Pub Date : 2023-10-23DOI: 10.1332/17442648y2023d000000005
Elliott Aidan Johnson, Irene Hardill, Matthew T. Johnson, Daniel Nettle
Co-production has emerged as one of the key concepts in understanding knowledge-policy interactions and is associated with involvement, for example, of users of public services in their design and delivery. At a time of permacrisis, the need for transformative evidence-based policymaking is urgent and great. This is particularly important in highly distressed ‘left-behind’ communities targeted by the UK Government for Levelling Up, which constitutes an attempt to improve the infrastructural, economic, social and health outcomes of less affluent parts of the UK. Often, policymakers regard the transformative policies capable of addressing these crises as beyond the ‘Overton Window’, which describes a range of policies in the political centre that are acceptable to the public (Lehman, 2010). This window of opportunity can shift to encompass different policies, but movement is slow and policymakers generally believe that significant change lies outside. In this article, we build on recent debates in Evidence & Policy on co-production by outlining an embryonic approach to overcoming this Overton Window-based roadblock in evidence-based policymaking: adversarial co-production, which involves working with opponents of evidence-based policy to develop means of persuading potential beneficiaries to support introduction. This emerging approach has been deployed in examination of public preferences with regard to welfare reform, but can be applied to a wide range of policy areas. We outline briefly the history of co-production, before setting out the process by which adversarial co-production was developed. We then describe the impact of adversarial co-production on public preferences on basic income (BI). This enables us to set out challenges and opportunities for those with an interest in addressing our crises, serving to stimulate genuine debate on longstanding assumptions about the limits of evidence-based policy and public opinion.
{"title":"Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production","authors":"Elliott Aidan Johnson, Irene Hardill, Matthew T. Johnson, Daniel Nettle","doi":"10.1332/17442648y2023d000000005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648y2023d000000005","url":null,"abstract":"Co-production has emerged as one of the key concepts in understanding knowledge-policy interactions and is associated with involvement, for example, of users of public services in their design and delivery. At a time of permacrisis, the need for transformative evidence-based policymaking is urgent and great. This is particularly important in highly distressed ‘left-behind’ communities targeted by the UK Government for Levelling Up, which constitutes an attempt to improve the infrastructural, economic, social and health outcomes of less affluent parts of the UK. Often, policymakers regard the transformative policies capable of addressing these crises as beyond the ‘Overton Window’, which describes a range of policies in the political centre that are acceptable to the public (Lehman, 2010). This window of opportunity can shift to encompass different policies, but movement is slow and policymakers generally believe that significant change lies outside. In this article, we build on recent debates in Evidence & Policy on co-production by outlining an embryonic approach to overcoming this Overton Window-based roadblock in evidence-based policymaking: adversarial co-production, which involves working with opponents of evidence-based policy to develop means of persuading potential beneficiaries to support introduction. This emerging approach has been deployed in examination of public preferences with regard to welfare reform, but can be applied to a wide range of policy areas. We outline briefly the history of co-production, before setting out the process by which adversarial co-production was developed. We then describe the impact of adversarial co-production on public preferences on basic income (BI). This enables us to set out challenges and opportunities for those with an interest in addressing our crises, serving to stimulate genuine debate on longstanding assumptions about the limits of evidence-based policy and public opinion.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"55 12","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135366236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-18DOI: 10.1332/17442648y2023d000000002
Emma S. Hock, Alison Scope, Andrew Booth
Background: Local authorities (LA) are key in improving population health, and LA public health decision makers need support from appropriately organised research capacity; however, few models of LA research systems are known to exist. Aims and objectives: To explore potential and existing models of LA-based research systems. Methods: This mapping review and time-constrained systematic review synthesises conceptual and empirical literature from 12 health and social science databases, grey literature and reference/citation tracking. Three reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full texts of retrieved records, and extracted key data from included papers. Evidence was synthesised based on characteristics of research systems and quality-assessed for relevance, rigour and richness. Findings: Nine models were examined in depth. From these, we developed a typology of research systems. Few models were specifically designed for LA research activity; as a Whole System approach, the Local Authority Champions of Research model offers a potential blueprint. Useful lessons may be learned from UK Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research, Academic Collaborative Centres in the Netherlands, local Research and Development units in Sweden, and generic University-Community partnerships. Discussion and conclusions: An optimal research system requires the coexistence of multiple systems including Centre, Partnership, Collaboration, Network and Community types. The review is UK-focused, but the models appear to have wider relevance. Our classification offers those planning an LA research system the opportunity to choose an approach that meets their requirements and resources. A Whole System approach is optimal, with egalitarian input from the LA and academia.
