Evidence & Policy最新文献

{"title":"Policy engagement as 'empowered representation': democratic mediation through a participatory research project on climate resilience.","authors":"Laurence Piper, Gillian F Black, Leif Petersen, Liezl Dick, Anna Wilson, Tsitsi Mpofu-Mketwa","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000033","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000033","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The article analyses the policy engagement component of a research project on climate resilience in vulnerable communities that took place in Cape Town, South Africa. Conducted in 2022, the engagement included community and stakeholder events in three research sites, and a cross-cutting policy event with municipal officials, held at the end of the project. Importantly, this policy engagement process occurred in a context of political marginalisation, that is, one characterised by low trust, and little meaningful representation or even communication between these vulnerable communities and the city.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This article examines the impact of policy engagement on political relations between local government and vulnerable communities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The overall methodology of the article is qualitative, using an illustrative case-study research design to unpack the subjective experiences of both government officials and residents of vulnerable communities. Primary data included many primary documents, direct observation of the engagements and post-event interviews.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>First, the engagement process created new 'invented' spaces for the representation of community perspectives to the city, and the city's perspective to the community. Second, the engagement facilitated community self-representation through educating community members to advocate for their ideas in these new invented spaces. Third, this engagement tended to be more constructive and deliberative than polarising and confrontational.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Drawing on the theoretical framework of 'political mediation', the policy engagement process is characterised as a positive instance of democratic mediation through 'empowered representation', with some specified limitations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"87-107"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143712104","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The production and utility of evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: perspectives of evidence synthesis producers.","authors":"Tricia Corrin, Paul Cairney, Eric B Kennedy","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000034","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000034","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>COVID-19 accentuated an evergreen dilemma in evidence-informed policy making: the imperative to synthesise the best available evidence with limited time to produce high quality synthesis. The pandemic prompted the adaptation of evidence synthesis practices to match the urgency of the crisis, and heightened demand by policy makers, while maintaining a focus on quality. This study documents the response to these challenges from the perspectives of those who produced evidence syntheses in Canada.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted between October 2022 and January 2023. Data collection included interviews with 22 participants within 19 organisations across seven provinces. A thematic analysis was performed and reported narratively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Evidence synthesis producers in Canada adapted in response to the demands of different types of requests during the pandemic. Participants described several key challenges in responding to end-users, in which a lack of knowledge of evidence synthesis processes and products prompted difficult questions and unrealistic expectations. They responded to the needs of evidence synthesis requestors by creating custom syntheses, utilising rapid review methodologies, emphasising limitations and incorporating recommendations into syntheses.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>The evidence synthesis field was able to adapt to pandemic challenges in valuable ways. Still, this experience accentuates disconnects between producers and users, including differing views on the purpose, methods, limitations and implementation of synthesis findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"108-128"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143712106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Insight for knowledge brokers: factors predicting relationships with federal staffers.","authors":"Patrick O'Neill, Jessica Pugel, Elizabeth C Long, D Max Crowley, Taylor Scott","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000032","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000032","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In theory and practice, it is understood that personal relationships play a role in the effectiveness of translational models that bridge research and policy. These models can be made more efficient by understanding factors impacting relationships between policy-making players and third-party knowledge brokers.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This study investigates a range of personal and office-level characteristics in predicting initial meetings and sustained relationships between federal staffers and knowledge brokers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A public affairs database, Quorum, was used to pull data on staffers who were contacted between September 2021 and August 2022 during an optimisation phase of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC). Logistic regression models were used to understand the impact of the characteristics on outcomes such as attending initial meetings and attending meetings facilitated by the RPC.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Mid-level staffers and democratic staffers were more likely to meet with RPC staff. Office tenure was predictive of lower odds of meeting with RPC staff. For significant associations, the sample was stratified by political party to determine if the results differed by party.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Together, these results suggest there are both personal and office-level characteristics affecting the federal staffers' engagement with knowledge brokers. This work further informs efforts to bridge the gap between science and policy by informing knowledge brokers which offices and staffers they may want to approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"71-86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11937546/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143712101","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Policy advisory bodies during crises: a scoping review of the COVID-19 literature in Europe.","authors":"Clemence Bouchat, Sonja Blum, Ellen Fobé, Marleen Brans","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000031","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000031","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 policy context was characterised by high levels of uncertainty, imperfect knowledge and the need for immediate action. Therefore, governments in Europe tended to rely on expertise provided by advisory bodies to design their crisis response. Advisory bodies played a fundamental part in policy making during the crisis to optimise policy formulation.