首页 > 最新文献

Evidence & Policy最新文献

英文 中文
Historical knowledge mobilisation in a post-factual era in the United States 美国后事实时代的历史知识动员
IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426421x16328406523829
J. Malin, Dustin Hornbeck
Background: In the US, and conspicuously via social media, we are witnessing an acceleration of what we term historical knowledge mobilisation: increasingly and in various ways, evidence derived from academic historical research is being shared with broader publics. Moreover, evidence-based and false or misleading historical claims are being advanced with an eye toward influencing key decisions and/or impelling social change.Aims and objectives: This exploratory study draws upon Ward’s (2017: 477) ‘framework for knowledge mobilisers’ to facilitate an analysis of what and whose historical knowledge is being shared, and how and why this is happening. It aims to provide information and guidance to support scholars of knowledge mobilisation or evidence use, as well as active historical knowledge mobilisers.Methods: This study sought to identify patterns vis-à-vis historical knowledge mobilisation by applying qualitative media analysis to a set of cases. We attended to content, style, and process of historical knowledge mobilisation.Findings: Three main themes help to explain the historical knowledge mobilisation: (a) correcting or countering a master narrative; (b) real-time correction of historical claims; and (c) contextualising complicated political moments. We also described new ways to disseminate/exchange this knowledge which altogether function to expand access to historical knowledge, but also to competing historical claims.Discussion and conclusions: The trends revealed provide insights into how historical knowledge is being used to justify political aims, and how some academics are using non-traditional means to counter false and misleading claims. Further infrastructural and empirical development is needed to support these efforts.Key messagesHistorical knowledge mobilisation is shifting/accelerating with the growth of new media platforms.Such knowledge is being shared by historians and adjacent academics for three main reasons.Public demand is high, with a window open for such knowledge to motivate bold policy actions.Although some historians have been successful, further infrastructural and empirical development is needed.
背景:在美国,尤其是通过社交媒体,我们见证了我们所说的历史知识动员的加速:越来越多地以各种方式与更广泛的公众分享来自学术历史研究的证据。此外,正在提出以证据为基础的虚假或误导性的历史主张,以期影响关键决策和/或推动社会变革。目的和目标:本探索性研究借鉴了Ward(2017: 477)的“知识动员者框架”,以促进对哪些和谁的历史知识正在被共享的分析,以及如何和为什么会发生这种情况。它旨在提供信息和指导,以支持知识动员或证据使用的学者,以及积极的历史知识动员者。方法:本研究试图通过对一组案例应用定性媒体分析来确定-à-vis历史知识动员的模式。关注历史知识动员的内容、方式和过程。发现:三个主要主题有助于解释历史知识动员:(a)纠正或反驳主要叙述;(b)历史索赔的实时修正;(c)将复杂的政治时刻置于背景之中。我们还描述了传播/交换这些知识的新方法,这些方法不仅扩大了对历史知识的获取,而且也扩大了对相互竞争的历史主张的获取。讨论与结论:这些趋势揭示了历史知识如何被用来为政治目的辩护,以及一些学者如何使用非传统手段来反击虚假和误导性的主张。需要进一步的基础设施和经验发展来支持这些努力。随着新媒体平台的发展,历史知识的流动正在发生转变/加速。历史学家和相关学者分享这些知识主要有三个原因。公众需求很高,这方面的知识为推动大胆的政策行动打开了一扇窗。尽管一些历史学家已经取得了成功,但还需要进一步的基础设施和实证研究。
{"title":"Historical knowledge mobilisation in a post-factual era in the United States","authors":"J. Malin, Dustin Hornbeck","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16328406523829","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16328406523829","url":null,"abstract":"Background: In the US, and conspicuously via social media, we are witnessing an acceleration of what we term historical knowledge mobilisation: increasingly and in various ways, evidence derived from academic historical research is being shared with broader publics. Moreover, evidence-based and false or misleading historical claims are being advanced with an eye toward influencing key decisions and/or impelling social change.Aims and objectives: This exploratory study draws upon Ward’s (2017: 477) ‘framework for knowledge mobilisers’ to facilitate an analysis of what and whose historical knowledge is being shared, and how and why this is happening. It aims to provide information and guidance to support scholars of knowledge mobilisation or evidence use, as well as active historical knowledge mobilisers.Methods: This study sought to identify patterns vis-à-vis historical knowledge mobilisation by applying qualitative media analysis to a set of cases. We attended to content, style, and process of historical knowledge mobilisation.Findings: Three main themes help to explain the historical knowledge mobilisation: (a) correcting or countering a master narrative; (b) real-time correction of historical claims; and (c) contextualising complicated political moments. We also described new ways to disseminate/exchange this knowledge which altogether function to expand access to historical knowledge, but also to competing historical claims.Discussion and conclusions: The trends revealed provide insights into how historical knowledge is being used to justify political aims, and how some academics are using non-traditional means to counter false and misleading claims. Further infrastructural and empirical development is needed to support these efforts.Key messagesHistorical knowledge mobilisation is shifting/accelerating with the growth of new media platforms.Such knowledge is being shared by historians and adjacent academics for three main reasons.Public demand is high, with a window open for such knowledge to motivate bold policy actions.Although some historians have been successful, further infrastructural and empirical development is needed.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286868","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}
引用次数: 2
Policies for evidence: a comparative analysis of Africa’s national evaluation policy landscape 证据政策:非洲国家评价政策格局的比较分析
IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16104826256918
T. Chirau, Caitlin Blaser-Mapitsa, Matodzi M. Amisi