{"title":"Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review","authors":"Emma S. Hock, Alison Scope, Andrew Booth","doi":"10.1332/17442648y2023d000000002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648y2023d000000002","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Local authorities (LA) are key in improving population health, and LA public health decision makers need support from appropriately organised research capacity; however, few models of LA research systems are known to exist. Aims and objectives: To explore potential and existing models of LA-based research systems. Methods: This mapping review and time-constrained systematic review synthesises conceptual and empirical literature from 12 health and social science databases, grey literature and reference/citation tracking. Three reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full texts of retrieved records, and extracted key data from included papers. Evidence was synthesised based on characteristics of research systems and quality-assessed for relevance, rigour and richness. Findings: Nine models were examined in depth. From these, we developed a typology of research systems. Few models were specifically designed for LA research activity; as a Whole System approach, the Local Authority Champions of Research model offers a potential blueprint. Useful lessons may be learned from UK Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research, Academic Collaborative Centres in the Netherlands, local Research and Development units in Sweden, and generic University-Community partnerships. Discussion and conclusions: An optimal research system requires the coexistence of multiple systems including Centre, Partnership, Collaboration, Network and Community types. The review is UK-focused, but the models appear to have wider relevance. Our classification offers those planning an LA research system the opportunity to choose an approach that meets their requirements and resources. A Whole System approach is optimal, with egalitarian input from the LA and academia.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"163 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135942951","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-14DOI: 10.1332/17442648y2023d000000001
Jan Lecouturier, Ivo Vlaev, Paul Chadwick, Angel M. Chater, Michael P. Kelly, Louis Goffe, Carly Meyer, Mei Yee Tang, Vivi Antonopoulou, Fiona Graham, Falko F. Sniehotta
Background: There has been a rapid increase in the number of, and demand for, organisations offering behavioural science advice to government over the last ten years. Yet we know little of the state of science and the experiences of these evidence providers. Aims and objectives: To identify current practice in this emerging field and the factors that impact on the production of high-quality and policy-relevant research. Methods: A qualitative study using one-to-one interviews with representatives from a purposeful sample of 15 units in the vanguard of international behavioural science research in policy. The data were analysed thematically. Findings: Relationships with policymakers were important in the inception of units, research conduct, implementation and dissemination of findings. Knowledge exchange facilitated a shared understanding of policy issues/context, and of behavioural science. Sufficient funding was crucial to maintain critical capacity in the units’ workforces, build a research portfolio beneficial to policymakers and the units, and to ensure full and transparent dissemination. Discussion and conclusion: Findings highlight the positive impact of strong evidence-provider/user relationships and the importance of governments’ commitment to co-produced research programmes to address policy problems and transparency in the dissemination of methods and findings. From the findings we have created a framework, ‘STEPS’ (Sharing, Transparency, Engagement, Partnership, Strong relationships), of five recommendations for units working with policymakers. These findings will be of value to all researchers conducting research on behalf of government.
