In: Robinson , J J , Mays , N & Fraser , A 2018 , ' Improving research and policy interactions requires a better understanding of what works in different contexts 16 Studies in Human Society 1605 Policy and Administration ' , Israel journal of health policy research , vol. 7 , no. 1 , 60 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-018-0256-6
There is keen interest in many jurisdictions in finding ways to improve the way that research evidence informs policy. One possible mechanism for this is to embed academics within government agencies either as advisers or full staff members. Our commentary argues that, in addition to considering the role of academics in government as proposed by Glied and colleagues, we need to understand better how research and policy interactions function across policy sectors. We believe more comparative research is needed to understand if and why academics from certain disciplines are more likely to be recruited to work in some policy sectors rather than others. We caution against treating government as monolithic by advocating the same model for collaborative interaction between academics and government. Lastly, we contend that contextualized research is needed to illuminate important drivers of research and policy interactions before we can recommend what is likely to be more and less effective in different policy sectors.
In: Taljaard , M , Weijer , C , Grimshaw , J M , Ali , A , Brehaut , J C , Campbell , M K , Carroll , K , Edwards , S , Eldridge , S , Forrest , C B , Giraudeau , B , Goldstein , C E , Graham , I D , Hemming , K , Hey , S P , Horn , A R , Jairath , V , Klassen , T P , London , A J , Marlin , S , Marshall , J C , McIntyre , L , McKenzie , J E , Nicholls , S G , Alison Paprica , P , Zwarenstein , M & Fergusson , D A 2018 , ' Developing a framework for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials in healthcare : A mixed methods research protocol 16 Studies in Human Society 1605 Policy and Administration ' , Trials , vol. 19 , no. 1 , 525 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2895-x
Background: There is a widely recognized need for more pragmatic trials that evaluate interventions in real-world settings to inform decision-making by patients, providers, and health system leaders. Increasing availability of electronic health records, centralized research ethics review, and novel trial designs, combined with support and resources from governments worldwide for patient-centered research, have created an unprecedented opportunity to advance the conduct of pragmatic trials, which can ultimately improve patient health and health system outcomes. Such trials raise ethical issues that have not yet been fully addressed, with existing literature concentrating on regulations in specific jurisdictions rather than arguments grounded in ethical principles. Proposed solutions (e.g. using different regulations in "learning healthcare systems") are speculative with no guarantee of improvement over existing oversight procedures. Most importantly, the literature does not reflect a broad vision of protecting the core liberty and welfare interests of research participants. Novel ethical guidance is required. We have assembled a team of ethicists, trialists, methodologists, social scientists, knowledge users, and community members with the goal of developing guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials. Methods: Our project will combine empirical and conceptual work and a consensus development process. Empirical work will: (1) identify a comprehensive list of ethical issues through interviews with a small group of key informants (e.g. trialists, ethicists, chairs of research ethics committees); (2) document current practices by reviewing a random sample of pragmatic trials and surveying authors; (3) elicit views of chairs of research ethics committees through surveys in Canada, UK, USA, France, and Australia; and (4) elicit views and experiences of community members and health system leaders through focus groups and surveys. Conceptual work will consist of an ethical analysis of identified ...
BACKGROUND: Burden of disease (BoD) studies have been conducted in numerous international settings since the early 1990's. Two national BoD studies have been undertaken in Australia, in 1998 and 2003, although neither study estimated the BoD specifically for Indigenous Australians. In 2005 the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health formally commissioned the University of Queensland to undertake, in parallel with the second national BoD study, the "Burden of Disease and Injury in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples" study, drawing on available data up to 2003. This paper aims to explore the policy context and narrative in the lead up to commissioning the Indigenous BoD (IBoD) study, focusing on relevant contextual factors and insights regarding the perspectives of key stakeholders and their anticipated value of the study. It is part of a broader project that examines the uptake of evidence to policy, using the IBoD study as a case study. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken in late 2013 and early 2014, and the findings triangulated with 38 key informant interviews with Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics, researchers, statisticians, policy advisors, and policymakers, conducted between 2011 and 2013. FINDINGS: Contextual features which led to commissioning the IBoD study included widespread recognition of longstanding Indigenous disadvantage, lower life expectancy than non-Indigenous Australians, and the lack of an adequate evidence base upon which to determine priorities for interventions. Several anticipated benefits and expectations of key stakeholders were identified. Most informants held at least one of the following expectations of the study: that it would inform the evidence base, contribute to priority setting, and/or inform policy. There were differing or entirely contrasting views to this however, with some sharing concerns about the study being undertaken at all. CONCLUSIONS: The IBoD study, in concept, offered the potential to generate much desired 'answers', in the form of a quantified ranking of health risks and disease burden, and it was hoped by many that the results of the study would feed into determining priorities and informing Indigenous health policy.