Background: African countries are developing their monitoring and evaluation policies to systematise, structure and institutionalise evaluations and use of evaluative evidence across the government sector. The pace at which evaluations are institutionalised and systematised across African governments is progressing relatively slowly.Aims and objectives: This article offers a comparative analysis of Africa’s national evaluation policy landscape. The article looks at the policies of Zimbabwe, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya (not adopted) and Uganda. To achieve the aim we unpack the different characteristics taken by the national evaluation policies, emerging lessons for countries who wish to develop a national evaluation policy, and key challenges faced by countries with regard to evaluation policy development and implementation. The article draws on both a desktop review and action research approaches from the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results Anglophone Africa to build national evaluation systems across the region. The approach has included peer learning and co-creation of knowledge around public sector evaluation systems.Key conclusions: The national evaluation policies reviewed share certain common features in terms of purpose and composition. They are also struggling with common issues of institutionalising the evaluation system across the public sector. However, there are variations in the countries’ guiding governance frameworks at a national level that shape the nature and content of policies, as well as the ways through which the policies themselves are expected to guide the use of evaluative evidence for decision and policymaking, and programming.
背景:非洲国家正在制定其监测和评价政策,以使整个政府部门的评价和评价证据的使用系统化、结构化和制度化。非洲各国政府将评估制度化和系统化的步伐进展相对缓慢。目的和目标:本文对非洲国家评价政策格局进行了比较分析。这篇文章考察了津巴布韦、南非、尼日利亚、肯尼亚(未被采纳)和乌干达的政策。为了实现这一目标,我们分析了国家评价政策的不同特点,希望制定国家评价政策的国家的新经验,以及各国在评价政策制定和实施方面面临的主要挑战。本文借鉴了非洲英语国家评价与成果学习中心的桌面审查和行动研究方法,在整个地区建立了国家评价系统。该方法包括围绕公共部门评估系统进行同行学习和共同创造知识。关键结论:所审查的国家评价政策在目的和组成方面具有某些共同特点。他们还在努力解决公共部门评估体系制度化的共同问题。然而,各国在国家一级的指导性治理框架存在差异,这些差异决定了政策的性质和内容,以及政策本身如何指导在决策和政策制定以及方案编制中使用评价性证据。
{"title":"Policies for evidence: a comparative analysis of Africa’s national evaluation policy landscape","authors":"T. Chirau, Caitlin Blaser-Mapitsa, Matodzi M. Amisi","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16104826256918","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16104826256918","url":null,"abstract":"Background: African countries are developing their monitoring and evaluation policies to systematise, structure and institutionalise evaluations and use of evaluative evidence across the government sector. The pace at which evaluations are institutionalised and systematised across African governments is progressing relatively slowly.Aims and objectives: This article offers a comparative analysis of Africa’s national evaluation policy landscape. The article looks at the policies of Zimbabwe, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya (not adopted) and Uganda. To achieve the aim we unpack the different characteristics taken by the national evaluation policies, emerging lessons for countries who wish to develop a national evaluation policy, and key challenges faced by countries with regard to evaluation policy development and implementation. The article draws on both a desktop review and action research approaches from the Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results Anglophone Africa to build national evaluation systems across the region. The approach has included peer learning and co-creation of knowledge around public sector evaluation systems.Key conclusions: The national evaluation policies reviewed share certain common features in terms of purpose and composition. They are also struggling with common issues of institutionalising the evaluation system across the public sector. However, there are variations in the countries’ guiding governance frameworks at a national level that shape the nature and content of policies, as well as the ways through which the policies themselves are expected to guide the use of evaluative evidence for decision and policymaking, and programming.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285204","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}
引用次数: 1
A sociological treatment exploring the medical model in relation to the neurodiversity movement with reference to policy and practice 一个社会学治疗探索与神经多样性运动相关的医学模式,参考政策和实践
IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16142770974065
Emily L. Casanova, Cheryl J Widman
Background: The Medical Model of disability focuses on diagnosed conditions. It is used in policy particularly to categorise people. This enables predictions and forecasting about the size of policy needs but tends to homogenise disability representations, assigning a negative evaluation to illness that may be irrespective of patho-anatomical correlates. The Social Model considers disability as imposed by society through attitudes and barriers. The Neurodiversity Model is a type of social and cultural model with biological implications; it states that differences in brain and behaviour lie on a non-pathological spectrum. Critics say this whitewashes lived experience. Policymakers may devalue the Neurodiversity Model’s origins within activist neurodiverse communities. The model that policy and practice decision makers use has fundamental effects on their impacts.Aims and objectives: The Medical and Neurodiversity Models are reviewed in reference to their politicisation as ways to characterise disability, and identity politics. The implications socially and for disability policy and practice and evidence use are considered.Key conclusions: Both models fall short in addressing the needs of the broad community of the disabled, yet both have useful features. We propose the Biological Gradient Model (BGM), which integrates scientific theory while avoiding pathology-based concepts and value-laden judgments concerning ‘deficiency’. Its usefulness is demonstrated; it resolves some of the ambiguity and tensions that exist in the way people with disability are viewed by different groups and treated within policy. It has the potential to reduce issues of partial representation, where the voices of those who cannot self-advocate may be less heard.