{"title":"The critical factors in producing high quality and policy-relevant research: insights from international behavioural science units","authors":"Jan Lecouturier, Ivo Vlaev, Paul Chadwick, Angel M. Chater, Michael P. Kelly, Louis Goffe, Carly Meyer, Mei Yee Tang, Vivi Antonopoulou, Fiona Graham, Falko F. Sniehotta","doi":"10.1332/17442648y2023d000000001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648y2023d000000001","url":null,"abstract":"Background: There has been a rapid increase in the number of, and demand for, organisations offering behavioural science advice to government over the last ten years. Yet we know little of the state of science and the experiences of these evidence providers. Aims and objectives: To identify current practice in this emerging field and the factors that impact on the production of high-quality and policy-relevant research. Methods: A qualitative study using one-to-one interviews with representatives from a purposeful sample of 15 units in the vanguard of international behavioural science research in policy. The data were analysed thematically. Findings: Relationships with policymakers were important in the inception of units, research conduct, implementation and dissemination of findings. Knowledge exchange facilitated a shared understanding of policy issues/context, and of behavioural science. Sufficient funding was crucial to maintain critical capacity in the units’ workforces, build a research portfolio beneficial to policymakers and the units, and to ensure full and transparent dissemination. Discussion and conclusion: Findings highlight the positive impact of strong evidence-provider/user relationships and the importance of governments’ commitment to co-produced research programmes to address policy problems and transparency in the dissemination of methods and findings. From the findings we have created a framework, ‘STEPS’ (Sharing, Transparency, Engagement, Partnership, Strong relationships), of five recommendations for units working with policymakers. These findings will be of value to all researchers conducting research on behalf of government.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135489866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-14DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16917571241005
Susan Calnan, Sheena McHugh
Background: To support evidence-informed decision making in a health service context, there is a need to better understand the contextual challenges regarding evidence use. Aims and objectives: To examine experiences of evidence use and perceived barriers, facilitators and recommended strategies to increase research use among senior decision makers in the national health service in Ireland. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with decision makers in Ireland’s national health service (n= 17) from August 2021 to January 2022. Criterion sampling was used (division in the organisation and grade of position), and interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Barriers and facilitators were mapped according to multiple-level categories (individual, organisational, research, social, economic, political) identified in the literature. Findings: Health service decision makers described a blended and often reactive approach to using evidence; the type and source of evidence used depended on the issue at hand. Barriers and facilitators to research use manifested at multiple levels, including the individual (time); organisational (culture, access to research, resources, skills); research (relevance, quality); and social, economic and political levels (external links with universities, funding, political will). Strategies recommended by participants to enhance evidence-informed decision making included synthesising key messages from the research, strengthening links with universities, and fostering more embedded research. Discussion and conclusion: Evidence use in health service contexts is a dynamic process with multiple drivers. This study underlines the need for a multilevel approach to support research use in health services, including strategies targeted at less tangible elements such as the organisational culture regarding research.
{"title":"Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study","authors":"Susan Calnan, Sheena McHugh","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16917571241005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16917571241005","url":null,"abstract":"Background: To support evidence-informed decision making in a health service context, there is a need to better understand the contextual challenges regarding evidence use. Aims and objectives: To examine experiences of evidence use and perceived barriers, facilitators and recommended strategies to increase research use among senior decision makers in the national health service in Ireland. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with decision makers in Ireland’s national health service (n= 17) from August 2021 to January 2022. Criterion sampling was used (division in the organisation and grade of position), and interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Barriers and facilitators were mapped according to multiple-level categories (individual, organisational, research, social, economic, political) identified in the literature. Findings: Health service decision makers described a blended and often reactive approach to using evidence; the type and source of evidence used depended on the issue at hand. Barriers and facilitators to research use manifested at multiple levels, including the individual (time); organisational (culture, access to research, resources, skills); research (relevance, quality); and social, economic and political levels (external links with universities, funding, political will). Strategies recommended by participants to enhance evidence-informed decision making included synthesising key messages from the research, strengthening links with universities, and fostering more embedded research. Discussion and conclusion: Evidence use in health service contexts is a dynamic process with multiple drivers. This study underlines the need for a multilevel approach to support research use in health services, including strategies targeted at less tangible elements such as the organisational culture regarding research.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"357 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135489857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16328416007542
Jennifer Watling Neal, Stephen Posner, Brian Brutzman
Background: Brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) bridge research and policy or practice, and can elevate the role of evidence in decision making. However, there is limited integration of the literature across different sectors to understand the strategies that BIBS use, the skills needed to carry out these strategies, and the expected outcomes of these strategies. Aims and objectives: In this review, we characterise the strategies, skills, and outcomes of BIBS across the literature in education, environmental, health and other relevant sectors. Methods: We included 185 conceptual and review papers written in English that included descriptions or conceptualisations of BIBS in the context of knowledge transfer or research use in the education, environmental, health, or other relevant sectors (for example, social services, international development). For each included paper, we extracted and coded information on sector, BIBS strategies, skills, and outcomes. Findings: Our review revealed five strategies used by BIBS that were emphasised in the literature. Specifically, 79.5% of papers mentioned facilitating relationships, 75.7% mentioned disseminating evidence, 56.8% mentioned finding alignment, 48.6% mentioned capacity building, and 37.3% mentioned advising decisions as strategies used by BIBS. Additionally, papers described skills and expected outcomes that were common across these strategies as well as those that were unique to specific strategies. Discussion and conclusions: We discuss implications of these findings for understanding how BIBS interface with knowledge users and producers as well as directions for future research on BIBS and the professionalisation of BIBS roles.
