在美国联邦决策中使用研究证据:关于阶段内混合方法的反思性报告。

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evaluation and Program Planning Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102469
{"title":"在美国联邦决策中使用研究证据:关于阶段内混合方法的反思性报告。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The policymaking process is largely opaque, especially regarding the actual writing of the policy. To attempt to better understand this complex process, we utilized mixed methods in our evaluation of an intervention. However, the process of mixing methods can be messy, and thus may require recalibration during the evaluation itself. Yet, in comparison to reporting results, relatively little attention is paid to the effects of mixing methods on the evaluation process. In this article, we take a reflexive approach to reporting a mixed methods evaluation of an intervention on the use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking. We focus on the research process in a qualitative coding team, and the effects of mixing methods on that process. Additionally, we report in general terms how to interpret multinomial logistic regressions, an underused analysis type applicable to many evaluations. Thus, this reflexive piece contributes (1) findings from evaluation of the intervention on the policymaking process, (2) an example of mixing methods leading to unexpected findings and future directions, (3) a report about the evaluation process itself, and (4) a tutorial for those new to multinomial logistic regressions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking: A reflexive report on intra-stage mixed methods\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102469\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The policymaking process is largely opaque, especially regarding the actual writing of the policy. To attempt to better understand this complex process, we utilized mixed methods in our evaluation of an intervention. However, the process of mixing methods can be messy, and thus may require recalibration during the evaluation itself. Yet, in comparison to reporting results, relatively little attention is paid to the effects of mixing methods on the evaluation process. In this article, we take a reflexive approach to reporting a mixed methods evaluation of an intervention on the use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking. We focus on the research process in a qualitative coding team, and the effects of mixing methods on that process. Additionally, we report in general terms how to interpret multinomial logistic regressions, an underused analysis type applicable to many evaluations. Thus, this reflexive piece contributes (1) findings from evaluation of the intervention on the policymaking process, (2) an example of mixing methods leading to unexpected findings and future directions, (3) a report about the evaluation process itself, and (4) a tutorial for those new to multinomial logistic regressions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation and Program Planning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation and Program Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718924000715\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation and Program Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718924000715","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

政策制定过程在很大程度上是不透明的,尤其是政策的实际制定过程。为了更好地理解这一复杂的过程,我们在对一项干预措施进行评估时采用了混合方法。然而,混合方法的过程可能会比较混乱,因此在评估过程中可能需要重新校准。然而,与报告结果相比,人们很少关注混合方法对评估过程的影响。在本文中,我们采用了一种反思性的方法来报告对美国联邦决策中使用研究证据的干预措施的混合方法评估。我们的重点是定性编码小组的研究过程,以及混合方法对这一过程的影响。此外,我们还概括性地报告了如何解释多项式逻辑回归,这是一种未被充分利用的分析类型,适用于许多评估。因此,这篇反思性文章的贡献在于:(1) 对决策过程干预的评估结果;(2) 一个混合方法导致意想不到的结果和未来方向的例子;(3) 关于评估过程本身的报告;(4) 为初学多项式逻辑回归的人提供的教程。
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
Use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking: A reflexive report on intra-stage mixed methods

The policymaking process is largely opaque, especially regarding the actual writing of the policy. To attempt to better understand this complex process, we utilized mixed methods in our evaluation of an intervention. However, the process of mixing methods can be messy, and thus may require recalibration during the evaluation itself. Yet, in comparison to reporting results, relatively little attention is paid to the effects of mixing methods on the evaluation process. In this article, we take a reflexive approach to reporting a mixed methods evaluation of an intervention on the use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking. We focus on the research process in a qualitative coding team, and the effects of mixing methods on that process. Additionally, we report in general terms how to interpret multinomial logistic regressions, an underused analysis type applicable to many evaluations. Thus, this reflexive piece contributes (1) findings from evaluation of the intervention on the policymaking process, (2) an example of mixing methods leading to unexpected findings and future directions, (3) a report about the evaluation process itself, and (4) a tutorial for those new to multinomial logistic regressions.

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
Evaluation and Program Planning
Evaluation and Program Planning SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Evaluation and Program Planning is based on the principle that the techniques and methods of evaluation and planning transcend the boundaries of specific fields and that relevant contributions to these areas come from people representing many different positions, intellectual traditions, and interests. In order to further the development of evaluation and planning, we publish articles from the private and public sectors in a wide range of areas: organizational development and behavior, training, planning, human resource development, health and mental, social services, mental retardation, corrections, substance abuse, and education.
期刊最新文献
Anticipatory evaluation. How to incorporate an anticipatory technique into a theory-driven evaluation process. Results of application in a case study. What evaluation criteria are used in policy evaluation research: A cross-field literature review A program evaluation of the new choices workforce development program: An appreciative inquiry approach The Problems (and possible solutions) of assessing risk, race and recidivism in long operating drug treatment courts A theoretical framework to companies value creation through a systematic review of intangibles’ management
×
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