Knowledge brokering organisations: a new way of governing evidence

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
E. MacKillop, James Downe
{"title":"Knowledge brokering organisations: a new way of governing evidence","authors":"E. MacKillop, James Downe","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16445093010411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Government-funded knowledge brokering organisations (KBOs) are an increasingly prevalent yet under-researched area. Working in the space between knowledge and policy, yet framing themselves as different from think tanks and academic research centres, these organisations broker evidence into policy.Aims and objectives: This article examines how three organisations on different continents develop similar narratives and strategies to attempt to inform policymaking and build legitimacy.Methods: Using documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews, it shows how the organisations construct their credibility and legitimacy, and make sense of their emergence, activities and relationships with policymakers.Findings: The study responds to the lack of political focus on many existing studies, examining how KBOs make sense of their origins and roles, articulating notions of evidence, and mobilising different types of legitimacies to do so. The research also addresses an empirical gap surrounding the emergence and activities of KBOs (not individuals), analysing organisations on three different continents.Discussion and conclusions: KBOs developed similar narratives of origins and functions, despite emerging in different contexts. Furthermore, they build their legitimacy/ies in similar ways. Our research improves our understanding of how a new ‘tool’ in the evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) arsenal – KBOs – is being mobilised by different governments in similar ways.Key messagesGovernment-funded KBOs are an increasingly prevalent yet under-researched area. KBOs mobilise similar emergence narratives in different contexts. Credibility is built by KBOs in changing ways, tapping into legitimacies, hinging on their origins, contexts, tools and staff. KBOs are a new EIPM tool that seems to be mobilised in similar ways by different governments.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16445093010411","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: 2

Abstract

Background: Government-funded knowledge brokering organisations (KBOs) are an increasingly prevalent yet under-researched area. Working in the space between knowledge and policy, yet framing themselves as different from think tanks and academic research centres, these organisations broker evidence into policy.Aims and objectives: This article examines how three organisations on different continents develop similar narratives and strategies to attempt to inform policymaking and build legitimacy.Methods: Using documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews, it shows how the organisations construct their credibility and legitimacy, and make sense of their emergence, activities and relationships with policymakers.Findings: The study responds to the lack of political focus on many existing studies, examining how KBOs make sense of their origins and roles, articulating notions of evidence, and mobilising different types of legitimacies to do so. The research also addresses an empirical gap surrounding the emergence and activities of KBOs (not individuals), analysing organisations on three different continents.Discussion and conclusions: KBOs developed similar narratives of origins and functions, despite emerging in different contexts. Furthermore, they build their legitimacy/ies in similar ways. Our research improves our understanding of how a new ‘tool’ in the evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) arsenal – KBOs – is being mobilised by different governments in similar ways.Key messagesGovernment-funded KBOs are an increasingly prevalent yet under-researched area. KBOs mobilise similar emergence narratives in different contexts. Credibility is built by KBOs in changing ways, tapping into legitimacies, hinging on their origins, contexts, tools and staff. KBOs are a new EIPM tool that seems to be mobilised in similar ways by different governments.
知识中介组织:一种管理证据的新方式
背景:政府资助的知识中介组织(kbo)是一个日益普遍但研究不足的领域。这些组织在知识和政策之间工作,但将自己定位为不同于智库和学术研究中心的机构,它们将证据转化为政策。目的和目标:本文考察了不同大洲的三个组织如何发展类似的叙事和战略,试图为政策制定提供信息并建立合法性。方法:使用文献分析和半结构化访谈,它显示了组织如何构建他们的信誉和合法性,并使他们的出现,活动和与政策制定者的关系有意义。研究结果:该研究回应了许多现有研究缺乏政治关注的问题,研究了柯伊伯带如何理解它们的起源和作用,阐明了证据的概念,并动员了不同类型的合法性来这样做。该研究还解决了围绕kbo(不是个人)的出现和活动的经验差距,分析了三个不同大陆的组织。讨论和结论:柯伊伯带天体的起源和功能有着相似的叙述,尽管它们出现在不同的背景下。此外,他们以相似的方式建立自己的合法性。我们的研究提高了我们对循证决策(EIPM)武器库中的一个新“工具”——kbo——如何被不同的政府以类似的方式调动的理解。政府资助的柯伊伯带是一个日益普遍但研究不足的领域。柯伊伯带在不同的背景下调动了类似的涌现叙事。信任是由kbo以不断变化的方式建立起来的,它利用合法性,依赖于它们的起源、背景、工具和员工。kbo是一种新的EIPM工具,似乎被不同的政府以类似的方式调动起来。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信