通过政策问题了解英国决策者的证据需求。

IF 3.8 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Magda Osman, Nick Cosstick
{"title":"通过政策问题了解英国决策者的证据需求。","authors":"Magda Osman, Nick Cosstick","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-05911-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present mixed methods study used UK policymakers to answer the following: (1) are there common topics for which evidence is requested over time (2019 to 2023) that cut across government departments or agencies, and (2) is there a preferred style in the way evidence is requested? Three separate datasets of policy questions (n = 3260) posed by UK policy makers to academics were coded by a combination of humans and an algorithm and then analysed. First, of the 7 recurring topics identified (Climate and Environment, Defence and Security, Economy, Health, Information Technology, Social Welfare, Technology), Economy (27%) was the most featured across all policy makers across all 5 years. Climate and Environment showed the sharpest rise over time (16-38%). Second, of 7 styles of questions, procedural (33%) was the most common, which means addressing \"how to\" (e.g. measure, intervene, prevent) type questions. In the qualitative interviews policymakers reported gaining the most from an exploratory rather than a goal-specific approach during one-to-one interactions with academics. Also when having their assumptions challenged this helped to expand the way they thought of policy issues that they were currently addressing. This UK test case shows the value of focused iterative policy-academic exchanges and could be a way to enhance evidence-based policymaking initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"22484"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding UK policymakers' evidence needs through policy questions.\",\"authors\":\"Magda Osman, Nick Cosstick\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-05911-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The present mixed methods study used UK policymakers to answer the following: (1) are there common topics for which evidence is requested over time (2019 to 2023) that cut across government departments or agencies, and (2) is there a preferred style in the way evidence is requested? Three separate datasets of policy questions (n = 3260) posed by UK policy makers to academics were coded by a combination of humans and an algorithm and then analysed. First, of the 7 recurring topics identified (Climate and Environment, Defence and Security, Economy, Health, Information Technology, Social Welfare, Technology), Economy (27%) was the most featured across all policy makers across all 5 years. Climate and Environment showed the sharpest rise over time (16-38%). Second, of 7 styles of questions, procedural (33%) was the most common, which means addressing \\\"how to\\\" (e.g. measure, intervene, prevent) type questions. In the qualitative interviews policymakers reported gaining the most from an exploratory rather than a goal-specific approach during one-to-one interactions with academics. Also when having their assumptions challenged this helped to expand the way they thought of policy issues that they were currently addressing. This UK test case shows the value of focused iterative policy-academic exchanges and could be a way to enhance evidence-based policymaking initiatives.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"22484\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-05911-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-05911-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前的混合方法研究使用了英国政策制定者来回答以下问题:(1)随着时间的推移(2019年至2023年),是否存在跨政府部门或机构要求证据的共同主题,以及(2)要求证据的方式是否有首选的风格?英国政策制定者向学者提出的三个独立的政策问题数据集(n = 3260)由人工和算法组合编码,然后进行分析。首先,在确定的7个反复出现的主题(气候与环境、国防与安全、经济、卫生、信息技术、社会福利、技术)中,经济(27%)是所有政策制定者在所有5年中最突出的主题。“气候与环境”的上升幅度最大(16-38%)。其次,在7种类型的问题中,程序性(33%)是最常见的,这意味着解决“如何”(例如措施,干预,预防)类型的问题。在定性访谈中,政策制定者报告说,在与学者的一对一互动中,从探索性方法而不是目标明确的方法中获益最多。此外,当他们的假设受到挑战时,这有助于扩大他们对当前正在处理的政策问题的思考方式。这个英国的测试案例显示了有重点的反复政策-学术交流的价值,并且可以成为加强基于证据的政策制定倡议的一种方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding UK policymakers' evidence needs through policy questions.

The present mixed methods study used UK policymakers to answer the following: (1) are there common topics for which evidence is requested over time (2019 to 2023) that cut across government departments or agencies, and (2) is there a preferred style in the way evidence is requested? Three separate datasets of policy questions (n = 3260) posed by UK policy makers to academics were coded by a combination of humans and an algorithm and then analysed. First, of the 7 recurring topics identified (Climate and Environment, Defence and Security, Economy, Health, Information Technology, Social Welfare, Technology), Economy (27%) was the most featured across all policy makers across all 5 years. Climate and Environment showed the sharpest rise over time (16-38%). Second, of 7 styles of questions, procedural (33%) was the most common, which means addressing "how to" (e.g. measure, intervene, prevent) type questions. In the qualitative interviews policymakers reported gaining the most from an exploratory rather than a goal-specific approach during one-to-one interactions with academics. Also when having their assumptions challenged this helped to expand the way they thought of policy issues that they were currently addressing. This UK test case shows the value of focused iterative policy-academic exchanges and could be a way to enhance evidence-based policymaking initiatives.

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
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19567
审稿时长
3.9 months
期刊介绍: We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.
×
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