Rethinking policy 'impact': four models of research-policy relations
Rethinking policy 'impact': four models of research-policy relations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1057/s41599-017-0042-z
复制
发表时间：
2017-12-12
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Smith, Katherine
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boswell, Christina;Smith, Katherine
政治科学家越来越多地告诫，以确保他们的研究有政策的“影响”，最显着的是通过研究卓越框架（REF）的影响案例研究，并在英国研究理事会资助申请的“路径影响”的声明。然而，支撑这些框架的假设往往不能反映现有的证据和理论。“影响”、“参与”和“知识交流”的概念通常建立在政策过程的简单线性模型之上，根据这种模型，决策者热衷于“利用”专门知识来制定更“有效”的政策。这种解释忽略了政治学、政策研究和知识社会学的丰富文献，这些文献提供了更复杂和细致入微的解释。借鉴这些更广泛的文献，本文提出了四种不同的方法来理论化的关系：（1）知识塑造政策;（2）政治塑造知识;（3）合作生产;（4）自治领域。我们认为这四种方法中的每一种都对激励和衡量研究影响的方法提出了建议。
Political scientists are increasingly exhorted to ensure their research has policy 'impact', most notably via Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies, and 'pathways to impact' statements in UK Research Council funding applications. Yet the assumptions underpinning these frameworks often fail to reflect available evidence and theories. Notions of 'impact', 'engagement' and 'knowledge exchange' are typically premised on simplistic, linear models of the policy process, according to which policy-makers are keen to 'utilise' expertise to produce more 'effective' policies. Such accounts overlook the rich body of literature in political science, policy studies, and sociology of knowledge, which offer more complex and nuanced accounts. Drawing on this wider literature, this paper sets out four different approaches to theorising the relationship: (1) knowledge shapes policy; (2) politics shapes knowledge; (3) co-production; and (4) autonomous spheres. We consider what each of these four approaches suggests about approaches to incentivising and measuring research impact.