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>During the COVID-19 crisis, the literature on policy advice grew considerably. To grasp the main research outcomes, we conduct a scoping review that interrogates the COVID-19 policy advice literature to answer the question 'How did policy advisory bodies operate in Europe during the COVID-19 crisis?' Our review builds on a strong theoretical and conceptual basis informed by the literature on policy advisory systems, while offering a new perspective by focusing on advice and policy making during crisis times specifically. We present a review of newly established knowledge and identify what merits further study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The scoping review follows a strict protocol informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to capture the literature published between 2020 and 2023. We searched two databases, Scopus and Web of Science. The grey literature was excluded.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In total, 59 academic outputs inform this review. Overrepresented in our review were qualitative studies, studies about the UK and Sweden, and studies that examined the first half of 2020. Our review shows that the academic community has focused on advisory body composition, body structure and the advisory process.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Avenues for further research include the independence and influence of advisory bodies, and the fate of bodies set up during the crisis.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"409-428"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Codesigning youth diversion programmes with community-led organisations: a case study.","authors":"Sarah C Walker, Kathryn A Cunningham, Emi J Gilbert, Larry Norman, Shaun Worthy, Kathleen Holand","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000029","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000029","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We explore the feasibility of applying methods of participatory codesign to collaborative service development with community-led youth diversion programmes. Collaborative partnerships can support wealth redistribution and community mobilisation, a goal of governments aiming to implement equity-focused policy. There is little systematic exploration of methods aiming to structure the relationship between government and community-led programmes as part of youth criminal-legal diversion efforts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We use case study methodology to assess the feasibility and impact of a curriculum codesign approach between a university research team and two community-led organisations providing diversion services through a county juvenile court. The codesign method was informed by participatory design and use of research evidence frameworks.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The analysis focuses on the feasibility of the approach from the perspective of the university research team and community organisations as well as how well the approach successfully navigated critical components of participatory process, including shared power, deference to community vision and values, and a valued end product. We conclude that the approach was generally feasible as a quality improvement strategy and well-received by the community-led organisations.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Codesign is a promising strategy for reconciling public administration and health equity goals. The approach used in this case study adds to a small literature on methods of using codesign as a quality improvement process with applications for government contracting and monitoring, programme development and capacity-building.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"26-45"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143712083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Policy utilisation of occupational safety and health research: results from a tripartite unicameral parliamentary system in Denmark.","authors":"Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen, Steffen Bohni Nielsen, Ole Henning Sørensen","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000025","DOIUrl":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000025","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Use of research evidence in policy decisions is under-researched. Especially, there is a need for more research in countries with different forms of government than bicameral legislatures.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>This article examines the impact of occupational safety and health (OSH) research on decision-makers in a tripartite unicameral parliamentary system (legislature and agreements). More specifically, we identify and discuss information acquisition and types of research use in policy decisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using both semi-structured and structured questions, we conducted 30 interviews distributed evenly within three groups of elite political actors: elected members of parliament; top-level public administrators; and social partner politicians. Analysis and reporting were subject to investigator triangulation.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The three groups of elite political actors acquire information about OSH issues from different sources. The most important are: interest groups, networks and internal specialists. Findings show that elite actors generally use research knowledge conceptually and instrumentally, and to a lesser degree strategically and tactically. Many types of information influence politicians. They mostly perceive themselves as initiators of new research. The social partners primarily perceive themselves as users of new research results to initiate change and influence political decisions.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>How and when research knowledge is used differs between the three groups. It is important for researchers to tailor research communication to the particular needs of different stakeholders and interact directly with the elite actors and indirectly through lower level specialists from stakeholder organisations, and gain exposure through external sources such as the press and social media.