Justyna Bandola-Gill, Niklas A Andersen, Rhodri Leng, Valérie Pattyn, Katherine E Smith
{"title":"文化问题?在循证决策研究中,对“证据文化”进行概念化和调查","authors":"Justyna Bandola-Gill, Niklas A Andersen, Rhodri Leng, Valérie Pattyn, Katherine E Smith","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper conceptualizes the notion of “evidence culture” in evidence-informed policymaking by surveying existing literature that either specifically employs the term or uses adjacent terms such as “epistemic” or “research culture”. It employs mixed-methods scoping review, combining citation analysis using Web of Science data used to identify the key clusters of scholarship with a qualitative thematic analysis of key papers across these clusters. This analysis identifies seven distinct approaches to “evidence cultures” across disciplinary communities. The key points of divergence across the clusters include the meanings of evidence, the underlying understanding of the evidence–policy interplay, the conceptualization of culture, and its implications for evidence use in policy. Building on these insights, we offer a framework for analyzing evidence cultures, arguing for the conceptual and empirical utility of this term in advancing scholarship on evidence use in policy settings.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A matter of culture? Conceptualizing and investigating “Evidence Cultures” within research on evidence-informed policymaking\",\"authors\":\"Justyna Bandola-Gill, Niklas A Andersen, Rhodri Leng, Valérie Pattyn, Katherine E Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/polsoc/puae036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper conceptualizes the notion of “evidence culture” in evidence-informed policymaking by surveying existing literature that either specifically employs the term or uses adjacent terms such as “epistemic” or “research culture”. It employs mixed-methods scoping review, combining citation analysis using Web of Science data used to identify the key clusters of scholarship with a qualitative thematic analysis of key papers across these clusters. This analysis identifies seven distinct approaches to “evidence cultures” across disciplinary communities. The key points of divergence across the clusters include the meanings of evidence, the underlying understanding of the evidence–policy interplay, the conceptualization of culture, and its implications for evidence use in policy. Building on these insights, we offer a framework for analyzing evidence cultures, arguing for the conceptual and empirical utility of this term in advancing scholarship on evidence use in policy settings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47383,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Society\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae036\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae036","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文通过调查现有文献,将循证决策中的“证据文化”概念概念化,这些文献要么具体使用该术语,要么使用邻近的术语,如“认识论”或“研究文化”。它采用了混合方法的范围审查,结合了引用分析,使用Web of Science数据来确定奖学金的关键集群,并对这些集群中的关键论文进行了定性的专题分析。该分析确定了跨学科社区的七种不同的“证据文化”方法。跨集群的分歧关键点包括证据的含义、对证据-政策相互作用的潜在理解、文化的概念化及其对政策中证据使用的影响。在这些见解的基础上,我们提供了一个分析证据文化的框架,论证了这一术语在推进政策制定中证据使用的学术研究方面的概念和经验效用。
A matter of culture? Conceptualizing and investigating “Evidence Cultures” within research on evidence-informed policymaking
This paper conceptualizes the notion of “evidence culture” in evidence-informed policymaking by surveying existing literature that either specifically employs the term or uses adjacent terms such as “epistemic” or “research culture”. It employs mixed-methods scoping review, combining citation analysis using Web of Science data used to identify the key clusters of scholarship with a qualitative thematic analysis of key papers across these clusters. This analysis identifies seven distinct approaches to “evidence cultures” across disciplinary communities. The key points of divergence across the clusters include the meanings of evidence, the underlying understanding of the evidence–policy interplay, the conceptualization of culture, and its implications for evidence use in policy. Building on these insights, we offer a framework for analyzing evidence cultures, arguing for the conceptual and empirical utility of this term in advancing scholarship on evidence use in policy settings.
期刊介绍:
Policy and Society is a prominent international open-access journal publishing peer-reviewed research on critical issues in policy theory and practice across local, national, and international levels. The journal seeks to comprehend the origin, functioning, and implications of policies within broader political, social, and economic contexts. It publishes themed issues regularly and, starting in 2023, will also feature non-themed individual submissions.