学术与政策的联系:将证据引入政策制定过程

R. Dhakal
{"title":"学术与政策的联系:将证据引入政策制定过程","authors":"R. Dhakal","doi":"10.51474/jer.v12i2.620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The role of higher education and research institutions is, in principle, very crucial to inform the public policymaking processes and the policies themselves. A growing body of literature underscores the rationale for using university-produced data, evidence or research findings and implications while formulating national policies. In recent times, there has been mounting global interest in making use of research evidence while making public policies (Boswell & Smith, ?2017; Glied et al., 2018; Newman et al., 2016). However, whether policymaking bodies ever try to use such evidence while formulating national policies or the universities make a systematic attempt to inform policymakers of the recent and relevant research has been questionable in the South Asian context. Some scholars also critique that academic research though submerged in “scientific and methodological rigour is generally found to be of little relevance to practice” (Panda & Gupta, 2014, p. 156). My experience of working in academia and with government informs that research is only one [small one, not capital ONE] of many things that influence the public policymaking in Nepal. In fact, policymaking is not a linear, rational process and thus local values, cultures and ideologies are equally important (Dhakal, 2019a; Parajuli, 2015). So I am inclined to use the term ‘evidence-informed’ policy (Bowen & Zwi, 2005; Centre for Public Impact, 2018; Head, 2015) rather than ‘evidence-based policy’ (Nutley et al., 2007; Newman et al., 2016) in the Nepali public policymaking context. \nI assume the basics of the making of public policy in developing countries to be somehow similar. The national policymaking structures are government bodies (state agencies) and the processes mostly include the interaction between the politicians, bureaucrats, and a few experts or interest groups. Ironically, the expert meetings are often limited to exploring opinions and limited experiences of the experts, rather than engaging in data/evidence-based discussion (Dhakal, 2017). As such, rather than being based on or informed by extant research evidence, the processes in Nepal are often driven by (political and bureaucratic) interests (Dhakal, 2019b; Jones, 2010; Gelal, 2015; Pokharel, 2015). Moreover, in recent years, the policymaking domain in Nepal has expanded to include non-state actors such as international/donor agencies, INGOs, and pressure groups (Gelal, 2015). These inform us that a careful re-examination of the policymaking processes in Nepal is necessary. \nAgainst the above backdrop, this piece of writing highlights the role of higher education institutions in influencing the evidence-informed policy-making in Nepal. Moreover, it also attempts to envisage ways to influencing policymaking structures and processes through research evidence in Nepal. ","PeriodicalId":32077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education and Research","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Academia-Policy Linkages: Bringing Evidence Into Policymaking Processes\",\"authors\":\"R. Dhakal\",\"doi\":\"10.51474/jer.v12i2.620\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The role of higher education and research institutions is, in principle, very crucial to inform the public policymaking processes and the policies themselves. A growing body of literature underscores the rationale for using university-produced data, evidence or research findings and implications while formulating national policies. In recent times, there has been mounting global interest in making use of research evidence while making public policies (Boswell & Smith, ?2017; Glied et al., 2018; Newman et al., 2016). However, whether policymaking bodies ever try to use such evidence while formulating national policies or the universities make a systematic attempt to inform policymakers of the recent and relevant research has been questionable in the South Asian context. Some scholars also critique that academic research though submerged in “scientific and methodological rigour is generally found to be of little relevance to practice” (Panda & Gupta, 2014, p. 156). My experience of working in academia and with government informs that research is only one [small one, not capital ONE] of many things that influence the public policymaking in Nepal. In fact, policymaking is not a linear, rational process and thus local values, cultures and ideologies are equally important (Dhakal, 2019a; Parajuli, 2015). So I am inclined to use the term ‘evidence-informed’ policy (Bowen & Zwi, 2005; Centre for Public Impact, 2018; Head, 2015) rather than ‘evidence-based policy’ (Nutley et al., 2007; Newman et al., 2016) in the Nepali public policymaking context. \\nI assume the basics of the making of public policy in developing countries to be somehow similar. The national policymaking structures are government bodies (state agencies) and the processes mostly include the interaction between the politicians, bureaucrats, and a few experts or interest groups. Ironically, the expert meetings are often limited to exploring opinions and limited experiences of the experts, rather