{"title":"Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes","authors":"Jennifer Watling Neal, Stephen Posner, Brian Brutzman","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16328416007542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16328416007542","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) bridge research and policy or practice, and can elevate the role of evidence in decision making. However, there is limited integration of the literature across different sectors to understand the strategies that BIBS use, the skills needed to carry out these strategies, and the expected outcomes of these strategies. Aims and objectives: In this review, we characterise the strategies, skills, and outcomes of BIBS across the literature in education, environmental, health and other relevant sectors. Methods: We included 185 conceptual and review papers written in English that included descriptions or conceptualisations of BIBS in the context of knowledge transfer or research use in the education, environmental, health, or other relevant sectors (for example, social services, international development). For each included paper, we extracted and coded information on sector, BIBS strategies, skills, and outcomes. Findings: Our review revealed five strategies used by BIBS that were emphasised in the literature. Specifically, 79.5% of papers mentioned facilitating relationships, 75.7% mentioned disseminating evidence, 56.8% mentioned finding alignment, 48.6% mentioned capacity building, and 37.3% mentioned advising decisions as strategies used by BIBS. Additionally, papers described skills and expected outcomes that were common across these strategies as well as those that were unique to specific strategies. Discussion and conclusions: We discuss implications of these findings for understanding how BIBS interface with knowledge users and producers as well as directions for future research on BIBS and the professionalisation of BIBS roles.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135450240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16397424861558
Megan Auld, Emmah Doig, S. Bennett
Background: Knowledge brokers in higher education are described as requiring a broad range of skills and characteristics, leading to both role conflict and ambiguity. Although existing studies report broad concepts regarding the role of knowledge brokers, the activities that they actually perform to broker knowledge are not systematically reported or impact evaluated.Aims and objectives: This paper aims to summarise the current literature on the role of knowledge brokers and describe this role in a higher education context. In an exploratory study, as two knowledge brokers we recorded our activities within a school of health in a large university setting using the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) categories over a period of nine months. Using this report, we use the analogy of a musical to translate the role of knowledge broker. Considering the knowledge brokerage roles of musical director, set designer, choreographer, costume designer and sound and lighting, we discuss the impact of knowledge brokerage activities on actors relaying their knowledge story to an end-user audience. Knowledge brokers in the higher education context primarily perform activities in four areas: know your cast and crew; train your cast and crew; rehearse and review; and provide hands-on support.Key conclusions: Understanding the role of knowledge brokers may be enhanced by using the analogy of a musical. Due to the diverse nature of these roles, it is recommended that knowledge brokerage in higher education is performed in teams, where knowledge brokers can utilise different skill sets to facilitate their work.Key messagesTo date the role of knowledge brokers in higher education has been poorly defined.In practice, the role is building relationships, training, reviewing and providing hands-on support.The musical analogy helps explain knowledge broker roles as director, choreographer and set designer.Due to the diverse nature of knowledge broker roles, teamwork is recommended.
