证据和政策是如何概念化的,它们又是如何联系在一起的?公共政策文献的定性系统回顾

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
S. Blum, V. Pattyn
{"title":"证据和政策是如何概念化的,它们又是如何联系在一起的?公共政策文献的定性系统回顾","authors":"S. Blum, V. Pattyn","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16397411532296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: While current public policy scholarship can take advantage of a decades-long accumulated knowledge base on the relationship between evidence and policy, it is hard to keep the overview across different literatures. Over time, the ever more differentiated branches of public policy research have developed their own perspectives, languages, and conceptualisations of ‘evidence’ and ‘policy’, as well as their connections.Aims and objectives: Existing reviews have stressed that studies often do not provide clear definitions of ‘policy’ or ‘evidence’, and have outlined the importance of investigating underlying conceptualisations in the literature. Against this backdrop, this article investigates how present-day public policy scholarship approaches the concepts of ‘evidence’, ‘policy’, and their connections.Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review following the PRISMA method. Using a keyword search, we identified relevant articles (n=85) in eleven Q1 and Q2 policy journals included in Web of Science in the period 2015 to 2019.Findings: The synthesis confirms that ‘evidence’ and ‘policy’ are often not clearly defined, yet different trends regarding understandings can be identified. There are two approaches taken on the evidence and policy connection: a ‘use of evidence’ or a ‘use for policy’ perspective.Discussion and conclusions: Research on evidence and policy would benefit from more explicit conceptual discussions. This review may provide a heuristic for explicating conceptual choices when working with the notions of ‘evidence’, ‘policy’, and their connections. It also suggests several avenues that are worth exploring in future research.Key messagesReview studies of evidence and policy research have stressed the need of investigating underlying conceptualisations.This article presents the results of a qualitative systematic PRISMA review.The synthesis reveals significant differences in the conceptualisations of evidence and policy.Their connections are approached either from a ‘use of evidence’ or a ‘use for policy’ perspective.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How are evidence and policy conceptualised, and how do they connect? A qualitative systematic review of public policy literature\",\"authors\":\"S. Blum, V. Pattyn\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/174426421x16397411532296\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: While current public policy scholarship can take advantage of a decades-long accumulated knowledge base on the relationship between evidence and policy, it is hard to keep the overview across different literatures. Over time, the ever more differentiated branches of public policy research have developed their own perspectives, languages, and conceptualisations of ‘evidence’ and ‘policy’, as well as their connections.Aims and objectives: Existing reviews have stressed that studies often do not provide clear definitions of ‘policy’ or ‘evidence’, and have outlined the importance of investigating underlying conceptualisations in the literature. Against this backdrop, this article investigates how present-day public policy scholarship approaches the concepts of ‘evidence’, ‘policy’, and their connections.Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review following the PRISMA method. Using a keyword search, we identified relevant articles (n=85) in eleven Q1 and Q2 policy journals included in Web of Science in the period 2015 to 2019.Findings: The synthesis confirms that ‘evidence’ and ‘policy’ are often not clearly defined, yet different trends regarding understandings can be identified. There are two approaches taken on the evidence and policy connection: a ‘use of evidence’ or a ‘use for policy’ perspective.Discussion and conclusions: Research on evidence and policy would benefit from more explicit conceptual discussions. This review may provide a heuristic for explicating conceptual choices when working with the notions of ‘evidence’, ‘policy’, and their connections. It also suggests several avenues that are worth exploring in future research.Key messagesReview studies of evidence and policy research have stressed the need of investigating underlying conceptualisations.This article presents the results of a qualitative systematic PRISMA review.The synthesis reveals significant differences in the conceptualisations of evidence and policy.Their connections are approached either from a ‘use of evidence’ or a ‘use for policy’ perspective.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16397411532296\",\"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/10.1332/174426421x16397411532296","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: 1

摘要

背景:虽然当前的公共政策研究可以利用数十年来积累的证据与政策之间关系的知识基础,但很难在不同的文献中保持概述。随着时间的推移,越来越分化的公共政策研究分支已经发展出自己的观点、语言和“证据”和“政策”的概念,以及它们之间的联系。目的和目标:现有的综述强调,研究往往没有提供“政策”或“证据”的明确定义,并概述了调查文献中潜在概念的重要性。在此背景下,本文探讨了当今公共政策学术如何处理“证据”、“政策”的概念及其联系。方法:采用PRISMA方法进行定性系统评价。通过关键词搜索,我们在2015年至2019年期间Web of Science收录的11份Q1和Q2政策期刊中找到了相关文章(n=85)。结论:该综合报告证实,“证据”和“政策”往往没有明确定义,但可以确定不同的理解趋势。关于证据和政策的联系有两种方法:“使用证据”或“使用政策”的观点。讨论和结论:对证据和政策的研究将受益于更明确的概念性讨论。这篇综述可以为解释“证据”、“政策”及其联系的概念时的概念选择提供启发。它还提出了一些值得在未来研究中探索的途径。关键信息对证据和政策研究的回顾研究强调了调查潜在概念的必要性。本文介绍了一项定性系统PRISMA综述的结果。这份综合报告揭示了证据和政策概念化方面的重大差异。它们之间的联系是从“证据的使用”或“政策的使用”的角度来看待的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How are evidence and policy conceptualised, and how do they connect? A qualitative systematic review of public policy literature
Background: While current public policy scholarship can take advantage of a decades-long accumulated knowledge base on the relationship between evidence and policy, it is hard to keep the overview across different literatures. Over time, the ever more differentiated branches of public policy research have developed their own perspectives, languages, and conceptualisations of ‘evidence’ and ‘policy’, as well as their connections.Aims and objectives: Existing reviews have stressed that studies often do not provide clear definitions of ‘policy’ or ‘evidence’, and have outlined the importance of investigating underlying conceptualisations in the literature. Against this backdrop, this article investigates how present-day public policy scholarship approaches the concepts of ‘evidence’, ‘policy’, and their connections.Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review following the PRISMA method. Using a keyword search, we identified relevant articles (n=85) in eleven Q1 and Q2 policy journals included in Web of Science in the period 2015 to 2019.Findings: The synthesis confirms that ‘evidence’ and ‘policy’ are often not clearly defined, yet different trends regarding understandings can be identified. There are two approaches taken on the evidence and policy connection: a ‘use of evidence’ or a ‘use for policy’ perspective.Discussion and conclusions: Research on evidence and policy would benefit from more explicit conceptual discussions. This review may provide a heuristic for explicating conceptual choices when working with the notions of ‘evidence’, ‘policy’, and their connections. It also suggests several avenues that are worth exploring in future research.Key messagesReview studies of evidence and policy research have stressed the need of investigating underlying conceptualisations.This article presents the results of a qualitative systematic PRISMA review.The synthesis reveals significant differences in the conceptualisations of evidence and policy.Their connections are approached either from a ‘use of evidence’ or a ‘use for policy’ perspective.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信