Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada

Landry, Réjean; Amara, Nabil; Ламари, Моктар

doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(00)00081-0

Cited by 377 publications

(488 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

451

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Underpinning these interactions is the expectation that research findings are then more likely to be used (or at least considered) by policymakers when developing health policies (Innvaer et al, 2002), bridging the science to policy gap. Researchers have found that the use of health research and other types of information in the policymaking process was most influenced by interactions between policymakers and researchers (Landry et al, 2001;Paluck et al, 2001;Griffin & Edwards, 2002;Lavis et al, 2002;Landry et al, 2003;Lavis et al, 2003). To clarify, in this paper the term 'policymaker' is also inclusive of the term 'decision-maker' and refers to those individuals who make clinical, administrative, or legislative policy decisions in organizations or governments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration

Kothari

MacLean

Edwards

et al. 2011

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The knowledge transfer literature encourages partnerships between researchers and policymakers for the purposes of policy-relevant knowledge creation. Consequently, research findings are more likely to be used by policymakers during policy development. This paper presents a set of practice-based indicators that can be used to manage the collaborative knowledge creation process or assess the performance of a partnership between researchers and policymakers. Indicators for partnership success were developed from 16 qualitative interviews with health policymakers and researchers involved with eight research transfer partnerships with government. These process and outcomes indicators were refined through a focus group. Resulting qualitative and quantitative indicators were judged to be clear, relevant, credible, and feasible. New findings included the need to have different indicators to evaluate new vs mature partnerships, as well as specific indicators common to researcher-policymaker partnerships in general.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration

Kothari

MacLean

Edwards

et al. 2011

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Boundary work, in those cases, is required to construct and manage the interactions among various stakeholders, or communities, with the aim to lead to more productive and informed policy-making [31]. The scholarly literature on boundary work is expanding, addressing the concept from different perspectives [25,[31][32][33][34][35][36]. In general, however, three functions can characterise boundary work: (i) communication-active, iterative and inclusive; (ii) translation-facilitating mutual understanding between experts and decision-makers, eliminating the hindrance of jargon, language, experiences, and presumptions; and (iii) mediation-enhancing the legitimacy of the process by increasing transparency, bringing all perspectives to the table, providing rules of conduct, and establishing criteria for decision-making [26].…”

Section: Boundary Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moss et al, for example, describe the 'hidden role' of knowledge brokers, by distinguishing three dimensions: (1) the opening up of relationships, or mediating, between production, consumption, and regulation; (2) working between different scales, or levels, of action, e.g., challenging existing hierarchical forms of governance to bring local agendas into the policy realm; and (3) working between technologies and social contexts, e.g., presenting technologies in such a manner (translated) that it speaks to all parties involved [39] (pp. [24][25]. However, these dimensions still shed no light on how knowledge brokers go about these actions.…”

Section: Knowledge Brokers As Boundary Workersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature predominantly conceptualises these individuals, who focus on processes to improve the use and production of scientific knowledge in policy and decision-making, as 'knowledge brokers' [17,[19][20][21][22][23][24]. However, even though the scholarly literature on boundary work and these individual mediators discusses goals and strategies [21,22,25,26], little empirical research appears to have been done on how these knowledge brokers address issues and processes concerning the interactions between science and policy in practice. Understanding which type of science-policy interaction problems knowledge brokers address, by means of what goals and strategies, and understanding their competences and capabilities, could yield more insight into how and when knowledge brokers should or could be deployed in a policy-making process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Working at the Boundary: An Empirical Study into the Goals and Strategies of Knowledge Brokers in the Field of Environmental Governance in the Netherlands

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:There is a broad range of literature on individuals who mediate at the boundaries between science and policy. However, there seems to be little empirical evidence on the goals and strategies of knowledge brokers, even though they appear to be becoming increasingly important in the field of environmental science and policy. This paper aims to improve the understanding of why and how knowledge brokers operate through an analysis of 27 in-depth interviews. It demonstrates that they see themselves as (strategically) sensitive to all stakes and stakeholders involved, possess a large network, and act without interests. They appear to act strategically in two different settings: on stage, where the collaboration of all stakeholders is needed, and backstage, where the knowledge broker steers the process on his/her own. Furthermore, our research suggests that the (perceived) credibility and legitimacy of the knowledge broker is more important to the process than the degree of credibility and legitimacy of the knowledge used in the decision-making process, and that it would be advisable to deploy knowledge brokers proactively, instead of reactively, which could lead to 'incident politics'.

show abstract

“…The producer-push model describes the traditional unidirectional flow of research or evaluation knowledge, which is pushed outward to the practice field [22][23][24][25]. Conversely, in the user-pull model, program implementers in the field attempt to pull knowledge from the best available research and evaluation findings.…”

Section: Knowledge-action Gapmentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting program evaluation to work: a framework for creating actionable knowledge for suicide prevention practice

Wilkins

Thigpen

Lockman

et al. 2012

Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The economic and human cost of suicidal behavior to individuals, families, communities, and society makes suicide a serious public health concern, both in the US and around the world. As research and evaluation continue to identify strategies that have the potential to reduce or ultimately prevent suicidal behavior, the need for translating these findings into practice grows. The development of actionable knowledge is an emerging process for translating important research and evaluation findings into action to benefit practice settings. In an effort to apply evaluation findings to strengthen suicide prevention practice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) supported the development of three actionable knowledge products that make key findings and lessons learned from youth suicide prevention program evaluations accessible and useable for action. This paper describes the actionable knowledge framework (adapted from the knowledge transfer literature), the three products that resulted, and recommendations for further research into this emerging method for translating research and evaluation findings and bridging the knowledge-action gap. KEYWORDSSuicide prevention, Youth, Actionable knowledge, Knowledge to action, Knowledge-action, Researchto-practice, Implementation, Knowledge transfer, Public healthThe economic and human cost of suicidal behavior to individuals, families, communities, and society makes suicide a serious public health concern, both in the United States and around the world. In the US, it is estimated that deaths resulting from suicide create a financial burden of over 26 billion dollars a year in medical costs and work loss [1]. Suicide is also one of the most common causes of death among young people in the US. It is the second leading cause of death among 25-34-year-olds and the third leading cause of death among 15-24-year-olds [2]. In 2011, nearly 16 % of high school students (typical age range 14-18 years old) reported that they had seriously considered suicide in the past year [3], that is, about three students out of a typical classroom of 20 [4].The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines suicidal behavior as including (1) suicidal ideation (thoughts of harming or killing oneself), (2) suicide attempt (a nonfatal, self-directed potentially injurious behavior with any intent to die as a result of the behavior), and/or (3) suicide (death caused by self-directed injurious behavior with any intent to die as a result of the behavior) [5]. Historically in the US, suicide has almost exclusively been addressed by providing mental health services to people already experiencing suicidal thoughts or behavior. While

show abstract

Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada

Cited by 377 publications

References 31 publications

Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration

Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration

Working at the Boundary: An Empirical Study into the Goals and Strategies of Knowledge Brokers in the Field of Environmental Governance in the Netherlands

Putting program evaluation to work: a framework for creating actionable knowledge for suicide prevention practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About