{"title":"Knowledge Brokerage: The Musical: an analogy for explaining the role of knowledge brokers in a university setting","authors":"Megan Auld, Emmah Doig, S. Bennett","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16397424861558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16397424861558","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Knowledge brokers in higher education are described as requiring a broad range of skills and characteristics, leading to both role conflict and ambiguity. Although existing studies report broad concepts regarding the role of knowledge brokers, the activities that they actually perform to broker knowledge are not systematically reported or impact evaluated.Aims and objectives: This paper aims to summarise the current literature on the role of knowledge brokers and describe this role in a higher education context. In an exploratory study, as two knowledge brokers we recorded our activities within a school of health in a large university setting using the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) categories over a period of nine months. Using this report, we use the analogy of a musical to translate the role of knowledge broker. Considering the knowledge brokerage roles of musical director, set designer, choreographer, costume designer and sound and lighting, we discuss the impact of knowledge brokerage activities on actors relaying their knowledge story to an end-user audience. Knowledge brokers in the higher education context primarily perform activities in four areas: know your cast and crew; train your cast and crew; rehearse and review; and provide hands-on support.Key conclusions: Understanding the role of knowledge brokers may be enhanced by using the analogy of a musical. Due to the diverse nature of these roles, it is recommended that knowledge brokerage in higher education is performed in teams, where knowledge brokers can utilise different skill sets to facilitate their work.Key messagesTo date the role of knowledge brokers in higher education has been poorly defined.In practice, the role is building relationships, training, reviewing and providing hands-on support.The musical analogy helps explain knowledge broker roles as director, choreographer and set designer.Due to the diverse nature of knowledge broker roles, teamwork is recommended.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16397418342227
N. Fitzgerald, P. Cairney
Background: Policymaking environments are multi-centric by necessity and design. Alcohol premises licensing is governed by Scottish legislation, which also allows for local autonomy.Aims and objectives: To describe the obstacles faced by local public health actors in seeking to influence the alcohol premises licensing system in Scotland as an example of local advocacy efforts in multi-centric policymaking.Methods: Snowball sampling identified and recruited 12 public health actors who were actively seeking to influence alcohol premises licensing, along with a national key informant. In-depth interviews (n=13) discussed challenges experienced and perceptions of best strategies for success. Interviews (69m average) were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using an inductive framework approach.Findings: Most interviewees operated in local premises licensing arenas, influencing national legislation only through intermediaries. Challenges to engagement included: unfamiliar conventions, stakeholders and decision-making cultures, resources, data gaps, and licensing boards’ prioritisation of economic growth. Their preferred solution was a strengthening of national legislation to constrain local autonomy, but they adapted their strategies to the challenges faced.Discussion and conclusion: The adoption of a particular objective in national government (a public health objective for alcohol licensing) may not remove the need for effective local advocacy in a multi-centric system. Local policymakers have their own conventions, processes and views on evidence, and successful advocacy may involve diverse strategies and relationship building over time. Practitioners advocating policy change may benefit from a better understanding of prior research on how to bring about such change; scholars of such processes could better engage with this audience.Key messagesA commitment to a policy outcome in national legislation does not guarantee success at local level.In multi-centric policymaking, advocacy is needed at different policy levels.The case of alcohol premises licensing illustrates how different policy centres have their own conventions and priorities.Public health actors described challenges in and bespoke strategies for engaging in their local licensing systems.