背景:残疾的医学模式侧重于诊断条件。它在政策中特别用于对人进行分类。这使得能够预测和预测政策需求的大小,但往往使残疾表征同质化,对可能不考虑病理解剖相关性的疾病进行负面评估。社会模式认为残疾是社会通过态度和障碍强加的。神经多样性模型是一种具有生物学意义的社会和文化模型;它指出,大脑和行为的差异存在于非病理范围内。批评人士说,这是对生活经验的粉饰。政策制定者可能会低估神经多样性模型在活跃的神经多样性社区中的起源。政策和实践决策者使用的模型对其影响具有根本性的影响。目的和目标:将医学和神经多样性模型作为表征残疾和身份政治的方式进行政治化审查。考虑了社会和残疾政策、实践和证据使用的影响。关键结论:这两种模式都无法满足广大残疾人群体的需求,但都有有用的功能。我们提出了生物梯度模型(BGM),它整合了科学理论,同时避免了基于病理学的概念和关于“缺陷”的价值判断。它的有用性得到了证明;它解决了不同群体看待残疾人和政策对待残疾人的方式中存在的一些模棱两可和紧张关系。它有可能减少部分代表权的问题,在这些问题上,那些不能自我辩护的人的声音可能会更少被听到。
{"title":"A sociological treatment exploring the medical model in relation to the neurodiversity movement with reference to policy and practice","authors":"Emily L. Casanova, Cheryl J Widman","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16142770974065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16142770974065","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The Medical Model of disability focuses on diagnosed conditions. It is used in policy particularly to categorise people. This enables predictions and forecasting about the size of policy needs but tends to homogenise disability representations, assigning a negative evaluation to illness that may be irrespective of patho-anatomical correlates. The Social Model considers disability as imposed by society through attitudes and barriers. The Neurodiversity Model is a type of social and cultural model with biological implications; it states that differences in brain and behaviour lie on a non-pathological spectrum. Critics say this whitewashes lived experience. Policymakers may devalue the Neurodiversity Model’s origins within activist neurodiverse communities. The model that policy and practice decision makers use has fundamental effects on their impacts.Aims and objectives: The Medical and Neurodiversity Models are reviewed in reference to their politicisation as ways to characterise disability, and identity politics. The implications socially and for disability policy and practice and evidence use are considered.Key conclusions: Both models fall short in addressing the needs of the broad community of the disabled, yet both have useful features. We propose the Biological Gradient Model (BGM), which integrates scientific theory while avoiding pathology-based concepts and value-laden judgments concerning ‘deficiency’. Its usefulness is demonstrated; it resolves some of the ambiguity and tensions that exist in the way people with disability are viewed by different groups and treated within policy. It has the potential to reduce issues of partial representation, where the voices of those who cannot self-advocate may be less heard.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285588","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}
引用次数: 6
The many faces of disability in evidence for policy and practice: embracing complexity 残疾的诸多方面为政策和实践提供了证据:拥抱复杂性
IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16147909420727
C. Rivas, I. Tomomatsu, D. Gough
Background: This special issue examines the relationship between disability, evidence, and policy.Key points: Several themes cut across the included papers. Despite the development of models of disability that recognise its socially constructed nature, dis/ableism impedes the involvement of people with disability in evidence production and use. The resultant incomplete representations of disability are biased towards its deproblematisation. Existing data often homogenise the heterogeneous. Functioning and impairment categories are used for surveys, research recruitment and policy enactments, that exclude many. Existing data may crudely evidence some systematic inequalities, but the successful and appropriate development and enactment of disability policies requires more contextual data. Categories and labels drawn from a deficit model affect social constructions of identity, and have been used socially and politically to justify the disenfranchisement of people with disability. Well rehearsed within welfare systems, this results in disempowered and devalued objects of policy, and, as described in one Brazilian paper, the systematic breakup of indigenous families. Several studies show the dangers of policy developed without evidence and impact assessments from and with the intended beneficiaries.Conclusions and implications: There is a need to mitigate barriers to inclusive participation, to enable people with disability to collaborate as equals with other policy actors. The combined application of different policy models and ontologies, currently in tension, might better harness their respective strengths and encourage greater transparency and deliberation regarding the flaws inherent in each. Learning should be shared across minority groups.
