and societal change, and “impact agenda” describes strategies to increase engagement between research and policymaking. Both are notoriously difficult to conceptualize and measure. However, funders must find ways to define and identify the success of different research-policy initiatives. We seek to answer, but also widen, their implicit question: in what should we invest if we seek to maximize the impact of research? We map the activities of 346 organizations investing in research-policy engagement. We categorize their activities as belonging to three “generations” fostering linear, relational, and systems approaches to evidence use. Some seem successful, but the available evidence is not clear and organizations often do not provide explicit aims to compare with outcomes. As such, it is difficult to know where funders and researches should invest their energy. We relate these findings to studies of policy analysis, policy process research, and critical social science to identify seven key challenges for the “impact agenda”. They include: clarify the purpose of engagement, who it is for, if it is achievable in complex policymaking systems, and how far researchers should go to seek it. These challenges should help inform future studies of evidence use, as well as future strategies to improve the impact of research.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"341 - 356"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47307777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1961377
Michael Fotheringham, T. Gorter, A. Badenhorst
Abstract The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) has sought to increase its policy impact by transitioning from funding ‘policy relevant’ research to a ‘policy development’ research model. This model has been developed and implemented by AHURI over more than a decade in its role as an intermediary between the research and policy communities. The Policy Development Research Model (PDRM) integrates the traditionally separate processes of evidence building and policy development into one set of practices. The cornerstones of the PDRM are; AHURI’s reputation as a trusted advisor, strong engagement with policy officials in setting the annual research agenda, the development of specialized research vehicles that ensure engagement throughout the conduct of research, academic expertise, the quality and rigor of research outputs, and proactive dissemination of research findings through a variety of channels. This article describes how the PDRM enhances policy impact by improving two-way knowledge transfer between academic researchers and policymakers and practitioners. It offers an insight into how AHURI’s active role as an intermediary impacts on housing, homelessness and urban policy in Australia.
{"title":"Enhancing impact: a model for policy development research","authors":"Michael Fotheringham, T. Gorter, A. Badenhorst","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1961377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1961377","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) has sought to increase its policy impact by transitioning from funding ‘policy relevant’ research to a ‘policy development’ research model. This model has been developed and implemented by AHURI over more than a decade in its role as an intermediary between the research and policy communities. The Policy Development Research Model (PDRM) integrates the traditionally separate processes of evidence building and policy development into one set of practices. The cornerstones of the PDRM are; AHURI’s reputation as a trusted advisor, strong engagement with policy officials in setting the annual research agenda, the development of specialized research vehicles that ensure engagement throughout the conduct of research, academic expertise, the quality and rigor of research outputs, and proactive dissemination of research findings through a variety of channels. This article describes how the PDRM enhances policy impact by improving two-way knowledge transfer between academic researchers and policymakers and practitioners. It offers an insight into how AHURI’s active role as an intermediary impacts on housing, homelessness and urban policy in Australia.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"372 - 391"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46325095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1935025
C. Ritchie
Abstract 2020 threw into stark relief the fact that the impact of policy interventions in Indigenous affairs over the last decade and a half has been scandalously minimal. Explanations for this focus on technocratic themes such as implementation, leadership failure or lack of resources. The problem, however, is not a technical one, there is something wrong with the policy design related to Indigenous Australians. Policy design involves questions of not just what we know, but how we know, and how this knowledge is mobilized in and through policymaking. Policy impact Indigenous contexts is low precisely because contemporary policymaking excludes the knowledge and insights of Indigenous people. This makes important knowledge inaccessible to state and non-state actors, and fatally weakens policymaking. This paper appropriates the concept of metis to interrogate the root of policy failure in processes of epistemological exclusion and suppression that underpin modern statecraft is of critical importance to improving the impact of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy enterprise. The chief contention is that improved impact in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy enterprise hinges on centering Aboriginal metis at the epistemic, discursive, and conceptual core of the enterprise.
