知识不是力量:多中心治理系统中的学习

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Review of Policy Research Pub Date : 2024-04-03 DOI:10.1111/ropr.12606
Pamela Rittelmeyer, Mark Lubell, Meredith Hovis, Tanya Heikkila, Andrea Gerlak, Tara Pozzi
{"title":"知识不是力量:多中心治理系统中的学习","authors":"Pamela Rittelmeyer, Mark Lubell, Meredith Hovis, Tanya Heikkila, Andrea Gerlak, Tara Pozzi","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The link between knowledge and decision‐making in polycentric systems is shaped by the process of collective learning, where policy actors participate in multiple policy forums to acquire, translate, and disseminate knowledge. This article argues that the relationship between learning and participation in polycentric systems differs for actors with executive responsibilities versus specialized staff. Using a mix of quantitative and qualitative data, we show that executive staff are less likely to learn because of their incentives, resources, and position in the system. In contrast, specialized staff are more likely to learn as they form epistemic communities focused on specific policy issues. The different learning experiences of executive versus technical staff contributes to the disjunction between knowledge and power that is a feature of all polycentric systems. Bridging this gap requires institutional arrangements and training to enable the development of trust‐based relationships between decision‐makers, scientists, and other types of specialized knowledge communities.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Knowledge is not power: Learning in polycentric governance systems\",\"authors\":\"Pamela Rittelmeyer, Mark Lubell, Meredith Hovis, Tanya Heikkila, Andrea Gerlak, Tara Pozzi\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ropr.12606\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The link between knowledge and decision‐making in polycentric systems is shaped by the process of collective learning, where policy actors participate in multiple policy forums to acquire, translate, and disseminate knowledge. This article argues that the relationship between learning and participation in polycentric systems differs for actors with executive responsibilities versus specialized staff. Using a mix of quantitative and qualitative data, we show that executive staff are less likely to learn because of their incentives, resources, and position in the system. In contrast, specialized staff are more likely to learn as they form epistemic communities focused on specific policy issues. The different learning experiences of executive versus technical staff contributes to the disjunction between knowledge and power that is a feature of all polycentric systems. Bridging this gap requires institutional arrangements and training to enable the development of trust‐based relationships between decision‐makers, scientists, and other types of specialized knowledge communities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Policy Research\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Policy Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12606\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Policy Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12606","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在多中心系统中,知识与决策之间的联系是由集体学习过程决定的,政策参与者通过参与多个政策论坛来获取、转化和传播知识。本文认为,在多中心系统中,学习与参与之间的关系对于负有行政责任的行动者和专业人员来说是不同的。通过混合使用定量和定性数据,我们表明,由于激励机制、资源和在系统中的地位,行政人员不太可能学习。相比之下,专业人员更有可能学习,因为他们形成了专注于特定政策问题的认识论群体。行政人员与技术人员不同的学习经历造成了知识与权力之间的脱节,而这正是所有多中心系统的一个特点。要弥合这一差距,就需要做出制度安排和开展培训,以便在决策者、科学家和其他类型的专门知识界之间建立基于信任的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Knowledge is not power: Learning in polycentric governance systems
The link between knowledge and decision‐making in polycentric systems is shaped by the process of collective learning, where policy actors participate in multiple policy forums to acquire, translate, and disseminate knowledge. This article argues that the relationship between learning and participation in polycentric systems differs for actors with executive responsibilities versus specialized staff. Using a mix of quantitative and qualitative data, we show that executive staff are less likely to learn because of their incentives, resources, and position in the system. In contrast, specialized staff are more likely to learn as they form epistemic communities focused on specific policy issues. The different learning experiences of executive versus technical staff contributes to the disjunction between knowledge and power that is a feature of all polycentric systems. Bridging this gap requires institutional arrangements and training to enable the development of trust‐based relationships between decision‐makers, scientists, and other types of specialized knowledge communities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
23.80%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The Review of Policy Research (RPR) is an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to the publication of research and analysis examining the politics and policy of science and technology. These may include issues of science policy, environment, resource management, information networks, cultural industries, biotechnology, security and surveillance, privacy, globalization, education, research and innovation, development, intellectual property, health and demographics. The journal encompasses research and analysis on politics and the outcomes and consequences of policy change in domestic and comparative contexts.
期刊最新文献
Unraveling the dynamics of information exchange in governance networks: Opportunity structures in anti‐corruption multi‐stakeholder partnerships Information and expertise in public policy Embracing the politics of transformation: Policy action as “battle‐settlement events” Reputation management in turmoil—An analysis of the clashing narratives in the introduction of a “salmon tax” in Norway The narrative policy framework and institutions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
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
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
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
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