动机推理的实践:观察现实世界政策过程中的知识使用

IF 2.7 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Lars Dorren, Mirijam Böhme
{"title":"动机推理的实践:观察现实世界政策过程中的知识使用","authors":"Lars Dorren, Mirijam Böhme","doi":"10.1177/00208523211047355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Motivated reasoning theory is a psychological theory that reads that policymakers interpret evidence in ways that fit their preferences rather than assessing it neutrally. The theory is increasingly used to explain policy processes as part of a behavioural approach to public administration, but it has limitations. As psychological research relies on experiments, the question remains what role motivated reasoning plays in real-world policy processes. Based on ethnographic observations collected during the planning phase of a large infrastructure project, this study confirms that motivated reasoning explains how people interpret information. However, it also shows that peoples’ context has a great impact on their reasoning. Ultimately, we suggest that a focus on time and real-world context is essential in understanding processes of reasoning, for which methodological diversification is needed. Points for practitioners People are inclined to interpret information in light of existing attitudes, rather than approach it neutrally. They read it in such a way that it confirms their attitudes, or are critical of it when it does not. Conflicts caused by differentiating views can be better understood by looking at the attitudes that inform these views. Discussions that might seem aimless at first might have secondary functions such as building trust amongst participants.","PeriodicalId":47811,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Administrative Sciences","volume":"89 1","pages":"398 - 414"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The practice of motivated reasoning: observing knowledge use in real-world policy processes\",\"authors\":\"Lars Dorren, Mirijam Böhme\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00208523211047355\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Motivated reasoning theory is a psychological theory that reads that policymakers interpret evidence in ways that fit their preferences rather than assessing it neutrally. The theory is increasingly used to explain policy processes as part of a behavioural approach to public administration, but it has limitations. As psychological research relies on experiments, the question remains what role motivated reasoning plays in real-world policy processes. Based on ethnographic observations collected during the planning phase of a large infrastructure project, this study confirms that motivated reasoning explains how people interpret information. However, it also shows that peoples’ context has a great impact on their reasoning. Ultimately, we suggest that a focus on time and real-world context is essential in understanding processes of reasoning, for which methodological diversification is needed. Points for practitioners People are inclined to interpret information in light of existing attitudes, rather than approach it neutrally. They read it in such a way that it confirms their attitudes, or are critical of it when it does not. Conflicts caused by differentiating views can be better understood by looking at the attitudes that inform these views. Discussions that might seem aimless at first might have secondary functions such as building trust amongst participants.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Administrative Sciences\",\"volume\":\"89 1\",\"pages\":\"398 - 414\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Administrative Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211047355\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Administrative Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211047355","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

动机推理理论是一种心理学理论,认为政策制定者以符合他们偏好的方式解释证据,而不是中立地评估证据。作为公共行政行为方法的一部分,这一理论越来越多地用于解释政策过程,但它有局限性。由于心理学研究依赖于实验,问题仍然是动机推理在现实世界的政策过程中扮演什么角色。基于在大型基础设施项目规划阶段收集的人种学观察,本研究证实了动机推理解释了人们如何解释信息。然而,这也表明人们的语境对他们的推理有很大的影响。最后,我们建议,在理解推理过程中,对时间和现实世界背景的关注是必不可少的,为此需要方法多样化。从业者要点人们倾向于根据现有的态度来解释信息,而不是中立地处理信息。他们以这样一种方式阅读它,即它证实了他们的态度,或者在它不证实他们的态度时批评它。不同观点引起的冲突可以通过观察这些观点的态度来更好地理解。一开始看起来毫无目的的讨论可能具有次要功能,例如在参与者之间建立信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The practice of motivated reasoning: observing knowledge use in real-world policy processes
Motivated reasoning theory is a psychological theory that reads that policymakers interpret evidence in ways that fit their preferences rather than assessing it neutrally. The theory is increasingly used to explain policy processes as part of a behavioural approach to public administration, but it has limitations. As psychological research relies on experiments, the question remains what role motivated reasoning plays in real-world policy processes. Based on ethnographic observations collected during the planning phase of a large infrastructure project, this study confirms that motivated reasoning explains how people interpret information. However, it also shows that peoples’ context has a great impact on their reasoning. Ultimately, we suggest that a focus on time and real-world context is essential in understanding processes of reasoning, for which methodological diversification is needed. Points for practitioners People are inclined to interpret information in light of existing attitudes, rather than approach it neutrally. They read it in such a way that it confirms their attitudes, or are critical of it when it does not. Conflicts caused by differentiating views can be better understood by looking at the attitudes that inform these views. Discussions that might seem aimless at first might have secondary functions such as building trust amongst participants.
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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: IRAS is an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to academic and professional public administration. Founded in 1927 it is the oldest scholarly public administration journal specifically focused on comparative and international topics. IRAS seeks to shape the future agenda of public administration around the world by encouraging reflection on international comparisons, new techniques and approaches, the dialogue between academics and practitioners, and debates about the future of the field itself.
×
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