背景:本期特刊探讨残疾、证据和政策之间的关系。要点:几个主题贯穿了所收录的论文。尽管残疾模型的发展承认其社会建构的性质,但残疾/残疾歧视阻碍了残疾人参与证据的制作和使用。由此产生的对残疾的不完整表述倾向于将其去问题化。现有的数据常常使异质数据同质化。功能和损伤类别用于调查、研究招聘和政策制定,排除了许多类别。现有数据可能粗略地证明了一些系统性的不平等,但成功和适当地制定和颁布残疾政策需要更多的背景数据。从缺陷模型中得出的分类和标签影响着身份的社会建构,并被社会和政治上用来证明剥夺残疾人权利的正当性。在福利制度中,这导致了政策对象的权力被剥夺和贬值,正如一篇巴西论文所描述的那样,土著家庭的系统性解体。几项研究表明,在没有证据的情况下制定的政策以及来自预期受益者和与预期受益者进行的影响评估是危险的。结论和影响:有必要减少包容性参与的障碍,使残疾人能够与其他政策行为者平等合作。目前处于紧张状态的不同政策模型和本体论的联合应用,可能会更好地利用各自的优势,并鼓励对各自固有缺陷进行更大的透明度和审议。学习应该在少数群体之间共享。
{"title":"The many faces of disability in evidence for policy and practice: embracing complexity","authors":"C. Rivas, I. Tomomatsu, D. Gough","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16147909420727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16147909420727","url":null,"abstract":"Background: This special issue examines the relationship between disability, evidence, and policy.Key points: Several themes cut across the included papers. Despite the development of models of disability that recognise its socially constructed nature, dis/ableism impedes the involvement of people with disability in evidence production and use. The resultant incomplete representations of disability are biased towards its deproblematisation. Existing data often homogenise the heterogeneous. Functioning and impairment categories are used for surveys, research recruitment and policy enactments, that exclude many. Existing data may crudely evidence some systematic inequalities, but the successful and appropriate development and enactment of disability policies requires more contextual data. Categories and labels drawn from a deficit model affect social constructions of identity, and have been used socially and politically to justify the disenfranchisement of people with disability. Well rehearsed within welfare systems, this results in disempowered and devalued objects of policy, and, as described in one Brazilian paper, the systematic breakup of indigenous families. Several studies show the dangers of policy developed without evidence and impact assessments from and with the intended beneficiaries.Conclusions and implications: There is a need to mitigate barriers to inclusive participation, to enable people with disability to collaborate as equals with other policy actors. The combined application of different policy models and ontologies, currently in tension, might better harness their respective strengths and encourage greater transparency and deliberation regarding the flaws inherent in each. Learning should be shared across minority groups.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286177","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}
引用次数: 3
Analysts, advocates and applicators: three discourse coalitions of UK evidence and policy 分析者、倡导者和实践者:英国证据和政策的三种话语联盟
IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16112601473449
Jasper Montana, James Wilsdon
Background: Continued growth of the evidence and policy field has prompted calls to consolidate findings in pursuit of a more holistic understanding of theory and practice.Aims and objectives: The aim of this paper is to develop and explore an analytical typology that offers a way to consider the heterogeneity of different actors in UK evidence and policy.Methods: We draw upon a discourse coalitions approach to analyse a series of semi-structured interviews with a cross-section of professionals in the evidence and policy field.Findings: We describe an analytical typology that is composed of three discourse coalitions, each with their own framings of the problems of evidence and policy relations, the practices needed to address these, the organisation of people, and their priorities for future development. These are: the analytical coalition, which typically theorises evidence and policy relations in a way that matches empirical observations; the advocacy coalition, which typically normatively refines and prescribes particular evidence and policy relations; and the application coalition, which typically evaluates contextual conditions and enacts techniques to bring evidence into policy and practice.Discussion and conclusions: We discuss the potential of this analytical lens to inform recognised tensions in evidence and policy relations, and consider how greater awareness of the positioning of individuals within these coalitions may help to foster improved collaboration and consolidation in the field. Ultimately, we note that distinct priorities in the three coalitions signify different visions for progress within the field that need to be negotiated.Key messagesConsolidation of the evidence and policy field requires a recognition of its heterogeneity.We propose three discourse coalitions – analytical, advocacy and application – to describe the field.Each discourse coalition reflects different problem perceptions, people, practices, and priorities.Recognition of personal positioning in the discourse coalitions could help the field’s development.
