{"title":"Explaining differences in research utilization in evidence-based government ministries","authors":"Jesper Dahl Kelstrup, Jonas Videbæk Jørgensen","doi":"10.1007/s11077-024-09529-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Studies of evidence-based policy have found that research often fails to influence policy-making and identify a number of barriers to research utilization. Less is known about what public administrations do to overcome such barriers. The article draws on a content analysis of 1,159 documents and 13 qualitative interviews to compare how and why evidence standards affect research utilization in two Danish ministries with available evidence, policy analytical capacity, and broad political agreement on key policy goals. The article finds support for the proposition that more exclusive evidence standards in ministries will lead to higher levels of research utilization by showing that average levels of research utilization are higher in the Ministry of Employment than in the Ministry of Children and Education in the period 2016?2021. In active employment policy the adoption an evidence hierarchy and the accumulating evidence in a knowledge bank has interacted with stakeholder support and a continued coordination with the Ministry of Finance to provide economic incentives for policy-makers to adopt evidence-based policies thus stimulating research utilization. Evidence for public education policy, by contrast, has been more contested and the Ministry of Children of Education retains inclusive evidence standards in an attempt to integrate evidencebased and practical knowledge from stakeholders, which has led to lower average levels of utilization in the period.</p>","PeriodicalId":51433,"journal":{"name":"Policy Sciences","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09529-6","RegionNum":3,"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
Abstract
Studies of evidence-based policy have found that research often fails to influence policy-making and identify a number of barriers to research utilization. Less is known about what public administrations do to overcome such barriers. The article draws on a content analysis of 1,159 documents and 13 qualitative interviews to compare how and why evidence standards affect research utilization in two Danish ministries with available evidence, policy analytical capacity, and broad political agreement on key policy goals. The article finds support for the proposition that more exclusive evidence standards in ministries will lead to higher levels of research utilization by showing that average levels of research utilization are higher in the Ministry of Employment than in the Ministry of Children and Education in the period 2016?2021. In active employment policy the adoption an evidence hierarchy and the accumulating evidence in a knowledge bank has interacted with stakeholder support and a continued coordination with the Ministry of Finance to provide economic incentives for policy-makers to adopt evidence-based policies thus stimulating research utilization. Evidence for public education policy, by contrast, has been more contested and the Ministry of Children of Education retains inclusive evidence standards in an attempt to integrate evidencebased and practical knowledge from stakeholders, which has led to lower average levels of utilization in the period.
期刊介绍：
The policy sciences are distinctive within the policy movement in that they embrace the scholarly traditions innovated and elaborated by Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal. Within these pages we provide space for approaches that are problem-oriented, contextual, and multi-method in orientation. There are many other journals in which authors can take top-down, deductive, and large-sample approach or adopt a primarily theoretical focus. Policy Sciences encourages systematic and empirical investigations in which problems are clearly identified from a practical and theoretical perspective, are well situated in the extant literature, and are investigated utilizing methodologies compatible with contextual, as opposed to reductionist, understandings. We tend not to publish pieces that are solely theoretical, but favor works in which the applied policy lessons are clearly articulated. Policy Sciences favors, but does not publish exclusively, works that either explicitly or implicitly utilize the policy sciences framework. The policy sciences can be applied to articles with greater or lesser intensity to accommodate the focus of an author’s work. At the minimum, this means taking a problem oriented, multi-method or contextual approach. At the fullest expression, it may mean leveraging central theory or explicitly applying aspects of the framework, which is comprised of three principal dimensions: (1) social process, which is mapped in terms of participants, perspectives, situations, base values, strategies, outcomes and effects, with values (power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, rectitude, respect, well-being, and affection) being the key elements in understanding participants’ behaviors and interactions; (2) decision process, which is mapped in terms of seven functions—intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and appraisal; and (3) problem orientation, which comprises the intellectual tasks of clarifying goals, describing trends, analyzing conditions, projecting developments, and inventing, evaluating, and selecting alternatives. There is a more extensive core literature that also applies and can be visited at the policy sciences website: http://www.policysciences.org/classicworks.cfm. In addition to articles that explicitly utilize the policy sciences framework, Policy Sciences has a long tradition of publishing papers that draw on various aspects of that framework and its central theory as well as high quality conceptual pieces that address key challenges, opportunities, or approaches in ways congruent with the perspective that this journal strives to maintain and extend.Officially cited as: Policy Sci
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