than engaging in data/evidence-based discussion (Dhakal, 2017). As such, rather than being based on or informed by extant research evidence, the processes in Nepal are often driven by (political and bureaucratic) interests (Dhakal, 2019b; Jones, 2010; Gelal, 2015; Pokharel, 2015). Moreover, in recent years, the policymaking domain in Nepal has expanded to include non-state actors such as international/donor agencies, INGOs, and pressure groups (Gelal, 2015). These inform us that a careful re-examination of the policymaking processes in Nepal is necessary. \\nAgainst the above backdrop, this piece of writing highlights the role of higher education institutions in influencing the evidence-informed policy-making in Nepal. Moreover, it also attempts to envisage ways to influencing policymaking structures and processes through research evidence in Nepal. \",\"PeriodicalId\":32077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Education and Research\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Education and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51474/jer.v12i2.620\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Education and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51474/jer.v12i2.620","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

原则上,高等教育和研究机构在为公共决策过程和政策本身提供信息方面发挥着至关重要的作用。越来越多的文献强调了在制定国家政策时使用大学提供的数据、证据或研究结果和影响的理由。近年来,全球对在制定公共政策时利用研究证据的兴趣日益浓厚(Boswell & Smith, ?2017;glies等人,2018;Newman等人,2016)。然而,在南亚的背景下,政策制定机构是否在制定国家政策时试图使用这些证据,或者大学是否有系统地尝试向决策者通报最近的相关研究,这些都是值得怀疑的。一些学者还批评说,学术研究虽然淹没在“科学和方法论的严谨性中,但通常发现与实践的相关性很小”(Panda & Gupta, 2014,第156页)。我在学术界和政府工作的经验告诉我,研究只是影响尼泊尔公共政策制定的众多因素中的一个[很小的一个,不是最重要的一个]。事实上,政策制定不是一个线性的、理性的过程,因此当地的价值观、文化和意识形态同样重要(Dhakal, 2019a;Parajuli, 2015)。因此,我倾向于使用“循证”政策一词(Bowen & Zwi, 2005;公共影响研究中心,2018;Head, 2015)而不是“循证政策”(Nutley et al., 2007;Newman et al., 2016)在尼泊尔公共政策制定的背景下。我认为发展中国家制定公共政策的基本原理在某种程度上是相似的。国家政策制定机构是政府机构,其过程主要包括政治家、官僚和少数专家或利益集团之间的相互作用。具有讽刺意味的是,专家会议往往仅限于探索专家的意见和有限的经验,而不是参与数据/循证讨论(Dhakal, 2017)。因此,尼泊尔的进程往往是由(政治和官僚)利益驱动的,而不是基于现有的研究证据或根据现有的研究证据提供信息(Dhakal, 2019b;琼斯,2010;Gelal, 2015;Pokharel, 2015)。此外,近年来,尼泊尔的政策制定领域已经扩大到包括非国家行为体,如国际/捐助机构、国际非政府组织和压力团体(Gelal, 2015)。这些情况告诉我们,有必要对尼泊尔的决策过程进行仔细的重新审查。在上述背景下,本文强调了高等教育机构在影响尼泊尔循证决策方面的作用。此外,它还试图设想通过尼泊尔的研究证据影响决策结构和进程的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Academia-Policy Linkages: Bringing Evidence Into Policymaking Processes
The role of higher education and research institutions is, in principle, very crucial to inform the public policymaking processes and the policies themselves. A growing body of literature underscores the rationale for using university-produced data, evidence or research findings and implications while formulating national policies. In recent times, there has been mounting global interest in making use of research evidence while making public policies (Boswell & Smith, ?2017; Glied et al., 2018; Newman et al., 2016). However, whether policymaking bodies ever try to use such evidence while formulating national policies or the universities make a systematic attempt to inform policymakers of the recent and relevant research has been questionable in the South Asian context. Some scholars also critique that academic research though submerged in “scientific and methodological rigour is generally found to be of little relevance to practice” (Panda & Gupta, 2014, p. 156). My experience of working in academia and with government informs that research is only one [small one, not capital ONE] of many things that influence the public policymaking in Nepal. In fact, policymaking is not a linear, rational process and thus local values, cultures and ideologies are equally important (Dhakal, 2019a; Parajuli, 2015). So I am inclined to use the term ‘evidence-informed’ policy (Bowen & Zwi, 2005; Centre for Public Impact, 2018; Head, 2015) rather than ‘evidence-based policy’ (Nutley et al., 2007; Newman et al., 2016) in the Nepali public policymaking context. I assume the basics of the making of public policy in developing countries to be somehow similar. The national policymaking structures are government bodies (state agencies) and the processes mostly include the interaction between the politicians, bureaucrats, and a few experts or interest groups. Ironically, the expert meetings are often limited to exploring opinions and limited experiences of the experts, rather than engaging in data/evidence-based discussion (Dhakal, 2017). As such, rather than being based on or informed by extant research evidence, the processes in Nepal are often driven by (political and bureaucratic) interests (Dhakal, 2019b; Jones, 2010; Gelal, 2015; Pokharel, 2015). Moreover, in recent years, the policymaking domain in Nepal has expanded to include non-state actors such as international/donor agencies, INGOs, and pressure groups (Gelal, 2015). These inform us that a careful re-examination of the policymaking processes in Nepal is necessary. Against the above backdrop, this piece of writing highlights the role of higher education institutions in influencing the evidence-informed policy-making in Nepal. Moreover, it also attempts to envisage ways to influencing policymaking structures and processes through research evidence in Nepal. 
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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