“This Research has Important Policy Implications…”

IF 1.7 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
K. Gleditsch
{"title":"“This Research has Important Policy Implications…”","authors":"K. Gleditsch","doi":"10.1515/peps-2023-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The COVID 19 pandemic has generated much interest in the relationship between research and policy. It has drawn new attention to the limitations of a linear model, where policy is based on first observing prior scientific research and then designed in response to this. Conflict researchers often motivate the importance of their work by claiming that their “research has important policy implications”, but the proposals offered are often at best incomplete. I identify a number of common limitations in claims about policy implications, including a lack of discussion of objectives and priorities, stating objectives themselves as if they were policies, claims about targeting factors without discussing the effectiveness of possible interventions, and a failure to consider uncertainty and potential tensions with other objectives or unintended effects. Research can potentially inform policy discussions and improve decisions, but the incentives in academic research are very different from policy decisions, and the latter often calls for very different evidence than what is offered by the former. Rather than attempting to offer policy prescriptions as an afterthought to academic articles, research can be more helpful to policy by trying to inform debates, focusing on what we know from the cumulative body of research than individual manuscripts, and providing new data and empirical material that allow for better problem description and analysis.","PeriodicalId":44635,"journal":{"name":"Peace Economics Peace Science and Public Policy","volume":"29 1","pages":"1 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peace Economics Peace Science and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2023-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The COVID 19 pandemic has generated much interest in the relationship between research and policy. It has drawn new attention to the limitations of a linear model, where policy is based on first observing prior scientific research and then designed in response to this. Conflict researchers often motivate the importance of their work by claiming that their “research has important policy implications”, but the proposals offered are often at best incomplete. I identify a number of common limitations in claims about policy implications, including a lack of discussion of objectives and priorities, stating objectives themselves as if they were policies, claims about targeting factors without discussing the effectiveness of possible interventions, and a failure to consider uncertainty and potential tensions with other objectives or unintended effects. Research can potentially inform policy discussions and improve decisions, but the incentives in academic research are very different from policy decisions, and the latter often calls for very different evidence than what is offered by the former. Rather than attempting to offer policy prescriptions as an afterthought to academic articles, research can be more helpful to policy by trying to inform debates, focusing on what we know from the cumulative body of research than individual manuscripts, and providing new data and empirical material that allow for better problem description and analysis.
“这项研究具有重要的政策意义……”
摘要2019冠状病毒病大流行引起了人们对研究和政策之间关系的极大兴趣。它引起了人们对线性模型局限性的新关注,在线性模型中,政策首先基于对先前科学研究的观察,然后根据这一点进行设计。冲突研究人员经常通过声称他们的“研究具有重要的政策意义”来激发他们工作的重要性,但所提供的建议往往充其量是不完整的。我发现了关于政策影响的说法中的一些常见局限性,包括缺乏对目标和优先事项的讨论,将目标本身视为政策来陈述,在没有讨论可能干预措施的有效性的情况下对目标因素的说法,以及没有考虑到与其他目标或意外影响的不确定性和潜在紧张关系。研究可能会为政策讨论提供信息并改善决策,但学术研究中的激励措施与政策决策截然不同,后者往往需要与前者截然不同的证据。与其试图将政策处方作为学术文章的事后想法,不如通过尝试为辩论提供信息,关注我们从累积的研究中所了解的内容,而不是单个手稿,并提供新的数据和经验材料,以便更好地描述和分析问题,从而对政策更有帮助。
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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The journal accepts rigorous, non-technical papers especially in research methods in peace science, but also regular papers dealing with all aspects of the peace science field, from pure abstract theory to practical applied research. As a guide to topics: - Arms Control and International Security - Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Studies - Behavioral Studies - Conflict Analysis and Management - Cooperation, Alliances and Games - Crises and War Studies - Critical Economic Aspects of the Global Crises - Deterrence Theory - Empirical and Historical Studies on the Causes of War - Game, Prospect and Related Theory - Harmony and Conflict - Hierarchy Theory
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信