Understanding responses to the political context of health inequalities in research and policy: Can post-structural theories of power help?
In: Social theory & health, Band 13, Heft 3-4, S. 355-376
ISSN: 1477-822X
49 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Social theory & health, Band 13, Heft 3-4, S. 355-376
ISSN: 1477-822X
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Band 41, Heft 5
ISSN: 1471-5430
In: Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, Band 17, Heft 1, S. 3-8
ISSN: 1744-2656
In: Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, Band 16, Heft 3, S. 333-336
ISSN: 1744-2656
In: Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, Band 16, Heft 1, S. 3-5
ISSN: 1744-2656
In: Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, Band 15, Heft 2, S. 175-177
ISSN: 1744-2656
In: Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, Band 15, Heft 1, S. 03-05
ISSN: 1744-2656
In: Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, Band 14, Heft 4, S. 567-569
ISSN: 1744-2656
In: Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, Band 14, Heft 3, S. 403-430
ISSN: 1744-2656
The past two decades witnessed the international consensus around the idea that health policy decisions should be 'evidence-based'. These efforts have stimulated a wealth of studies explicitly concerned with understanding the use of research evidence in policy. The majority of such studies suggest there are few examples of public health policy outcomes that might reasonably be labelled 'evidence-based'. Only a small number of these studies seek to explore how political dynamics interacted with evidence to shape policy outcomes. Here, we draw on two empirical case studies of efforts to promote public health evidence to decision makers (protection from secondhand smoke in Europe and tackling health inequalities in England), to highlight the primacy of 'policy networks' and 'advocacy' for understanding the role of evidence in achieving policy change. Reflecting on our empirical findings, we argue that the policy networks literature usefully foregrounds the roles that diverse 'policy actors' can play in connecting research and policy. However, our case studies also suggest that popular accounts of policy networks, such as Haas' 'epistemic communities' and Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith's Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), overstate the role of core values in driving policy network efforts, while underplaying the role of advocacy, leadership, network communication and trust, scientific consensus, political context and strategic policy trade-offs in network success. We conclude by arguing for further efforts to connect analyses of policy networks and evidence use. We also reflect on the implications of our findings for those seeking to employ evidence to effect policy change.
In: Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, Band 14, Heft 2, S. 191-195
ISSN: 1744-2656
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.
BASE
In: Social theory & health, Band 13, Heft 3-4, S. 219-226
ISSN: 1477-822X
In: Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, Band 11, Heft 3, S. 415-437
ISSN: 1744-2656
Concerns about the limited influence of research on decision making have prompted the development of tools intended to mediate evidence for policy audiences. This article focuses on three examples, prominent in public health: impact assessments; systematic reviews; and economic decision-making tools (cost-benefit analysis and scenario modelling). Each has been promoted as a means of synthesising evidence for policy makers but little is known about policy actors' experiences of them. Employing a literature review and 69 interviews, we offer a critical analysis of their role in policy debates, arguing that their utility lies primarily in their symbolic value as markers of good decision making.
In May 2016, the Australian Government announced that it would implement annual increases in tobacco excise of 12.5% up to and including 2020, raising the cost of a pack of cigarettes to $A40. This increase will lead to Australia having one of the highest prices of cigarettes in the world. Increasing the cost of tobacco is considered by public health experts to be one of the most effective strategies to reduce tobacco use, and is generally well supported by the public. However, tobacco tax increases differentially impact various subgroups of the population. Based on a review of existing literature, this paper examines some of the potential (unintended) consequences of the tax to individual and family income; illicit trade; social stigma and opportunities for lobbying by the tobacco industry. In light of these considerations, we offer strategies that might be used by policymakers to mitigate potential harms. While this paper focuses on the impacts primarily on populations in Australia, the consequences and strategies offered may be useful to other countries implementing tobacco excise increases.
BASE
In: Evidence & policy: a journal of research, debate and practice, Band 8, Heft 1, S. 57-78
ISSN: 1744-2656
Studies exploring how and why evidence informs decisions (or not) often focus on perceived cultural, communicative and institutional gaps between research producers and users. More recently, there has been a growing interest in exploring how political differences between competing 'policy networks' might shape research utilisation. Drawing on two public health case studies, this paper highlights the multiplicity of divisions informing knowledge translation, arguing that this calls into question the appropriateness of prioritising professional or political divisions. It concludes by outlining how complexity theories might be employed to develop more sophisticated ways of conceptualising the relationships between research, policy and practice.