政策中的知识话语综述:思考知识、政策与冲突

Q1 Social Sciences
Michal Sedlačko, K. Staroňová
{"title":"政策中的知识话语综述:思考知识、政策与冲突","authors":"Michal Sedlačko, K. Staroňová","doi":"10.1515/cejpp-2016-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Around the world, there is a growing interest among policy scholars and practitioners in the role of knowledge in relation to public policy. These debates are accompanied by some confusion about what is meant by knowledge or evidence, as well as controversies around the role of scientists and suspicions of increasingly technocratic decision making. Our aim is to provide a useful overview of the major debates in this paper, and to trace six dominant discourses in current research that address the role of scientific knowledge or expertise in the policy process. We distinguish evidence-based policy making, knowledge utilisation, policy learning, knowledge transfer, social construction of knowledge and boundaries, and knowing in practice as separate discourses. We show how they differ in their understanding of knowledge, of the problem to solve in terms of the role of knowledge in policy, of practical implications, as well as in their understanding of public policy and in their ontologies and epistemologies. A condensed and structured representation serves as a basis for conducting comparisons across discourses as well as to open ways for analysis of strategic associations between the discourses. We hope to contribute to extending the discussion of knowledge in policy into the realm of epistemic politics and we suggest several avenues for future research that can draw on a range of concepts from across all of the discourses.","PeriodicalId":38545,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Public Policy","volume":"9 1","pages":"10 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/cejpp-2016-0011","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Overview of Discourses on Knowledge in Policy: Thinking Knowledge, Policy and Conflict Together\",\"authors\":\"Michal Sedlačko, K. Staroňová\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cejpp-2016-0011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Around the world, there is a growing interest among policy scholars and practitioners in the role of knowledge in relation to public policy. These debates are accompanied by some confusion about what is meant by knowledge or evidence, as well as controversies around the role of scientists and suspicions of increasingly technocratic decision making. Our aim is to provide a useful overview of the major debates in this paper, and to trace six dominant discourses in current research that address the role of scientific knowledge or expertise in the policy process. We distinguish evidence-based policy making, knowledge utilisation, policy learning, knowledge transfer, social construction of knowledge and boundaries, and knowing in practice as separate discourses. We show how they differ in their understanding of knowledge, of the problem to solve in terms of the role of knowledge in policy, of practical implications, as well as in their understanding of public policy and in their ontologies and epistemologies. A condensed and structured representation serves as a basis for conducting comparisons across discourses as well as to open ways for analysis of strategic associations between the discourses. We hope to contribute to extending the discussion of knowledge in policy into the realm of epistemic politics and we suggest several avenues for future research that can draw on a range of concepts from across all of the discourses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38545,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"10 - 31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/cejpp-2016-0011\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cejpp-2016-0011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cejpp-2016-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

在世界范围内,政策学者和实践者对知识在公共政策中的作用越来越感兴趣。这些争论伴随着对知识或证据的含义的一些困惑,以及围绕科学家角色的争议和对日益增长的技术官僚决策的怀疑。我们的目的是对本文中的主要辩论提供一个有用的概述,并追踪当前研究中六个主要的话语,这些话语涉及科学知识或专业知识在政策过程中的作用。我们将基于证据的政策制定、知识利用、政策学习、知识转移、知识和边界的社会构建以及实践中的知识作为单独的话语进行区分。我们展示了他们对知识的不同理解,对要解决的问题的不同理解,即知识在政策中的作用,实际意义,以及他们对公共政策的理解,以及他们的本体论和认识论。一个浓缩和结构化的表征作为跨语篇进行比较的基础,也为分析语篇之间的战略联系开辟了道路。我们希望将政策知识的讨论扩展到认知政治领域,并为未来的研究提出了几种途径,这些途径可以借鉴所有话语中的一系列概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Overview of Discourses on Knowledge in Policy: Thinking Knowledge, Policy and Conflict Together
Abstract Around the world, there is a growing interest among policy scholars and practitioners in the role of knowledge in relation to public policy. These debates are accompanied by some confusion about what is meant by knowledge or evidence, as well as controversies around the role of scientists and suspicions of increasingly technocratic decision making. Our aim is to provide a useful overview of the major debates in this paper, and to trace six dominant discourses in current research that address the role of scientific knowledge or expertise in the policy process. We distinguish evidence-based policy making, knowledge utilisation, policy learning, knowledge transfer, social construction of knowledge and boundaries, and knowing in practice as separate discourses. We show how they differ in their understanding of knowledge, of the problem to solve in terms of the role of knowledge in policy, of practical implications, as well as in their understanding of public policy and in their ontologies and epistemologies. A condensed and structured representation serves as a basis for conducting comparisons across discourses as well as to open ways for analysis of strategic associations between the discourses. We hope to contribute to extending the discussion of knowledge in policy into the realm of epistemic politics and we suggest several avenues for future research that can draw on a range of concepts from across all of the discourses.
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
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
37 weeks
期刊介绍: The Central European Journal of Public Policy (CEJPP) is an open-access, multidisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal with primary focus upon analytical, theoretical and methodological articles in the field of public policy. The journal does not have article processing charges (APCs) nor article submission charges. The aim of the CEJPP is to provide academic scholars and professionals in different policy fields with the latest theoretical and methodological advancements in public policy supported by sound empirical research. The CEJPP addresses all topics of public policy including social services and healthcare, environmental protection, education, labour market, immigration, security, public financing and budgeting, administrative reform, performance measurements, governance and others. It attempts to find a balance between description, explanation and evaluation of public policies and encourages a wide range of social science approaches, both qualitative and quantitative. Although the journal focuses primarily upon Central Europe, relevant contributions from other geographical areas are also welcomed in order to enhance public policy research in Central Europe.
×
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