Evidence & Policy最新文献

Background: We explore the feasibility of applying methods of participatory codesign to collaborative service development with community-led youth diversion programmes. Collaborative partnerships can support wealth redistribution and community mobilisation, a goal of governments aiming to implement equity-focused policy. There is little systematic exploration of methods aiming to structure the relationship between government and community-led programmes as part of youth criminal-legal diversion efforts.

Methods: We use case study methodology to assess the feasibility and impact of a curriculum codesign approach between a university research team and two community-led organisations providing diversion services through a county juvenile court. The codesign method was informed by participatory design and use of research evidence frameworks.

Findings: The analysis focuses on the feasibility of the approach from the perspective of the university research team and community organisations as well as how well the approach successfully navigated critical components of participatory process, including shared power, deference to community vision and values, and a valued end product. We conclude that the approach was generally feasible as a quality improvement strategy and well-received by the community-led organisations.

Discussion and conclusions: Codesign is a promising strategy for reconciling public administration and health equity goals. The approach used in this case study adds to a small literature on methods of using codesign as a quality improvement process with applications for government contracting and monitoring, programme development and capacity-building.

Background: Use of research evidence in policy decisions is under-researched. Especially, there is a need for more research in countries with different forms of government than bicameral legislatures.

Aims and objectives: This article examines the impact of occupational safety and health (OSH) research on decision-makers in a tripartite unicameral parliamentary system (legislature and agreements). More specifically, we identify and discuss information acquisition and types of research use in policy decisions.

Methods: Using both semi-structured and structured questions, we conducted 30 interviews distributed evenly within three groups of elite political actors: elected members of parliament; top-level public administrators; and social partner politicians. Analysis and reporting were subject to investigator triangulation.

Findings: The three groups of elite political actors acquire information about OSH issues from different sources. The most important are: interest groups, networks and internal specialists. Findings show that elite actors generally use research knowledge conceptually and instrumentally, and to a lesser degree strategically and tactically. Many types of information influence politicians. They mostly perceive themselves as initiators of new research. The social partners primarily perceive themselves as users of new research results to initiate change and influence political decisions.

Discussion and conclusion: How and when research knowledge is used differs between the three groups. It is important for researchers to tailor research communication to the particular needs of different stakeholders and interact directly with the elite actors and indirectly through lower level specialists from stakeholder organisations, and gain exposure through external sources such as the press and social media.

Background: The academic impact agenda and evidence-informed policy movement have formed dynamic incentives for engagement between universities and local authorities. Yet, in the competitive higher education landscape, research-intensive universities frequently gravitate towards global rather than local impacts, while local government resources are diminished. In this context, how can universities and councils collaborate effectively to inform solutions to complex policy issues?

Aims and objectives: This paper draws on data from a Review of Collaboration between researchers at the University of Leeds and officers at Leeds City Council, which explored factors that enable and constrain research-policy engagement. Where limitations of linear models of research-policy interaction are well documented, we consider how a 'community of practice' (CoP) approach might offer insights for accelerating civic knowledge exchange.

Methods: A CoP lens was applied in analysing data from a mapping exercise, survey and semi-structured interviews involving academics and council officers.

Findings: Examining research-policy engagement in terms of the 'domain', 'community' and 'practice' constituents of CoPs highlights the significance of interpersonal connections in forging 'boundary-crossing' collaborations that have spurred innovation in the city. Academics and officers commonly advocated enhanced inter-organisational processes whereby relationality is supported institutionally. Proposals are encapsulated in a model that conceptualises civic collaboration as a series of domain-specific CoPs supported by an inter-sectoral CoP performing vital 'boundary bridging' functions.

Discussion and conclusions: Drawing on experiences from one English city, we advance a framework which offers promising insights into integration of organisational and relational facilitators of research-policy partnerships in responding to municipal policy challenges.