Bridging research, policy, and practice in African agriculture
Bridging research, policy, and practice in African agriculture
复制标题
连接非洲农业的研究、政策和实践
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. W. Omamo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. W. Omamo
“关于非洲农业的政策研究长期致力于为刺激农业增长所需采取的措施开出处方，但缺乏如何在实践中执行这些处方。如何解释这种状况？我们可以做些什么来纠正它，最重要的是，如何纠正？本文通过对政策过程中研究的作用和影响的文献进行全面的回顾和评估来解决这些问题。六个主要的思想流派被确定：理性模式;有限理性下的实用主义;创新扩散;知识管理;影响评估;和循证实践。理性模式的基本隐喻是一个“政策周期”，包括问题界定和议程制定、正式决策、政策实施、评估，然后再回到问题界定和议程制定等，这一模式被批评为过于简单化和不切实际。然而，它仍然是指导弥合研究人员和决策者之间差距的主要框架。其他五个学派都放松了理性模型中的某些假设，例如，完全理性的决策者、程序的确定性、明确界定的研究问题、明确界定的用户群体、明确界定的沟通渠道。这样做，他们实现了更大的现实主义，但代价是清晰度和易处理性。一个统一的便携式框架，代表所有的政策过程，并捕捉所有可能的选择和权衡所面临的桥接研究，政策和实践目前还不存在，也不太可能出现。它的缺失是知识的情境特异性和社会嵌入性的逻辑结果。从一个“研究者作为传播者”的范式，以一个“教师作为学习者”的范式的重点是从根本上转变的文献，具有偶然的方法，认识到并响应上下文的特异性和社会嵌入性。归根结底，问题是如何在固有的保守和务实的政策制定者和实践者中促进“证据准备”，在固有的抽象导向的研究人员中促进“用户准备”。“作者摘要
"Policy research on African agriculture is long on prescriptions for what needs to be done to spur agricultural growth but short on how such prescriptions might be implemented in practice. What explains this state of affairs? What might be done to correct it, and, most important, how? This paper addresses these questions via a comprehensive review and assessment of the literature on the role and impact of research in policy processes. Six major schools of thought are identified: the rational model; pragmatism under bounded rationality; innovation diffusion; knowledge management; impact assessment; and evidence-based-practice. The rational model with its underlying metaphor of a 'policy cycle' comprising problem definition and agenda setting, formal decision making, policy implementation, evaluation, and then back to problem definition and agenda setting, and so on has been criticized as too simplistic and unrealistic. Yet it remains the dominant framework guiding attempts to bridge gaps between researchers and policy makers. Each of the other five schools relaxes certain assumptions embedded within the rational model e.g., wholly rational policy makers, procedural certainty, well-defined research questions, well-defined user groups, welldefined channels of communication. In so doing, they achieve greater realism but at the cost of clarity and tractability. A unified portable framework representing all policy processes and capturing all possible choices and tradeoffs faced in bridging research, policy, and practice does not currently exist and is unlikely ever to emerge. Its absence is a logical outcome of the context-specificity and social embeddedness of knowledge. A fundamental shift in focus from a 'researcher-as-disseminator' paradigm to a 'practitioner-as-learner' paradigm is suggested by the literature, featuring contingent approaches that recognize and respond to context-specificity and social embeddedness. At bottom, the issue is how to promote 'evidence-readiness' among inherently conservative and pragmatic policy makers and practitioners and 'user-readiness' among inherently abstraction-oriented researchers." Author's Abstract