{"title":"National objectives, local policymaking: public health efforts to translate national legislation into local policy in Scottish alcohol licensing","authors":"N. Fitzgerald, P. Cairney","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16397418342227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16397418342227","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Policymaking environments are multi-centric by necessity and design. Alcohol premises licensing is governed by Scottish legislation, which also allows for local autonomy.Aims and objectives: To describe the obstacles faced by local public health actors in seeking to influence the alcohol premises licensing system in Scotland as an example of local advocacy efforts in multi-centric policymaking.Methods: Snowball sampling identified and recruited 12 public health actors who were actively seeking to influence alcohol premises licensing, along with a national key informant. In-depth interviews (n=13) discussed challenges experienced and perceptions of best strategies for success. Interviews (69m average) were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using an inductive framework approach.Findings: Most interviewees operated in local premises licensing arenas, influencing national legislation only through intermediaries. Challenges to engagement included: unfamiliar conventions, stakeholders and decision-making cultures, resources, data gaps, and licensing boards’ prioritisation of economic growth. Their preferred solution was a strengthening of national legislation to constrain local autonomy, but they adapted their strategies to the challenges faced.Discussion and conclusion: The adoption of a particular objective in national government (a public health objective for alcohol licensing) may not remove the need for effective local advocacy in a multi-centric system. Local policymakers have their own conventions, processes and views on evidence, and successful advocacy may involve diverse strategies and relationship building over time. Practitioners advocating policy change may benefit from a better understanding of prior research on how to bring about such change; scholars of such processes could better engage with this audience.Key messagesA commitment to a policy outcome in national legislation does not guarantee success at local level.In multi-centric policymaking, advocacy is needed at different policy levels.The case of alcohol premises licensing illustrates how different policy centres have their own conventions and priorities.Public health actors described challenges in and bespoke strategies for engaging in their local licensing systems.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287323","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16445103995426
L. Phillips, Maria Bee Christensen-Strynø, Lisbeth Frølunde
Background: In participatory research approaches, co-researchers and university researchers aim to co-produce and disseminate knowledge across difference in order to contribute to social and practice change as well as research. The approaches often employ arts-based research methods to elicit experiential, embodied, affective, aesthetic ways of knowing. The use of arts-based research in co-production in participatory research is embedded in a contested discursive terrain. Here, it is embroiled in political struggles for legitimacy revolving around what counts as knowledge and whose knowledge counts.Aims and objectives: The aim is to present and illustrate the use of a theoretical framework for analysing the complexities of co-production in the nexus between arts and research – with a focus on the overarching tension between cultivating the collaborative, creative process and producing specific research results. The article maps out the contested discursive terrain of arts-based co-production, and illustrates the use of the theoretical framework in analysis of a participatory research project about dance for people with Parkinson’s disease and their spouses.Methods: The theoretical framework combines Bakhtin’s theory of dialogue, Foucault’s theory of power/knowledge and discourse, Wetherell’s theory of affect and emotion, and work in arts-based research on embodied, affective, aesthetic knowing.Results: The analysis shows how arts-based processes of co-production elicit embodied, emotional, aesthetic knowing and with what consequences for the research-based knowledge and other outputs generated.Discussion and conclusions: Trying to contribute to both research and practice entails navigating in a discursive terrain in which criteria for judging results, outputs and impact are often defined across conflicting discourses.Key messagesThere is a dearth of detailed analyses of the potentials and challenges arising in arts-based co-production.The article offers a theoretical framework for analysing the tension between cultivating collaborative, creative processes and generating specific results.It explores how arts-based co-production elicits embodied, emotional, aesthetic knowing, and with what consequences for the results.