背景:证据和政策领域的持续增长促使人们呼吁巩固研究结果,以追求对理论和实践的更全面的理解。目的和目标:本文的目的是发展和探索一种分析类型学,提供一种方法来考虑英国证据和政策中不同行为者的异质性。方法:我们利用话语联盟的方法来分析与证据和政策领域的横截面专业人士进行的一系列半结构化访谈。研究结果:我们描述了一个由三个话语联盟组成的分析类型学,每个话语联盟都有自己的证据和政策关系问题框架,解决这些问题所需的实践,人员组织及其未来发展的优先事项。它们是:分析型联盟,通常以与实证观察相匹配的方式将证据和政策关系理论化;倡导联盟,通常规范地提炼和规定特定的证据和政策关系;应用联盟,通常评估环境条件并制定技术,将证据纳入政策和实践。讨论和结论:我们讨论了这种分析视角的潜力,以告知证据和政策关系中公认的紧张关系,并考虑如何提高对这些联盟中个人定位的认识,可能有助于促进该领域的改进合作和巩固。最后,我们注意到,三个联盟的不同优先事项意味着需要谈判的该领域内取得进展的不同愿景。关键信息证据和政策领域的整合需要认识到其异质性。我们提出了三种话语联盟-分析,倡导和应用-来描述这个领域。每个话语联盟反映了不同的问题观念、人、实践和优先事项。认识到话语联盟中的个人定位有助于该领域的发展。
{"title":"Analysts, advocates and applicators: three discourse coalitions of UK evidence and policy","authors":"Jasper Montana, James Wilsdon","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16112601473449","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16112601473449","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Continued growth of the evidence and policy field has prompted calls to consolidate findings in pursuit of a more holistic understanding of theory and practice.Aims and objectives: The aim of this paper is to develop and explore an analytical typology that offers a way to consider the heterogeneity of different actors in UK evidence and policy.Methods: We draw upon a discourse coalitions approach to analyse a series of semi-structured interviews with a cross-section of professionals in the evidence and policy field.Findings: We describe an analytical typology that is composed of three discourse coalitions, each with their own framings of the problems of evidence and policy relations, the practices needed to address these, the organisation of people, and their priorities for future development. These are: the analytical coalition, which typically theorises evidence and policy relations in a way that matches empirical observations; the advocacy coalition, which typically normatively refines and prescribes particular evidence and policy relations; and the application coalition, which typically evaluates contextual conditions and enacts techniques to bring evidence into policy and practice.Discussion and conclusions: We discuss the potential of this analytical lens to inform recognised tensions in evidence and policy relations, and consider how greater awareness of the positioning of individuals within these coalitions may help to foster improved collaboration and consolidation in the field. Ultimately, we note that distinct priorities in the three coalitions signify different visions for progress within the field that need to be negotiated.Key messagesConsolidation of the evidence and policy field requires a recognition of its heterogeneity.We propose three discourse coalitions – analytical, advocacy and application – to describe the field.Each discourse coalition reflects different problem perceptions, people, practices, and priorities.Recognition of personal positioning in the discourse coalitions could help the field’s development.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285215","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}
引用次数: 0
Knowledge translation platforms to support African evidence-informed policies: challenges and progress 支持非洲循证政策的知识翻译平台:挑战与进展
IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16123456824061
J. Adu, Sebastian Gyamfi, E. Martin-Yeboah
Background: An effective health system that ensures availability and access to quality healthcare produces active human capital. Responsive health systems are the results of evidence-informed policy practice which is mostly seen in advanced countries. Deficiencies in most African health systems are due to the ineffective use of health research to reinforce public health policymaking.Key points for discussion: This paper discusses the progress and challenges faced by Knowledge Translation Platforms (KTPs) in African evidence-informed policymaking among healthcare systems. Large gaps exist between research evidence and policymaking in Africa due to inefficiencies of the KTPs and the lack of political will to use sound ethical research outcomes to inform health policies. Activities of KTPs in Africa are most often curtailed by many obstacles, but not limited to the following; lack of infrastructure, human and financial capital, high turnover among top-level policymakers, and lack of collaboration between academia and industry.Conclusions and implications: Evidence informed policymaking is crucial to the achievement of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.Key messagesThere is the need for effective translation of scientific knowledge into action where health systems could interrelate closely with health research organisations to create and use available evidence to ensure quality health outcomes in developing nations, including Africa. KTPs are essential players in making this a reality in Africa.
背景:一个有效的卫生系统,确保提供和获得高质量的卫生保健产生活跃的人力资本。响应性卫生系统是主要见于发达国家的循证政策实践的结果。大多数非洲卫生系统的缺陷是由于没有有效地利用卫生研究来加强公共卫生决策。讨论要点:本文讨论了知识翻译平台(KTPs)在非洲卫生保健系统循证决策中所面临的进展和挑战。非洲的研究证据与政策制定之间存在巨大差距,这是由于ktp效率低下以及缺乏利用合理的伦理研究成果为卫生政策提供信息的政治意愿。非洲发展方案的活动最经常受到许多障碍的限制,但不限于以下方面:缺乏基础设施、人力和金融资本、高层决策者的高流动率以及学术界和产业界之间缺乏合作。结论和影响:循证决策对于到2030年实现与卫生相关的可持续发展目标至关重要。关键信息需要将科学知识有效地转化为行动,卫生系统可以与卫生研究组织密切联系,创造和使用现有证据,以确保包括非洲在内的发展中国家的高质量卫生结果。ktp是在非洲实现这一目标的关键参与者。
{"title":"Knowledge translation platforms to support African evidence-informed policies: challenges and progress","authors":"J. Adu, Sebastian Gyamfi, E. Martin-Yeboah","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16123456824061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16123456824061","url":null,"abstract":"Background: An effective health system that ensures availability and access to quality healthcare produces active human capital. Responsive health systems are the results of evidence-informed policy practice which is mostly seen in advanced countries. Deficiencies in most African health systems are due to the ineffective use of health research to reinforce public health policymaking.Key points for discussion: This paper discusses the progress and challenges faced by Knowledge Translation Platforms (KTPs) in African evidence-informed policymaking among healthcare systems. Large gaps exist between research evidence and policymaking in Africa due to inefficiencies of the KTPs and the lack of political will to use sound ethical research outcomes to inform health policies. Activities of KTPs in Africa are most often curtailed by many obstacles, but not limited to the following; lack of infrastructure, human and financial capital, high turnover among top-level policymakers, and lack of collaboration between academia and industry.Conclusions and implications: Evidence informed policymaking is crucial to the achievement of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.Key messagesThere is the need for effective translation of scientific knowledge into action where health systems could interrelate closely with health research organisations to create and use available evidence to ensure quality health outcomes in developing nations, including Africa. KTPs are essential players in making this a reality in Africa.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285272","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}