{"title":"The path is made by walking: knowledge, policy design and impact in Indigenous policymaking","authors":"C. Ritchie","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1935025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1935025","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract 2020 threw into stark relief the fact that the impact of policy interventions in Indigenous affairs over the last decade and a half has been scandalously minimal. Explanations for this focus on technocratic themes such as implementation, leadership failure or lack of resources. The problem, however, is not a technical one, there is something wrong with the policy design related to Indigenous Australians. Policy design involves questions of not just what we know, but how we know, and how this knowledge is mobilized in and through policymaking. Policy impact Indigenous contexts is low precisely because contemporary policymaking excludes the knowledge and insights of Indigenous people. This makes important knowledge inaccessible to state and non-state actors, and fatally weakens policymaking. This paper appropriates the concept of metis to interrogate the root of policy failure in processes of epistemological exclusion and suppression that underpin modern statecraft is of critical importance to improving the impact of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy enterprise. The chief contention is that improved impact in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy enterprise hinges on centering Aboriginal metis at the epistemic, discursive, and conceptual core of the enterprise.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"413 - 425"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42468878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1977478
Catherine Althaus, L. Carson, Helen Sullivan, Brigid van Wanrooy
Abstract Impact—what does it mean and how do we know what “counts”? We all want to do work that has an impact, and this is true of all sectors, whether that be government, public, private, not-for-profit, university, education, or community stakeholders. However, understandings of what it means in practice, what it takes to achieve, and how it can be tracked and calculated remain largely unclear and contested. While the rhetoric of “impact” and the “impact agenda” has become popular in the last decade or so, our practice and research appear to be lagging. In this introductory paper to the special issue on Impact into practice: Demonstrating applied public administration and policy improvement we outline how systems thinking approach can aid understanding of research and education impact on government practice. A systems approach reveals where reliance exists, where responsibility falls, and where new and deepened relationships are needed. While more needs to be done by all parties to acknowledge the collective nature of impact and the necessary reliance on one another, we argue that redistribution of responsibility is needed, including the government’s significant role. Without collective recognition of reliance, responsibility, and relationships in the system of impact, our respective endeavors can only be expected to go so far. By thinking about impact as a system, we can end the “blame game” between university and government sectors, and encourage action within and across sectors, in the pursuit of better outcomes for citizens and society.
{"title":"Research and education in public sector practice: a systems approach to understanding policy impact","authors":"Catherine Althaus, L. Carson, Helen Sullivan, Brigid van Wanrooy","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1977478","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1977478","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Impact—what does it mean and how do we know what “counts”? We all want to do work that has an impact, and this is true of all sectors, whether that be government, public, private, not-for-profit, university, education, or community stakeholders. However, understandings of what it means in practice, what it takes to achieve, and how it can be tracked and calculated remain largely unclear and contested. While the rhetoric of “impact” and the “impact agenda” has become popular in the last decade or so, our practice and research appear to be lagging. In this introductory paper to the special issue on Impact into practice: Demonstrating applied public administration and policy improvement we outline how systems thinking approach can aid understanding of research and education impact on government practice. A systems approach reveals where reliance exists, where responsibility falls, and where new and deepened relationships are needed. While more needs to be done by all parties to acknowledge the collective nature of impact and the necessary reliance on one another, we argue that redistribution of responsibility is needed, including the government’s significant role. Without collective recognition of reliance, responsibility, and relationships in the system of impact, our respective endeavors can only be expected to go so far. By thinking about impact as a system, we can end the “blame game” between university and government sectors, and encourage action within and across sectors, in the pursuit of better outcomes for citizens and society.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"309 - 322"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44489670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1921913
Raymond Orr, Yancey Orr
Abstract Indigenous polities often face the consequences of decisions that emerge from processes outside of their control. The U.S. Supreme Court decision on McGirt v. Oklahoma in 2020, which recognized nearly a third of the state of Oklahoma as potentially within the jurisdiction of five Native American tribes, is one such example. The lawsuit generating this decision was a legal appeal by an individual – not a tribe – and may have implications that include recognizing tribal jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters throughout much of the state. The decision was celebrated by tribes and those advocating for greater recognition of their territorial authority. Yet, for tribal leaders and other practitioners of Indigenous self-determination, the decision potentially shifts major administrative burdens to resource-limited tribes. In an attempt to mitigate the significant costs of administering this territory, these tribes have initiated negotiations with the state of Oklahoma and local municipalities to clarify jurisdiction and coordinate administrative responsibilities. Outrage over these negotiations came from mostly academics and activists who perceived negotiations as a rejection of greater jurisdictional sovereignty. This paper uses the McGirt decision as a point of entry to explore differences in how practitioners and academics grounded in Indigenous politics understand the impact of policy shifts even when they further mutually desired commitments.
{"title":"Victory for all, administration for some: an examination of differences in the impact of Indigenous jurisdictional expansion in Oklahoma","authors":"Raymond Orr, Yancey Orr","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1921913","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1921913","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Indigenous polities often face the consequences of decisions that emerge from processes outside of their control. The U.S. Supreme Court decision on McGirt v. Oklahoma in 2020, which recognized nearly a third of the state of Oklahoma as potentially within the jurisdiction of five Native American tribes, is one such example. The lawsuit generating this decision was a legal appeal by an individual – not a tribe – and may have implications that include recognizing tribal jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters throughout much of the state. The decision was celebrated by tribes and those advocating for greater recognition of their territorial authority. Yet, for tribal leaders and other practitioners of Indigenous self-determination, the decision potentially shifts major administrative burdens to resource-limited tribes. In an attempt to mitigate the significant costs of administering this territory, these tribes have initiated negotiations with the state of Oklahoma and local municipalities to clarify jurisdiction and coordinate administrative responsibilities. Outrage over these negotiations came from mostly academics and activists who perceived negotiations as a rejection of greater jurisdictional sovereignty. This paper uses the McGirt decision as a point of entry to explore differences in how practitioners and academics grounded in Indigenous politics understand the impact of policy shifts even when they further mutually desired commitments.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"426 - 440"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42822685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：