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"20 4","pages":"460-485"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486979","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"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":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000022","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":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144486978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production","authors":"Elliott Aidan Johnson, Irene Hardill, Matthew T. Johnson, Daniel Nettle","doi":"10.1332/17442648y2023d000000005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648y2023d000000005","url":null,"abstract":"Co-production has emerged as one of the key concepts in understanding knowledge-policy interactions and is associated with involvement, for example, of users of public services in their design and delivery. At a time of permacrisis, the need for transformative evidence-based policymaking is urgent and great. This is particularly important in highly distressed ‘left-behind’ communities targeted by the UK Government for Levelling Up, which constitutes an attempt to improve the infrastructural, economic, social and health outcomes of less affluent parts of the UK. Often, policymakers regard the transformative policies capable of addressing these crises as beyond the ‘Overton Window’, which describes a range of policies in the political centre that are acceptable to the public (Lehman, 2010). This window of opportunity can shift to encompass different policies, but movement is slow and policymakers generally believe that significant change lies outside. In this article, we build on recent debates in Evidence &amp; Policy on co-production by outlining an embryonic approach to overcoming this Overton Window-based roadblock in evidence-based policymaking: adversarial co-production, which involves working with opponents of evidence-based policy to develop means of persuading potential beneficiaries to support introduction. This emerging approach has been deployed in examination of public preferences with regard to welfare reform, but can be applied to a wide range of policy areas. We outline briefly the history of co-production, before setting out the process by which adversarial co-production was developed. We then describe the impact of adversarial co-production on public preferences on basic income (BI). This enables us to set out challenges and opportunities for those with an interest in addressing our crises, serving to stimulate genuine debate on longstanding assumptions about the limits of evidence-based policy and public opinion.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"55 12","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135366236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review","authors":"Emma S. Hock, Alison Scope, Andrew Booth","doi":"10.1332/17442648y2023d000000002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648y2023d000000002","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Local authorities (LA) are key in improving population health, and LA public health decision makers need support from appropriately organised research capacity; however, few models of LA research systems are known to exist. Aims and objectives: To explore potential and existing models of LA-based research systems. Methods: This mapping review and time-constrained systematic review synthesises conceptual and empirical literature from 12 health and social science databases, grey literature and reference/citation tracking. Three reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full texts of retrieved records, and extracted key data from included papers. Evidence was synthesised based on characteristics of research systems and quality-assessed for relevance, rigour and richness. Findings: Nine models were examined in depth. From these, we developed a typology of research systems. Few models were specifically designed for LA research activity; as a Whole System approach, the Local Authority Champions of Research model offers a potential blueprint. Useful lessons may be learned from UK Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research, Academic Collaborative Centres in the Netherlands, local Research and Development units in Sweden, and generic University-Community partnerships. Discussion and conclusions: An optimal research system requires the coexistence of multiple systems including Centre, Partnership, Collaboration, Network and Community types. The review is UK-focused, but the models appear to have wider relevance. Our classification offers those planning an LA research system the opportunity to choose an approach that meets their requirements and resources. A Whole System approach is optimal, with egalitarian input from the LA and academia.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"163 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135942951","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The critical factors in producing high quality and policy-relevant research: insights from international behavioural science units","authors":"Jan Lecouturier, Ivo Vlaev, Paul Chadwick, Angel M. Chater, Michael P. Kelly, Louis Goffe, Carly Meyer, Mei Yee Tang, Vivi Antonopoulou, Fiona Graham, Falko F. Sniehotta","doi":"10.1332/17442648y2023d000000001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648y2023d000000001","url":null,"abstract":"Background: There has been a rapid increase in the number of, and demand for, organisations offering behavioural science advice to government over the last ten years. Yet we know little of the state of science and the experiences of these evidence providers. Aims and objectives: To identify current practice in this emerging field and the factors that impact on the production of high-quality and policy-relevant research. Methods: A qualitative study using one-to-one interviews with representatives from a purposeful sample of 15 units in the vanguard of international behavioural science research in policy. The data were analysed thematically. Findings: Relationships with policymakers were important in the inception of units, research conduct, implementation and dissemination of findings. Knowledge exchange facilitated a shared understanding of policy issues/context, and of behavioural science. Sufficient funding was crucial to maintain critical capacity in the units’ workforces, build a research portfolio beneficial to policymakers and the units, and to ensure full and transparent dissemination. Discussion and conclusion: Findings highlight the positive impact of strong evidence-provider/user relationships and the importance of governments’ commitment to co-produced research programmes to address policy problems and transparency in the dissemination of methods and findings. From the findings we have created a framework, ‘STEPS’ (Sharing, Transparency, Engagement, Partnership, Strong relationships), of five recommendations for units working with policymakers. These findings will be of value to all researchers conducting research on behalf of government.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135489866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}