提供政策建议的超级用户和超级专家:来自加拿大学者调查的证据

IF 2.7 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Andrea Migone, Michael R. McGregor, Kathy Brock, Michael Howlett
{"title":"提供政策建议的超级用户和超级专家:来自加拿大学者调查的证据","authors":"Andrea Migone,&nbsp;Michael R. McGregor,&nbsp;Kathy Brock,&nbsp;Michael Howlett","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The relationships of influence and activity between academics and other actors (public, private, and non-governmental) in the policy process are complex. Although older work often argued academic research at best had an indirect “environmental” or “enlightenment” effect on policy-makers, (May et al. (2016). Journal of Public Policy, 36, 195) recently argued that in the US case previous studies misconstrued the role of academic policy advice because they surveyed “average” academics and in so doing missed the significant impact of a small elite group of “hyper-experts” within an already small group of “super-users” interacting on a constant basis with government policy-makers. This article draws upon data from a survey of academics in four fields (Business, Engineering, Health and Politics) in six major Canadian Universities to map out the relationships existing between academics and other actors in the public, private, and non-governmental sectors and test for the existence of this elite pattern of interaction in a second country.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"8 4","pages":"370-393"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Super-users and hyper-experts in the provision of policy advice: Evidence from a survey of Canadian academics\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Migone,&nbsp;Michael R. McGregor,&nbsp;Kathy Brock,&nbsp;Michael Howlett\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/epa2.1139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The relationships of influence and activity between academics and other actors (public, private, and non-governmental) in the policy process are complex. Although older work often argued academic research at best had an indirect “environmental” or “enlightenment” effect on policy-makers, (May et al. (2016). Journal of Public Policy, 36, 195) recently argued that in the US case previous studies misconstrued the role of academic policy advice because they surveyed “average” academics and in so doing missed the significant impact of a small elite group of “hyper-experts” within an already small group of “super-users” interacting on a constant basis with government policy-makers. This article draws upon data from a survey of academics in four fields (Business, Engineering, Health and Politics) in six major Canadian Universities to map out the relationships existing between academics and other actors in the public, private, and non-governmental sectors and test for the existence of this elite pattern of interaction in a second country.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Policy Analysis\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"370-393\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Policy Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epa2.1139\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epa2.1139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

在政策过程中,学术界与其他行为者(公共、私人和非政府)之间的影响和活动关系是复杂的。尽管较早的研究经常认为,学术研究充其量对政策制定者有间接的“环境”或“启蒙”作用,(May等人(2016))。《公共政策杂志》(Journal of Public Policy, 36,195)最近认为,在美国的案例中,以前的研究误解了学术政策建议的作用,因为他们调查的是“普通”学者,这样做错过了一小群精英“超级专家”在一个已经很小的“超级用户”群体中与政府决策者不断互动的重大影响。本文利用对加拿大六所主要大学的四个领域(商业、工程、卫生和政治)学者的调查数据,绘制出学术界与公共、私营和非政府部门的其他行动者之间存在的关系,并测试这种精英互动模式在第二个国家的存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Super-users and hyper-experts in the provision of policy advice: Evidence from a survey of Canadian academics

The relationships of influence and activity between academics and other actors (public, private, and non-governmental) in the policy process are complex. Although older work often argued academic research at best had an indirect “environmental” or “enlightenment” effect on policy-makers, (May et al. (2016). Journal of Public Policy, 36, 195) recently argued that in the US case previous studies misconstrued the role of academic policy advice because they surveyed “average” academics and in so doing missed the significant impact of a small elite group of “hyper-experts” within an already small group of “super-users” interacting on a constant basis with government policy-makers. This article draws upon data from a survey of academics in four fields (Business, Engineering, Health and Politics) in six major Canadian Universities to map out the relationships existing between academics and other actors in the public, private, and non-governmental sectors and test for the existence of this elite pattern of interaction in a second country.

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
European Policy Analysis
European Policy Analysis Social Sciences-Public Administration
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
×
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