{"title":"Arts-based co-production in participatory research: harnessing creativity in the tension between process and product","authors":"L. Phillips, Maria Bee Christensen-Strynø, Lisbeth Frølunde","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16445103995426","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16445103995426","url":null,"abstract":"Background: In participatory research approaches, co-researchers and university researchers aim to co-produce and disseminate knowledge across difference in order to contribute to social and practice change as well as research. The approaches often employ arts-based research methods to elicit experiential, embodied, affective, aesthetic ways of knowing. The use of arts-based research in co-production in participatory research is embedded in a contested discursive terrain. Here, it is embroiled in political struggles for legitimacy revolving around what counts as knowledge and whose knowledge counts.Aims and objectives: The aim is to present and illustrate the use of a theoretical framework for analysing the complexities of co-production in the nexus between arts and research – with a focus on the overarching tension between cultivating the collaborative, creative process and producing specific research results. The article maps out the contested discursive terrain of arts-based co-production, and illustrates the use of the theoretical framework in analysis of a participatory research project about dance for people with Parkinson’s disease and their spouses.Methods: The theoretical framework combines Bakhtin’s theory of dialogue, Foucault’s theory of power/knowledge and discourse, Wetherell’s theory of affect and emotion, and work in arts-based research on embodied, affective, aesthetic knowing.Results: The analysis shows how arts-based processes of co-production elicit embodied, emotional, aesthetic knowing and with what consequences for the research-based knowledge and other outputs generated.Discussion and conclusions: Trying to contribute to both research and practice entails navigating in a discursive terrain in which criteria for judging results, outputs and impact are often defined across conflicting discourses.Key messagesThere is a dearth of detailed analyses of the potentials and challenges arising in arts-based co-production.The article offers a theoretical framework for analysing the tension between cultivating collaborative, creative processes and generating specific results.It explores how arts-based co-production elicits embodied, emotional, aesthetic knowing, and with what consequences for the results.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85083384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16388976414615
P. Atkinson, Ha Sheard, A. Martindale, T. Solomon, Aleksandra J. Borek, C. Pilbeam
Background: Responses to COVID-19 have invested heavily in science. How this science was used is therefore important. Our work extends existing knowledge on the use of science in the pandemic by capturing scientific advisers’ experiences in real time.Aims and objectives: Our aim was to present generalisable messages on key qualifications or difficulties involved in speaking of ‘following the science’.Methods: Ninety-three interviews with UK scientific advisors and government officials captured their activities and perceptions during the pandemic in real time. We also examined Parliamentary Select Committee transcripts and government documents. This material was analysed for thematic content.Findings and discussion: (1) Many scientists sought guidance from policymakers about their goals, yet the COVID-19 response demonstrated the absence of a clear steer, and a tendency to change course quickly; (2) many scientists did not want to offer policy advice, but rather to provide evidence; and (3) a range of knowledge informed the UK’s pandemic response: we examine which kinds were privileged, and demonstrate the absence of clarity on how government synthesised the different forms of evidence being used.Conclusions: Understanding the reasons for a lack of clarity about policy goals would help us better understand the use of science in policy. Realisation that policy goals sometimes alter rapidly would help us better understand the logistics of scientific advice. Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the options selected. Since the process by which evidence leads to decisions is obscure, policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.Key messagesScientific advisors need to know policy goals, but these can be obscure and changeable.Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the policy selected.Evidence feeds into decisions in obscure ways, so policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.‘Evidence-informed’ policy is a more feasible aim than ‘evidence-based’ policy.
{"title":"How did UK policymaking in the COVID-19 response use science? Evidence from scientific advisers","authors":"P. Atkinson, Ha Sheard, A. Martindale, T. Solomon, Aleksandra J. Borek, C. Pilbeam","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16388976414615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16388976414615","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Responses to COVID-19 have invested heavily in science. How this science was used is therefore important. Our work extends existing knowledge on the use of science in the pandemic by capturing scientific advisers’ experiences in real time.Aims and objectives: Our aim was to present generalisable messages on key qualifications or difficulties involved in speaking of ‘following the science’.Methods: Ninety-three interviews with UK scientific advisors and government officials captured their activities and perceptions during the pandemic in real time. We also examined Parliamentary Select Committee transcripts and government documents. This material was analysed for thematic content.Findings and discussion: (1) Many scientists sought guidance from policymakers about their goals, yet the COVID-19 response demonstrated the absence of a clear steer, and a tendency to change course quickly; (2) many scientists did not want to offer policy advice, but rather to provide evidence; and (3) a range of knowledge informed the UK’s pandemic response: we examine which kinds were privileged, and demonstrate the absence of clarity on how government synthesised the different forms of evidence being used.Conclusions: Understanding the reasons for a lack of clarity about policy goals would help us better understand the use of science in policy. Realisation that policy goals sometimes alter rapidly would help us better understand the logistics of scientific advice. Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the options selected. Since the process by which evidence leads to decisions is obscure, policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.Key messagesScientific advisors need to know policy goals, but these can be obscure and changeable.Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the policy selected.Evidence feeds into decisions in obscure ways, so policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.‘Evidence-informed’ policy is a more feasible aim than ‘evidence-based’ policy.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16420902769508
