Cultivating 'communities of practice' to tackle civic policy challenges: insights from local government-academic collaboration in Leeds.

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Nicola Carroll, Adam Crawford
{"title":"Cultivating 'communities of practice' to tackle civic policy challenges: insights from local government-academic collaboration in Leeds.","authors":"Nicola Carroll, Adam Crawford","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The academic impact agenda and evidence-informed policy movement have formed dynamic incentives for engagement between universities and local authorities. Yet, in the competitive higher education landscape, research-intensive universities frequently gravitate towards global rather than local impacts, while local government resources are diminished. In this context, how can universities and councils collaborate effectively to inform solutions to complex policy issues?</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This paper draws on data from a Review of Collaboration between researchers at the University of Leeds and officers at Leeds City Council, which explored factors that enable and constrain research-policy engagement. Where limitations of linear models of research-policy interaction are well documented, we consider how a 'community of practice' (CoP) approach might offer insights for accelerating civic knowledge exchange.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A CoP lens was applied in analysing data from a mapping exercise, survey and semi-structured interviews involving academics and council officers.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Examining research-policy engagement in terms of the 'domain', 'community' and 'practice' constituents of CoPs highlights the significance of interpersonal connections in forging 'boundary-crossing' collaborations that have spurred innovation in the city. Academics and officers commonly advocated enhanced inter-organisational processes whereby relationality is supported institutionally. Proposals are encapsulated in a model that conceptualises civic collaboration as a series of domain-specific CoPs supported by an inter-sectoral CoP performing vital 'boundary bridging' functions.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Drawing on experiences from one English city, we advance a framework which offers promising insights into integration of organisational and relational facilitators of research-policy partnerships in responding to municipal policy challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"20 4","pages":"421-439"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","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/10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000022","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

Background: The academic impact agenda and evidence-informed policy movement have formed dynamic incentives for engagement between universities and local authorities. Yet, in the competitive higher education landscape, research-intensive universities frequently gravitate towards global rather than local impacts, while local government resources are diminished. In this context, how can universities and councils collaborate effectively to inform solutions to complex policy issues?

Aims and objectives: This paper draws on data from a Review of Collaboration between researchers at the University of Leeds and officers at Leeds City Council, which explored factors that enable and constrain research-policy engagement. Where limitations of linear models of research-policy interaction are well documented, we consider how a 'community of practice' (CoP) approach might offer insights for accelerating civic knowledge exchange.

Methods: A CoP lens was applied in analysing data from a mapping exercise, survey and semi-structured interviews involving academics and council officers.

Findings: Examining research-policy engagement in terms of the 'domain', 'community' and 'practice' constituents of CoPs highlights the significance of interpersonal connections in forging 'boundary-crossing' collaborations that have spurred innovation in the city. Academics and officers commonly advocated enhanced inter-organisational processes whereby relationality is supported institutionally. Proposals are encapsulated in a model that conceptualises civic collaboration as a series of domain-specific CoPs supported by an inter-sectoral CoP performing vital 'boundary bridging' functions.

Discussion and conclusions: Drawing on experiences from one English city, we advance a framework which offers promising insights into integration of organisational and relational facilitators of research-policy partnerships in responding to municipal policy challenges.

培养“实践社区”以应对公民政策挑战:来自利兹地方政府-学术合作的见解。
背景:学术影响议程和循证政策运动已经形成了大学和地方当局之间参与的动态激励机制。然而,在竞争激烈的高等教育格局中,研究密集型大学往往倾向于全球而不是地方影响,而地方政府的资源也在减少。在这种情况下,大学和理事会如何有效合作,为复杂的政策问题提供解决方案?目的和目标:本文利用了利兹大学研究人员和利兹市议会官员之间合作审查的数据,该审查探讨了促进和限制研究政策参与的因素。在研究-政策相互作用线性模型的局限性得到充分证明的情况下,我们考虑了“实践社区”(CoP)方法如何为加速公民知识交流提供见解。方法:应用CoP镜头分析来自绘图练习、调查和涉及学者和理事会官员的半结构化访谈的数据。研究结果:从cop的“领域”、“社区”和“实践”组成部分的角度考察研究政策参与,突出了人际关系在建立“跨界”合作方面的重要性,这种合作促进了城市的创新。学者和官员普遍主张加强组织间程序,从而从制度上支持关系。提案被封装在一个模型中,该模型将公民合作概念化为一系列特定领域的缔约方会议,由执行重要“边界桥梁”功能的跨部门缔约方会议提供支持。讨论和结论:借鉴一个英国城市的经验,我们提出了一个框架,该框架为应对城市政策挑战的研究政策伙伴关系的组织和关系促进者的整合提供了有希望的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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