引用次数: 1
Exploring a non-universal understanding of waged work and its consequences: sketching out employment activation for people with an intellectual disability 探索对有偿工作及其后果的非普遍理解:勾勒出智力残疾人士的就业激活
IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16140992285741
Kim Dearing
Background: Supported Employment has been advocated for by successive governments and policymakers alike as the best approach to employment inclusion for people with an intellectual disability who are in receipt of social care. Yet only 5.2% of this demographic are in any form of work and these numbers have been persistently stagnant for many years.Aims: This study aimed to explore the employment landscape and grapple with the intersecting layers of policy consequence for people who have an intellectual disability, and are in receipt of social care, who wish to engage with work preparation employment support.Methods: As an active participant in the field, this study was ethnographic and conducted at a new job club that had been established in England. In addition, three further sites of complementary data were explored in Wales, through interviews and focus groups.Findings: This study demonstrates that there is a mismatch between how evidence informs policy, and how funding is allocated to support with work preparation. Those unable to secure Supported Employment services are, instead, navigating extreme employment disadvantage and scant opportunities, in the open labour market. Further, bound up in this analysis is evidence of a non-universal understanding of waged work where any form of financial remuneration is welcome.Discussion and conclusion: Overall, with a mismatch between evidence that informs policy, policy rhetoric, realistic employment prospects, and available work, without a fundamental employment policy shift, the very low employment rates within this demographic will not increase.
背景:支持就业一直被历届政府和政策制定者所倡导,作为接受社会照顾的智力残疾人士就业包容的最佳途径。然而,这一人口中只有5.2%的人有任何形式的工作,这些数字多年来一直停滞不前。目的:本研究旨在探讨智力残疾人士的就业前景,并努力解决政策后果的交叉层面,这些人正在接受社会关怀,希望参与工作准备就业支持。方法:作为该领域的积极参与者,本研究采用民族志方法,并在英国成立的新工作俱乐部进行。此外,通过访谈和焦点小组,还在威尔士探索了另外三个补充数据的地点。研究结果:本研究表明,在证据如何为政策提供信息与如何分配资金以支持工作准备之间存在不匹配。相反,那些无法获得支持就业服务的人在开放的劳动力市场上面临极端的就业劣势和缺乏机会。此外,与这一分析联系在一起的证据表明,人们对任何形式的财务报酬都是受欢迎的有偿工作的理解并不普遍。讨论和结论:总体而言,由于政策证据、政策言论、现实就业前景和可用工作之间的不匹配,如果没有根本性的就业政策转变,这一人口中非常低的就业率将不会增加。
{"title":"Exploring a non-universal understanding of waged work and its consequences: sketching out employment activation for people with an intellectual disability","authors":"Kim Dearing","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16140992285741","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16140992285741","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Supported Employment has been advocated for by successive governments and policymakers alike as the best approach to employment inclusion for people with an intellectual disability who are in receipt of social care. Yet only 5.2% of this demographic are in any form of work and these numbers have been persistently stagnant for many years.Aims: This study aimed to explore the employment landscape and grapple with the intersecting layers of policy consequence for people who have an intellectual disability, and are in receipt of social care, who wish to engage with work preparation employment support.Methods: As an active participant in the field, this study was ethnographic and conducted at a new job club that had been established in England. In addition, three further sites of complementary data were explored in Wales, through interviews and focus groups.Findings: This study demonstrates that there is a mismatch between how evidence informs policy, and how funding is allocated to support with work preparation. Those unable to secure Supported Employment services are, instead, navigating extreme employment disadvantage and scant opportunities, in the open labour market. Further, bound up in this analysis is evidence of a non-universal understanding of waged work where any form of financial remuneration is welcome.Discussion and conclusion: Overall, with a mismatch between evidence that informs policy, policy rhetoric, realistic employment prospects, and available work, without a fundamental employment policy shift, the very low employment rates within this demographic will not increase.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285457","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}
引用次数: 5
Taking a policy process approach to illuminate the political nature of disability policymaking 采用政策过程的方法来阐明残疾政策制定的政治性质
IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16145933430109
Leanne S. Giordono
Background: In an era of increased polarisation, identity politics and growing reliance on using evidence to make disability policy decisions ‐ evidence-based policymaking ‐ how much do we know about the process by which disability policy decisions are made and the use of evidence therein?Aims and objectives: The objective of this Practice Paper is to introduce key policy process frameworks, highlight connections between models of disability and the policy process, and identify opportunities for disability scholars, analysts and advocates to use a policy process approach.Key conclusions: Wider use of policy process frameworks can enhance our understanding of the political nature of the disability policy decision-making process and conditions that influence how evidence is used to inform disability policy.
