评估美国州政府对证据的使用:联合分析

IF 6.1 1区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Public Administration Review Pub Date : 2024-11-17 DOI:10.1111/puar.13903
Chengxin Xu, Yuan (Daniel) Cheng, Shuping Wang, Weston Merrick, Patrick Carter
{"title":"评估美国州政府对证据的使用:联合分析","authors":"Chengxin Xu, Yuan (Daniel) Cheng, Shuping Wang, Weston Merrick, Patrick Carter","doi":"10.1111/puar.13903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evidence-based practice (EBP) has become a global public management movement to improve constituents' lives through government decision making. However, how civil servants' decisions are influenced by scientific evidence remains unanswered. In this study, we answer two related research questions: (1) How do different elements of evidence impact civil servants' program preferences? (2) How does the rating of evidence influence their program preferences? Collaborating with major governmental and nonprofit agencies that promote the use of EBPs, we invited civil servants from three U.S. state governments to a paired conjoint experiment. Our analysis shows that: Civil servants prefer programs with evidence that is: (1) from their own states; (2) more recent; (3) shows positive effect on people from different demographic groups; and is (4) created by independent government teams and university research teams. We also find the “evidence-based” rating drives civil servants' preferences toward evidence with higher internal validity.","PeriodicalId":48431,"journal":{"name":"Public Administration Review","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating use of evidence in U.S. state governments: A conjoint analysis\",\"authors\":\"Chengxin Xu, Yuan (Daniel) Cheng, Shuping Wang, Weston Merrick, Patrick Carter\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/puar.13903\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Evidence-based practice (EBP) has become a global public management movement to improve constituents' lives through government decision making. However, how civil servants' decisions are influenced by scientific evidence remains unanswered. In this study, we answer two related research questions: (1) How do different elements of evidence impact civil servants' program preferences? (2) How does the rating of evidence influence their program preferences? Collaborating with major governmental and nonprofit agencies that promote the use of EBPs, we invited civil servants from three U.S. state governments to a paired conjoint experiment. Our analysis shows that: Civil servants prefer programs with evidence that is: (1) from their own states; (2) more recent; (3) shows positive effect on people from different demographic groups; and is (4) created by independent government teams and university research teams. We also find the “evidence-based” rating drives civil servants' preferences toward evidence with higher internal validity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Administration Review\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Administration Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13903\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Administration Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13903","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

循证实践(EBP)已成为一场全球性的公共管理运动,旨在通过政府决策改善选民的生活。然而,公务员的决策如何受到科学证据的影响仍是一个未解之谜。在本研究中,我们将回答两个相关的研究问题:(1) 不同的证据要素如何影响公务员的项目偏好?(2)证据评级如何影响公务员的计划偏好?我们与推广使用 EBPs 的主要政府机构和非营利机构合作,邀请来自美国三个州政府的公务员参加配对联合实验。我们的分析表明公务员们更青睐有以下证据的项目:(1)来自他们自己的州;(2)较新;(3)对不同人口群体的人有积极影响;(4)由独立的政府团队和大学研究团队创建。我们还发现,"基于证据 "的评级促使公务员倾向于选择内部有效性更高的证据。
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
Evaluating use of evidence in U.S. state governments: A conjoint analysis
Evidence-based practice (EBP) has become a global public management movement to improve constituents' lives through government decision making. However, how civil servants' decisions are influenced by scientific evidence remains unanswered. In this study, we answer two related research questions: (1) How do different elements of evidence impact civil servants' program preferences? (2) How does the rating of evidence influence their program preferences? Collaborating with major governmental and nonprofit agencies that promote the use of EBPs, we invited civil servants from three U.S. state governments to a paired conjoint experiment. Our analysis shows that: Civil servants prefer programs with evidence that is: (1) from their own states; (2) more recent; (3) shows positive effect on people from different demographic groups; and is (4) created by independent government teams and university research teams. We also find the “evidence-based” rating drives civil servants' preferences toward evidence with higher internal validity.
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
Public Administration Review
Public Administration Review PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
10.80%
发文量
130
期刊介绍: Public Administration Review (PAR), a bi-monthly professional journal, has held its position as the premier outlet for public administration research, theory, and practice for 75 years. Published for the American Society for Public Administration,TM/SM, it uniquely serves both academics and practitioners in the public sector. PAR features articles that identify and analyze current trends, offer a factual basis for decision-making, stimulate discussion, and present leading literature in an easily accessible format. Covering a diverse range of topics and featuring expert book reviews, PAR is both exciting to read and an indispensable resource in the field.
期刊最新文献
First impressions: An analysis of professional stereotypes and their impact on sector attraction Evaluating use of evidence in U.S. state governments: A conjoint analysis How scholars can support government analytics: Combining employee surveys with more administrative data sources towards a better understanding of how government functions Public values and sector service delivery preferences: Public preferences on contracting from simple to complex human services Information for Contributors
×
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