Improving the Influence of Evidence in Policy Creation: An Ethnographic Study of the Research-to-Policy Collaborative

Autor/inn/en	Guillot-Wright, Shannon; Oliver, Kathryn
Titel	Improving the Influence of Evidence in Policy Creation: An Ethnographic Study of the Research-to-Policy Collaborative
Quelle	In: Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 19 (2023) 1, S.58-73 (16 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1744-2648
Schlagwörter	Public Policy; Policy Formation; Theory Practice Relationship; Evidence Based Practice; Cooperation; Interprofessional Relationship; Social Networks; Intervention; Consultation Programs; Attitudes; Behavior; Program Evaluation; Program Effectiveness; Communication (Thought Transfer); Researchers; Public Officials + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Öffentliche Ordnung; Politische Betätigung; Theorie-Praxis-Beziehung; Co-operation; Kooperation; Social network; Soziales Netzwerk; Fachberatung; Attitude; Einstellung; Verhalten; Programme evaluation; Programmevaluation; Communication; thought; Kommunikation; Gedanke; Researcher; Forscher
Abstract	Background: Despite the known need for empirical research-to-policy studies, little is known about the factors and conditions needed to support meaningful evidence use or how to intervene to promote quality evidence use. Aims and objectives: To study research-policy processes empirically and descriptively, we conducted an ethnography that focused on the impact of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) on legislator and researcher evidence use or policy engagement, including whether and how researchers and policymakers created and sustained meaningful relationships. Methods: The ethnography included participant observation as well as pre- and post- semi-structured interviews from policymakers (n=17), researchers (n=23), and RPC staff (n=5). The team attended relevant events as well as observed the formal and informal ways research is used in policymaking. Findings: In the paper, we describe how 1) legislative priorities were identified; 2) networks were established and maintained; 3) trainings evolved over time; 4) relationships between RPC staff, congressional staff, and researchers were facilitated; and 5) RPC followed up with policymakers and researchers. Discussion and conclusions: We 1) describe the experiences of participants and whether involvement in the intervention changed attitudes or behaviours about evidence use in policy; 2) describe the RPC process in practice, and how it was implemented and evolved over time; and 3) better understand the conditions supporting evidence use in policymaking. We conclude with the value of the RPC as a resource to fill a niche within the evidence and policy space, as well as suggestions for future research-to-policy programmes and practices. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Policy Press, an imprint of Bristol University Press. University of Bristol, 1-9 Old Park Hill, Bristol BS2 8BB, UK. Tel: +44-117-954-5940; e-mail: pp-info@policypress.co.uk; Web site: https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/journals/evidence-and-policy
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01