知识中介是否有利于循证政策?对现有知识的回顾和未来研究的议程

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Policy and Politics Pub Date : 2020-04-01 DOI:10.1332/030557319x15740848311069
E. MacKillop, Sarah Quarmby, James Downe
{"title":"知识中介是否有利于循证政策?对现有知识的回顾和未来研究的议程","authors":"E. MacKillop, Sarah Quarmby, James Downe","doi":"10.1332/030557319x15740848311069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The claim that evidence-based policy (EBP) produces better outcomes has gained increasing support over the last three decades. Knowledge brokering (KB) is seen as a way to achieve improved policymaking and governments worldwide are investing significant resources in KB initiatives. It is therefore important to understand the range of these activities and to investigate whether and how they facilitate EBP. This article critically reviews the extant literature on KB. It identifies six important limitations: the existence of multiple definitions of KB; a lack of theory-based empirical analysis; a neglect of knowledge brokering organisations; insufficient research on KB in social policy; limited analysis of impact and effectiveness; and a lack of attention to the role played by politics. The paper proposes an agenda for future research that bridges disciplinary boundaries in order to address these gaps and contribute new insights into the politics of evidence use.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"53 1","pages":"335-353"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does knowledge brokering facilitate evidence-based policy? A review of existing knowledge and an agenda for future research\",\"authors\":\"E. MacKillop, Sarah Quarmby, James Downe\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/030557319x15740848311069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The claim that evidence-based policy (EBP) produces better outcomes has gained increasing support over the last three decades. Knowledge brokering (KB) is seen as a way to achieve improved policymaking and governments worldwide are investing significant resources in KB initiatives. It is therefore important to understand the range of these activities and to investigate whether and how they facilitate EBP. This article critically reviews the extant literature on KB. It identifies six important limitations: the existence of multiple definitions of KB; a lack of theory-based empirical analysis; a neglect of knowledge brokering organisations; insufficient research on KB in social policy; limited analysis of impact and effectiveness; and a lack of attention to the role played by politics. The paper proposes an agenda for future research that bridges disciplinary boundaries in order to address these gaps and contribute new insights into the politics of evidence use.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47631,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Politics\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"335-353\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15740848311069\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15740848311069","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

在过去的三十年里,基于证据的政策(EBP)产生更好结果的说法得到了越来越多的支持。知识中介被视为改善政策制定的一种方式,世界各国政府正在向知识中介计划投入大量资源。因此,重要的是要了解这些活动的范围,并调查它们是否以及如何促进EBP。本文批判性地回顾了关于KB的现有文献。它指出了六个重要的限制:存在多个知识库定义;缺乏基于理论的实证分析;忽视知识中介组织;社会政策中KB研究不足;有限的影响和有效性分析;以及缺乏对政治作用的关注。本文提出了一个未来研究的议程,该议程旨在弥合学科界限,以解决这些差距,并为证据使用的政治提供新的见解。
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
Does knowledge brokering facilitate evidence-based policy? A review of existing knowledge and an agenda for future research
The claim that evidence-based policy (EBP) produces better outcomes has gained increasing support over the last three decades. Knowledge brokering (KB) is seen as a way to achieve improved policymaking and governments worldwide are investing significant resources in KB initiatives. It is therefore important to understand the range of these activities and to investigate whether and how they facilitate EBP. This article critically reviews the extant literature on KB. It identifies six important limitations: the existence of multiple definitions of KB; a lack of theory-based empirical analysis; a neglect of knowledge brokering organisations; insufficient research on KB in social policy; limited analysis of impact and effectiveness; and a lack of attention to the role played by politics. The paper proposes an agenda for future research that bridges disciplinary boundaries in order to address these gaps and contribute new insights into the politics of evidence use.
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
7.90
自引率
12.80%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
The racialisation of sexism: how race frames shape anti-street harassment policies in Britain and France Concluding discussion: key themes in the (possible) move to co-production and co-creation in public management A theoretical framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions and public value Collaborative governance and innovation in public services settings Digital platforms for the co-creation of public value
×
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