职业安全和健康研究的政策利用:丹麦三党制一院制议会制度的结果。

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen, Steffen Bohni Nielsen, Ole Henning Sørensen
{"title":"职业安全和健康研究的政策利用:丹麦三党制一院制议会制度的结果。","authors":"Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen, Steffen Bohni Nielsen, Ole Henning Sørensen","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000025","DOIUrl":null,"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":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000025\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000025","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: 0

摘要

背景:在政策决策中使用研究证据的研究不足。特别是需要在政府形式不同于两院制立法机构的国家进行更多的研究。目的和目标:本文探讨了职业安全与健康(OSH)研究对决策者在三方一院制议会制度(立法和协议)的影响。更具体地说,我们确定并讨论信息获取和政策决策中研究使用的类型。方法:采用半结构化和结构化问题,我们在三组精英政治行为者中进行了30次访谈:当选议员;顶级公共管理人员;还有社会伙伴政治家。分析和报告采用调查员三角法。研究发现:三组精英政治行为者从不同的来源获取职业安全卫生问题的信息。最重要的是:利益集团、网络和内部专家。研究结果表明,精英行为者通常在概念上和工具上使用研究知识,在较小程度上使用战略和战术知识。许多类型的信息影响着政治家。他们大多认为自己是新研究的发起者。社会伙伴主要将自己视为新研究成果的使用者,以发起变革和影响政治决策。讨论和结论:如何以及何时使用研究知识在三组之间有所不同。对于研究人员来说,重要的是根据不同利益相关者的特殊需求定制研究交流,直接与精英参与者互动,并通过利益相关者组织的较低级别专家间接互动,并通过媒体和社交媒体等外部来源获得曝光。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Policy utilisation of occupational safety and health research: results from a tripartite unicameral parliamentary system in Denmark.

Background: 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.

Aims and objectives: 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.

Methods: 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.

Findings: 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.

Discussion and conclusion: 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信