How diverse and inclusive are policy process theories?

IF 2.1 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Tanya Heikkila, Michael D. Jones
{"title":"How diverse and inclusive are policy process theories?","authors":"Tanya Heikkila, Michael D. Jones","doi":"10.1332/030557321x16309516764367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Numerous published efforts have compared and contrasted policy process theories. Few assessments, however, have examined the extent to which they are inclusive or diverse. Here we summarise lessons from previous assessments, paying attention to how Paul Sabatier’s science-based criteria have shaped the contours of the field. In looking at these contours, we explore evidence of diversity and inclusivity of policy process approaches in terms of methods, concepts, topics, geography and authors. We conclude with strategies to address challenges revealed by our examination: creating space for conversations among scholars of differing perspectives and approaches; building sustained and meaningful efforts to recruit and train researchers with diverse backgrounds; establishing research coordination networks that focus on policy problems; and creating better metrics to assess our diversity and inclusivity.","PeriodicalId":53177,"journal":{"name":"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16309516764367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Numerous published efforts have compared and contrasted policy process theories. Few assessments, however, have examined the extent to which they are inclusive or diverse. Here we summarise lessons from previous assessments, paying attention to how Paul Sabatier’s science-based criteria have shaped the contours of the field. In looking at these contours, we explore evidence of diversity and inclusivity of policy process approaches in terms of methods, concepts, topics, geography and authors. We conclude with strategies to address challenges revealed by our examination: creating space for conversations among scholars of differing perspectives and approaches; building sustained and meaningful efforts to recruit and train researchers with diverse backgrounds; establishing research coordination networks that focus on policy problems; and creating better metrics to assess our diversity and inclusivity.
政策过程理论的多样性和包容性如何?
许多已发表的文章对政策过程理论进行了比较和对比。然而,很少有评估审查了它们在多大程度上具有包容性或多样性。在这里,我们总结了以前评估的经验教训,关注Paul Sabatier基于科学的标准如何塑造了该领域的轮廓。在研究这些轮廓时,我们从方法、概念、主题、地理和作者等方面探索了政策过程方法的多样性和包容性的证据。最后,我们提出了应对我们的研究所揭示的挑战的策略:为不同观点和方法的学者之间的对话创造空间;建立持续和有意义的努力,招募和培训具有不同背景的研究人员;建立以政策问题为重点的研究协调网络;创造更好的指标来评估我们的多样性和包容性。
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
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that explores the multiple relationships between nursing and health policy. It serves as a major source of data-based study, policy analysis and discussion on timely, relevant policy issues for nurses in a broad variety of roles and settings, and for others outside of nursing who are interested in nursing-related policy issues.
×
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