背景:在一个日益两极分化、身份政治和越来越依赖于使用证据来制定残疾政策决策的时代——基于证据的政策制定——我们对制定残疾政策决策的过程以及其中证据的使用了解多少?目的和目标:本实践文件的目的是介绍关键的政策过程框架,强调残疾模型与政策过程之间的联系,并为残疾学者、分析师和倡导者确定使用政策过程方法的机会。主要结论:更广泛地使用政策进程框架可以增强我们对残疾政策决策过程的政治性质以及影响如何利用证据为残疾政策提供信息的条件的理解。
{"title":"Taking a policy process approach to illuminate the political nature of disability policymaking","authors":"Leanne S. Giordono","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16145933430109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16145933430109","url":null,"abstract":"Background: In an era of increased polarisation, identity politics and growing reliance on using evidence to make disability policy decisions ‐ evidence-based policymaking ‐ how much do we know about the process by which disability policy decisions are made and the use of evidence therein?Aims and objectives: The objective of this Practice Paper is to introduce key policy process frameworks, highlight connections between models of disability and the policy process, and identify opportunities for disability scholars, analysts and advocates to use a policy process approach.Key conclusions: Wider use of policy process frameworks can enhance our understanding of the political nature of the disability policy decision-making process and conditions that influence how evidence is used to inform disability policy.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66285758","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}
引用次数: 1
Epistemological deliberation: the challenges of producing evidence-based guidelines on lifestyle habits 认识论审议:生产基于证据的生活习惯指南的挑战
IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16149619907286
H. Lagerlöf, T. Zuiderent-Jerak, M. Sager
Background: Promotion of healthy behaviour is increasingly highlighted worldwide as a way to improve public health, prevent disease incidence, and decrease long-term costs for healthcare. In Sweden the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) used the well-established format of national guidelines to facilitate a more widespread use of approaches for promotion of healthy lifestyle habits in healthcare.Aims and objectives: The aim of this case study was to explore the tensions between public health knowledge and the tenets of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the creation of national guidelines on lifestyle habits.Methods: Based on data from interviews with guideline professionals and the collected documents of the national guidelines, we examine how NBHW negotiated the conflicts between public health knowledge and the format of national guidelines. An analytical model based on approaches from the sociology of standardisation is used to explore the ramifications of these negotiations.Findings: In line with findings in the sociology of standardisation, we show how conflicts between public health knowledge and the format of national guidelines result in both having to yield on certain points. This, we claim, results in compromise, but perhaps also compromised notions of validity and causality.Discussion and conclusion: This case offers important learning about the general compatibility of public health and currently dominant methods of EBM. Important crossroads are outlined, concerning how validity and causality are configured in public health guidelines and how these require extensive epistemological deliberation.Key messagesEpistemological commitments on validity and causality within public health have been compromised to fit the format of national guidelines;Similarly, the format of national guidelines has been subordinated to the public health valuation of risk assessments;Integrating public health into an EBM format requires extensive epistemological deliberation.
背景:作为改善公共卫生、预防疾病发病率和降低医疗保健长期成本的一种方式,促进健康行为在世界范围内日益受到重视。在瑞典,国家卫生和福利委员会(NBHW)采用了公认的国家准则格式,以促进在卫生保健领域更广泛地采用促进健康生活习惯的方法。目的和目标:本案例研究的目的是探讨公共卫生知识与循证医学(EBM)原则在制定国家生活习惯指南方面的紧张关系。方法:基于对指南专业人员的访谈数据和收集的国家指南文件,我们研究了NBHW如何处理公共卫生知识与国家指南格式之间的冲突。一个基于标准化社会学方法的分析模型被用来探索这些谈判的后果。研究结果:与标准化社会学的研究结果一致,我们展示了公共卫生知识与国家指南格式之间的冲突如何导致两者在某些点上不得不让步。我们声称,这导致了妥协,但也许也妥协了有效性和因果关系的概念。讨论与结论:本案例提供了关于公共卫生和目前主要循证医学方法的一般兼容性的重要学习。概述了重要的十字路口,涉及如何在公共卫生指南中配置有效性和因果关系,以及这些如何需要广泛的认识论审议。关键信息公共卫生领域关于有效性和因果关系的认识论承诺已被妥协,以适应国家指南的格式;同样,国家指南的格式已从属于风险评估的公共卫生评估;将公共卫生纳入循证医学格式需要广泛的认识论审议。
{"title":"Epistemological deliberation: the challenges of producing evidence-based guidelines on lifestyle habits","authors":"H. Lagerlöf, T. Zuiderent-Jerak, M. Sager","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16149619907286","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16149619907286","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Promotion of healthy behaviour is increasingly highlighted worldwide as a way to improve public health, prevent disease incidence, and decrease long-term costs for healthcare. In Sweden the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) used the well-established format of national guidelines to facilitate a more widespread use of approaches for promotion of healthy lifestyle habits in healthcare.Aims and objectives: The aim of this case study was to explore the tensions between public health knowledge and the tenets of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the creation of national guidelines on lifestyle habits.Methods: Based on data from interviews with guideline professionals and the collected documents of the national guidelines, we examine how NBHW negotiated the conflicts between public health knowledge and the format of national guidelines. An analytical model based on approaches from the sociology of standardisation is used to explore the ramifications of these negotiations.Findings: In line with findings in the sociology of standardisation, we show how conflicts between public health knowledge and the format of national guidelines result in both having to yield on certain points. This, we claim, results in compromise, but perhaps also compromised notions of validity and causality.Discussion and conclusion: This case offers important learning about the general compatibility of public health and currently dominant methods of EBM. Important crossroads are outlined, concerning how validity and causality are configured in public health guidelines and how these require extensive epistemological deliberation.Key messagesEpistemological commitments on validity and causality within public health have been compromised to fit the format of national guidelines;Similarly, the format of national guidelines has been subordinated to the public health valuation of risk assessments;Integrating public health into an EBM format requires extensive epistemological deliberation.