The Department of Social Services (DSS) commissioned the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) to conduct a review of the implementation of the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (Strategy). The aim was to examine effective implementation processes and measures of the Strategy to inform the reform that will develop a new national disability framework for beyond 2020.The review methodology consisted of a desktop review of documents about the implementation of the Strategy and targeted stakeholder consultations. The desktop review included publicly available Australian and international documents from government, community organisations and the service sector and reports internal to DSS. The consultations were held with stakeholders from organisations with a role in designing and implementing the Strategy and stakeholders from organisations that represent people with disability and their families, carers and allies. Approximately 150 people from 81 organisations participated in the targeted stakeholder consultations, which were held in all State and Territory capitals, over the phone or skype, and by e-mail. The next stage of the reform by DSS will include comprehensive online and face-to-face public engagement.This report presents the findings and implications from this review, focusing on the key factors that affected implementation of the Strategy and the areas in which implementation could be improved.
The scope and intensity of policy transfer has increased in recent years as developing countries have drawn on public sector reform programmes based on new public management practices originally designed in western democracies. However, there is mounting evidence that to be successful, reform programmes must be adapted to local contexts. This article demonstrates that national government control of policy transfer can enable localisation which in turn enhances the effectiveness of public reforms. Analysis of the Position Classification System — which sought to enhance accountability, efficiency and professionalism in the civil service in Bhutan — highlights two conditions that enable domestic control of the policy transfer process: strong internal motivation for engaging in policy transfer and the establishment or adaptation of institutions to manage processes of policy transfer. We conclude that when these conditions apply, a developing country can engage in successful voluntary policy transfer and retain control of the process.
This article examines a case of collaborative policy transfer from Australia to Sweden involving a three-year project of structured analysis, piloting and system modification. The influential role of agency and the manner in which formal mechanisms established to manage engagement impact upon policy analysis and transfer are explored. The analysis finds that agency mobilised with the supplementation of institutional resources becomes a highly motivating and powerful force underpinning collaborative policy transfer processes. The nuances and challenges of policy transfer from a predominantly neoliberal administrative domain into a characteristically corporatist environment are analysed demonstrating that domestic policy processes are critical for defining avenues for actor participation and the manner through which policy adjustments are progressed. A key finding of the work is that policy transfer is more than the one-way transmission of ideas, systems and practices from one jurisdiction to another but can also act as an iterative process, more evidently linked into each jurisdictions' domestic policy cycles of problem analysis, action and review. Under collaborative policy transfer the resources and interest from two distinct locations are mobilised around a policy concern and this effectively enhances the level of critical thinking and reflective practice that contributes to problem solving and solution development. The findings of this study confirm that cross-country collaboration and transfer is an increasingly important pathway in the ongoing development of policy reform and innovation.
This paper engages with debates over the Liberal International Order (LIO) and Latin America by focusing on Brazil. More specifically, it addresses President Jair Bolsonaro's foreign policy. His radical-right populist and religious-infused approach has been characterized by an explicit rejection of practically all elements of the LIO, including multilateralism, multiculturism, and regionalism—historically core features of Brazilian foreign policy. We seek to answer two interrelated questions: (1) what were the political conditions—domestic and international—that allowed for such dramatic foreign policy change? (2) what impact is Brazil's new foreign policy orientation having on the LIO? To address them, we resort to the aspirational constructivist theory, which has allowed us to theorize Brazil's new identity formation. We argue that Bolsonaro has reshaped Brazil's foreign policy as part of his endeavour to create a national self-image based on three pillars: anti-globalism, anti-Communism, and religious nationalism. By doing so, the Bolsonaro administration has transformed Brazil, otherwise an avid supporter of the LIO, into one of the order's most vocal critics. While anti-globalism (and, subsidiarily, anti-Communism) undermines the normative and institutional foundations of the LIO, religious nationalism offers a replacement to the order, based on independent ethno-nationalist communities. If Brazil's radical right populist model spreads across Latin America, it has the potential to hollow out the region's support to the LIO.
The increasing international use of consulting firms in public administration has attracted warnings against diminishing policy capability, accountability and transparency. Whilst significant debates and multiple tensions exist, this article introduces an innovative Australian model which provides scope to harness and balance the strengths of the contributions of consultants and consultancy firms to improve government policy capacity. We argue that advantages exist for engaging Tier 1 consultants provided the conditions are right. Moving past binary debates about whether or not consultants should be used in the public sector, we call for a more nuanced understanding and discussion about how to better leverage expertise, comparative analysis and contestability. Using Wu et al.'s (Policy Soc 34(3–4):165–171, 2015) framework, our pragmatic and sophisticated approach shifts theory and practice on the use of consultants to ensure clarity in the rationale of seeking external advice in order to build or improve policy capacity.
