The influence of public policy and administration expertise on policy: an empirical study.

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Robin Haunschild, Kate Williams, Lutz Bornmann
{"title":"The influence of public policy and administration expertise on policy: an empirical study.","authors":"Robin Haunschild, Kate Williams, Lutz Bornmann","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Academic expertise is a key pillar of governance processes around the world. A goal of policy and public sector actors is to draw on research to improve decision making, and correspondingly, a goal of public policy and public administration researchers is to provide relevant expertise. It is not clear, however, to what extent these goals are achieved. This study uses the Overton database to analyse the influence of public policy and administration research on policy documents (broadly defined as documents published by policy and public sector organisations). It considers which research is cited by policy documents and which organisations cite research more than others to justify their decisions. The findings show that measuring the influence of academic expertise is not straightforward conceptually or methodologically. However, they emphasise the role of different organisation types for achieving a greater correspondence between research and policy. Specifically, our study shows that think tanks use public policy and administration research more often than government organisations when justifying decisions. The findings provide insight into the utility of new policy databases in illuminating how academic experts can influence the ideas and actions of policy and public sector actors.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000042","RegionNum":3,"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

Abstract

Academic expertise is a key pillar of governance processes around the world. A goal of policy and public sector actors is to draw on research to improve decision making, and correspondingly, a goal of public policy and public administration researchers is to provide relevant expertise. It is not clear, however, to what extent these goals are achieved. This study uses the Overton database to analyse the influence of public policy and administration research on policy documents (broadly defined as documents published by policy and public sector organisations). It considers which research is cited by policy documents and which organisations cite research more than others to justify their decisions. The findings show that measuring the influence of academic expertise is not straightforward conceptually or methodologically. However, they emphasise the role of different organisation types for achieving a greater correspondence between research and policy. Specifically, our study shows that think tanks use public policy and administration research more often than government organisations when justifying decisions. The findings provide insight into the utility of new policy databases in illuminating how academic experts can influence the ideas and actions of policy and public sector actors.

公共政策与行政专长对政策的影响:一项实证研究。
学术专业知识是世界各地治理过程的关键支柱。政策和公共部门行为者的目标是利用研究来改进决策,相应地,公共政策和公共行政研究人员的目标是提供有关的专门知识。然而,目前尚不清楚这些目标在多大程度上实现了。本研究使用奥弗顿数据库来分析公共政策和行政研究对政策文件(广义上定义为政策和公共部门组织发布的文件)的影响。它考虑哪些研究被政策文件引用,哪些组织比其他组织更多地引用研究来证明其决策的合理性。研究结果表明,衡量学术专长的影响在概念上或方法上都不是直截了当的。然而,他们强调了不同的组织类型在实现研究和政策之间更大的对应方面的作用。具体来说,我们的研究表明,在为决策辩护时,智库比政府机构更经常使用公共政策和行政研究。研究结果深入了解了新的政策数据库在阐明学术专家如何影响政策和公共部门行动者的想法和行动方面的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信