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286337","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}
引用次数: 3
Using evidence in shaping disability policy in Romania: the case of sheltered workshops 利用证据制定罗马尼亚的残疾政策:庇护工场的案例
IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16146970604672
Claudia Petrescu, Mihaela Lambru
Background: The importance of using evidence to inform the policymaking process has been well established in the literature and practice. In Western countries evidence-based policy (EBP) is already accepted and implemented in many policy areas, including disability policy. In Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) the interest in EBP (evidence-based policy) is new and limited, hampered in many aspects by the regional specificity of the public administration and welfare services reform.Aims and objectives: The present article aims to explore the development of evidence-based disability employment policy in Romania, in a specific area of work integration: sheltered workshops.Methods: The article draws on the findings of extensive research on sheltered workshops that included multiple research methods, such as public policy analysis, social documents analysis, and secondary data analysis of quantitative and qualitative data.Findings: A number of issues concerning the implementation of evidence-based disability policy in Romania have been identified. Some of these issues are related to the administrative and policy capacity of the government. Others are linked to the limitation of the advocacy capacity of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) active in the disability area, or to the weak presence of the academic/research community in the disability policy forum.Discussion and conclusions: There is a limited knowledge of how evidence-based disability policy is developed in CEE countries. This article will emphasise the role of the sheltered workshops in shaping the policy solutions in the area of work integration for persons with disabilities. The article will contribute to better understanding of the disability policy reform, looking closely at how the evidence is built and used within the disability policy process.
背景:在文献和实践中,利用证据为决策过程提供信息的重要性已经得到了很好的确立。在西方国家,循证政策(EBP)已被许多政策领域所接受和实施,其中包括残疾政策。在中欧和东欧(CEE),对循证政策的兴趣是新的和有限的,在许多方面受到公共行政和福利服务改革的区域特殊性的阻碍。目的和目标:本文旨在探讨罗马尼亚在工作融合的特定领域:庇护车间中循证残疾人就业政策的发展。方法:采用公共政策分析、社会文献分析、二手资料定量分析和定性分析等多种研究方法,对庇护工场进行了广泛的研究。研究结果:确定了罗马尼亚实施循证残疾政策的一些问题。其中一些问题与政府的行政和政策能力有关。另一些则与活跃在残疾领域的民间社会组织(cso)的宣传能力有限有关,或者与学术/研究界在残疾政策论坛中的弱势存在有关。讨论和结论:关于中东欧国家如何制定循证残疾政策的知识有限。本文将强调庇护工场在制定残疾人工作融合领域的政策解决办法方面的作用。本文将有助于更好地理解残疾政策改革,密切关注如何在残疾政策过程中建立和使用证据。
{"title":"Using evidence in shaping disability policy in Romania: the case of sheltered workshops","authors":"Claudia Petrescu, Mihaela Lambru","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16146970604672","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16146970604672","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The importance of using evidence to inform the policymaking process has been well established in the literature and practice. In Western countries evidence-based policy (EBP) is already accepted and implemented in many policy areas, including disability policy. In Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) the interest in EBP (evidence-based policy) is new and limited, hampered in many aspects by the regional specificity of the public administration and welfare services reform.Aims and objectives: The present article aims to explore the development of evidence-based disability employment policy in Romania, in a specific area of work integration: sheltered workshops.Methods: The article draws on the findings of extensive research on sheltered workshops that included multiple research methods, such as public policy analysis, social documents analysis, and secondary data analysis of quantitative and qualitative data.Findings: A number of issues concerning the implementation of evidence-based disability policy in Romania have been identified. Some of these issues are related to the administrative and policy capacity of the government. Others are linked to the limitation of the advocacy capacity of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) active in the disability area, or to the weak presence of the academic/research community in the disability policy forum.Discussion and conclusions: There is a limited knowledge of how evidence-based disability policy is developed in CEE countries. This article will emphasise the role of the sheltered workshops in shaping the policy solutions in the area of work integration for persons with disabilities. The article will contribute to better understanding of the disability policy reform, looking closely at how the evidence is built and used within the disability policy process.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66286370","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}
引用次数: 1
期刊
Evidence & Policy
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1