This special issue brings together articles that examine how the localisation and implementation of the Women, Peace and Security agenda occurs in policy and practice. In this introduction, we examine the increasing importance of the Women, Peace and Security policy framework in global politics and the inevitable tensions that surround calls for greater local-level institutional implementation. Drawing on findings from the United Nations 2015 Global Study on Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, we consider the evolving nature of Women, Peace and Security policy and advocacy. We look at what is required to develop policy provisions on this agenda which are considered locally meaningful and 'useful' in distinct policy contexts.
This article reviews geographical research on labour market changes that pose a challenge to 'work' as a compelling category of analysis. Drawing inspiration from feminist scholarship that has sought to develop a frame for thinking about the concept of work so that other activities outside employment are recognised, it considers what everyday practices of work, including domestic and reproductive labour, can teach us about the realities and futures of contemporary capitalism. While 'work' has long served as a presumed norm or telos of 'development', this article considers the prospect of the 'end of work' and of a specific type of accompanying capitalist society. It outlines the challenges for policy making in bringing forth a 'post-work' world without cementing social and economic inequality.
Australia was the first United Nations member state to commit to the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund when it was established in 2006, and it has made annual contributions since then. Australia has also made significant contributions towards enhancing gender equality in peace and security governance, most recently during its 2013–14 term of office on the United Nations Security Council, recognising that gender matters in and to all aspects of peacebuilding activity. This article offers a discourse-theoretical policy analysis of a range of Australian Agency for International Development guidelines and strategies addressing gender and peacebuilding issues, and reads these against the international framework to explore the discursive construction of gender-sensitive peacebuilding in Australia. The authors argue that the representations of peacebuilding in the documents they analyse shape how Australia engages in peacebuilding-related activities and inform how Australia is positioned internationally as a peacebuilding actor.
The rhetoric and practice of localism has attracted significant support within both political and academic circles in the UK in recent years. However, it is the contention of this article that there are, or should be, limits to localism as applied to the basic citizenship rights of vulnerable people. Drawing on a ten-year, mixed-methods study, we use the example of sharply rising homelessness in England to illustrate our argument that localist policymaking has an intrinsic tendency to disadvantage socially marginalised groups. While we acknowledge the central role played by austerity in driving up homelessness over the past decade, we advance the case that the post-2010 localist agenda of successive UK governments has also had an independent and malign effect. At the very least, we seek to demonstrate that localism cannot be viewed as a taken-for-granted progressive model, with centralism (that is, the consistent implementation of a policy across a whole country) also perfectly defensible on progressive grounds in relevant circumstances.
The UK has incorporated a net-zero emissions target into national legislation. A range of Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) options will likely play a key role in the government's strategy toward meeting this goal. Governance frameworks will need to be developed to support GGR development and manage the potential impacts, particularly those on the diverse local communities where the various options will be deployed. This research examines the UK's experience with development and regulation of shale gas - using the technologies of hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling - with a focus on governance and the implications for the development and widespread deployment of GGR. We evaluate the approach used against the principles of good governance, which emphasizes the critical role that local communities and publics play in deployment. The UK's top-down governance of shale gas highlights the risk of regulation driven by assumptions about national and local need, value and a lack of transparency or meaningful stakeholder participation in decision-making. The use of existing legislative frameworks for conventional fossil fuel extraction proved inadequate to address unanticipated consequences such as induced seismicity. Moreover, the support for unconventional hydrocarbons in UK energy policy appeared inconsistent with the goal of meeting greenhouse gas targets and passing significant legislation in 2019 to bring carbon emissions to net-zero. To gain social acceptance at the local level, deployment of new technologies needs to be evaluated from a variety of framings and viewpoints. Where new technologies or practices are deployed, such as fracking and GGR, the knowledge and understanding of the impacts - a fundamental principle of good governance - may be less certain or more contested. Early inclusion and participation of local communities would allow issues of concern to inform how trials are undertaken and regulation designed. This anticipatory and participatory approach fits with the principles of good ...
Robots are increasingly appearing as a potential answer to the 'care crisis' facing a number of countries. Although it is anticipated that many positives will flow from the application of these technologies, they are also likely to generate unexpected consequences and risks. This paper explores the use of robots within disability and aged care settings in the Australian and New Zealand contexts. Informed by thirty-five semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholders, the paper explores why this area is so difficult to govern examining areas identified as generating tensions around the use of robots in care settings. In each of these areas some respondents saw the introduction of robots to be relatively straightforward applications that do not require extensive structures of governance. Others, however, viewed these applications as having potentially greater implications and the need to govern for these over the longer term. The three areas of tension that we explore in this paper relate to independence and surveillance, the re-shaping of human interaction and who can care. These tensions illustrate some of the problems involved in governing robots in a care service context and some of the potentially difficult issues that governments will need to resolve if these technologies are to be effective. We conclude the paper arguing what is needed is a responsive regulation approach to help resolve some of the complexities and tensions in overseeing these technologies.
