Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice

Abstract

The use of research evidence (URE) in policy and practice is relevant to many academic disciplines, as well as policy and practice domains. Although there has been increased attention to how such evidence is used, those engaged in scholarship and practice in this area face challenges in advancing the field. This paper attempts to “map the field” with the objective of provoking conversation about where we are and what we need to move forward. Utilizing survey data from scholars, practitioners, and funders connected to the study of the use of research evidence, we explore the extent to which URE work span traditional boundaries of research, practice, and policy, of different practice/policy fields, and of different disciplines. Descriptive and network analyses point to the boundary spanning and multidisciplinarity of this community, but also suggest exclusivity, as well as fragmentation among disciplines and literatures on which this work builds. We conclude with opportunities for to improve the connectedness, inclusiveness, relationship to policy and practice, and sustainability of URE scholarship.

Analysts, advocates and applicators: three discourse coalitions of UK evidence and policy

“…There are distinctions that can be drawn between individuals and organisations that are seen to produce research and those that consume it for thought and action (as described in Higgins et al, 2014). Individuals might be mapped by their personal identities, social networks and affinities for different academic literature (as mapped in Farley-Ripple et al, 2020). And organisations might be classified according to their design, strategies and priorities in relation to evidence and action (as in the idealised archetypes of Davies et al, 2015).…”

“…Researchers and practitioners working on the relationship between evidence and policy deploy a wide array of concepts and approaches to thinking about evidence (Parkhurst, 2017), from knowledge transfer to implementation science, systematic reviews to the co-production of knowledge. The field also consists of individual actors with distinct philosophies of knowledge from the natural, social and physical sciences, as well as practitioner-based perspectives (Farley-Ripple et al, 2020). This 'spectrum of understandings' (Cairney, 2017: 500) is applied in a wide range of political and institutional contexts that cut across societal concerns, from macro-economic policy to nuclear energy infrastructure projects.…”

“…This 'spectrum of understandings' (Cairney, 2017: 500) is applied in a wide range of political and institutional contexts that cut across societal concerns, from macro-economic policy to nuclear energy infrastructure projects. The complexity of epistemic, geographic and topical concerns of the evidence and policy field means that any attempt to consolidate it is likely to rely on frameworks that analytically parse it up in a way that allows insights to be drawn (Farley-Ripple et al, 2020).…”

Reporting Survey Based Studies – a Primer for Authors

“… 13 14 Therefore, surveys appear to be the most viable option for researchers to explore hypotheses related to the situation and its impact in such times. 15 …”

Palliative care research promotion in policy and practice: a knowledge exchange process

“…Recognising this, over the past two decades, there has been an increasing focus on understanding the processes by which findings from research are used to inform policy and practice. 8 Knowledge mobilisation (KMb) is commonly adopted as an umbrella term to describe any activities aimed at collating and communicating research-based knowledge in health and social care systems. 9 KMb emphasises a proactive process, whereby knowledge is shared for a specific purpose.…”