K. Beckett, T. Deave, T. McBride, A. May, J. Gabbay, Urszula Kapoulas, Adele Long, George A. Warburton, C. Wogan, L. Cox, Julian Thompson, Frank Spencer, D. Kendrick
Background: Evidence regarding the impact of psychological problems on recovery from injury has limited influence on practice. Mindlines show effective practice requires diverse knowledge which is generally socially transmitted.Aims and objectives: Develop and test a method blending patient, practitioner, and research evidence and using Forum Theatre to enable key stakeholders to interact with it. Assess this methods; impact on contributing individuals/groups; on behaviour, practice, and research; mechanisms enabling these changes to occur.Methods: Stage-1: captured patient (n=53), practitioner (n=62), and research/expert (n=3) evidence using interviews, focus groups, literature review; combined these strands using framework analysis and conveyed them in a play. Stage-2: patients (n=32), carers (n=3), practitioners (n=31), and researchers (n=16) attended Forum Theatre workshops where they shared experiences, watched the play, re-enacted elements, and co-produced service improvements. Stage-3: used the Social Impact Framework to analyse study outcome data and establish what changed, how and why.Findings: This approach enhanced individuals’/group knowledge of post-injury psychopathology, confidence in their knowledge, mutual understanding, creativity, attitudes towards knowledge mobilisation, and research. These cognitive, attitudinal, and relational impacts led to multilevel changes in behaviour, practice, and research. Four key mechanisms enabled this research to occur and create impact: diverse knowledge, drama/storytelling, social interaction, actively altering outcomes.Discussion and conclusions: Discourse about poor uptake of scientific evidence focuses on methods to aid translation and implementation; this study shows how mindlines can reframe this ‘problem’ and inform impactful research.EPPIC demonstrated how productive interaction between diverse stakeholders using creative means bridges gaps between evidence, knowledge, and action.Key messagesImproving healthcare practice by means of research can be problematic.Knowledge translation models often neglect healthcare’s complexity and gaps between evidence, knowledge and action.The mindlines model shows how diverse healthcare knowledge is effectively melded, used, and transmitted.Forum Theatre enables key stakeholders to share and co-create knowledge, enhancing mindlines and hence practice.
{"title":"Using Forum Theatre to mobilise knowledge and improve NHS care: the Enhancing Post-injury Psychological Intervention and Care (EPPIC) study","authors":"K. Beckett, T. Deave, T. McBride, A. May, J. Gabbay, Urszula Kapoulas, Adele Long, George A. Warburton, C. Wogan, L. Cox, Julian Thompson, Frank Spencer, D. Kendrick","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16420902769508","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16420902769508","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Evidence regarding the impact of psychological problems on recovery from injury has limited influence on practice. Mindlines show effective practice requires diverse knowledge which is generally socially transmitted.Aims and objectives: Develop and test a method blending patient, practitioner, and research evidence and using Forum Theatre to enable key stakeholders to interact with it. Assess this methods; impact on contributing individuals/groups; on behaviour, practice, and research; mechanisms enabling these changes to occur.Methods: Stage-1: captured patient (n=53), practitioner (n=62), and research/expert (n=3) evidence using interviews, focus groups, literature review; combined these strands using framework analysis and conveyed them in a play. Stage-2: patients (n=32), carers (n=3), practitioners (n=31), and researchers (n=16) attended Forum Theatre workshops where they shared experiences, watched the play, re-enacted elements, and co-produced service improvements. Stage-3: used the Social Impact Framework to analyse study outcome data and establish what changed, how and why.Findings: This approach enhanced individuals’/group knowledge of post-injury psychopathology, confidence in their knowledge, mutual understanding, creativity, attitudes towards knowledge mobilisation, and research. These cognitive, attitudinal, and relational impacts led to multilevel changes in behaviour, practice, and research. Four key mechanisms enabled this research to occur and create impact: diverse knowledge, drama/storytelling, social interaction, actively altering outcomes.Discussion and conclusions: Discourse about poor uptake of scientific evidence focuses on methods to aid translation and implementation; this study shows how mindlines can reframe this ‘problem’ and inform impactful research.EPPIC demonstrated how productive interaction between diverse stakeholders using creative means bridges gaps between evidence, knowledge, and action.Key messagesImproving healthcare practice by means of research can be problematic.Knowledge translation models often neglect healthcare’s complexity and gaps between evidence, knowledge and action.The mindlines model shows how diverse healthcare knowledge is effectively melded, used, and transmitted.Forum Theatre enables key stakeholders to share and co-create knowledge, enhancing mindlines and hence practice.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：