What works to promote research-policy engagement?

Author:

Oliver Kathryn1,Hopkins Anna2,Boaz Annette1,Guillot-Wright Shannon3,Cairney Paul4

Affiliation:

1. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK

2. Transforming Evidence, UK

3. University of Texas, USA

4. University of Stirling, Scotland

Abstract

Background:To improve the use of evidence in policy and practice, many organisations and individuals seek to promote research-policy engagement activities, but little is known about what works. Aims and objectives:We sought (a) to identify existing research-policy engagement activities, and (b) evidence on impacts of these activities on research and decision making. Methods:We conducted systematic desk-based searches for organisations active in this area (such as funders, practice organisations, and universities) and reviewed websites, strategy documents, published evaluations and relevant research. We used a stakeholder roundtable, and follow-up survey and interviews, with a subset of the sample to check the quality and robustness of our approach. Findings:We identified 1923 initiatives in 513 organisations world-wide. However, we found only 57 organisations had publicly-available evaluations, and only 6% (141/2321) of initiatives were evaluated. Most activities aim to improve research dissemination or create relationships. Existing evaluations offer an often rich and nuanced picture of evidence use in particular settings (such as local government), sectors (such as policing), or by particular providers (such as learned societies), but are extremely scarce. Discussion and conclusions:Funders, research- and decision-making organisations have contributed to a huge expansion in research-policy engagement initiatives. Unfortunately, these initiatives tend not to draw on existing evidence and theory, and are mostly unevaluated. The rudderless mass of activity therefore fails to provide useful lessons for those wishing to improve evidence use, leading to wasted time and resources. Future initiatives should draw on existing evidence about what works, seek to contribute to this evidence base, and respond to a more realistic picture of the decision-making context.

Publisher

Bristol University Press

Subject

Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Reference125 articles.

1. Annual member survey,2018

2. Making the most of research, final report of the ESRC lcal government knowledge navigator;Allen, T.,2015

3. Summative evaluation of the research + practice collaboratory: final report;Anderson, K.,2019

4. Shifting sands: from descriptions to solutions;Armstrong, R.,2014

5. Social work teaching partnerships: a discussion paper;Baginsky, M.,2019

Cited by 44 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3