Typology of functions of academic centers and advisory institutions in public policy making: a comprehensive and integrated model

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Administration, University of Tehran

2 PhD Student of Science amd Technology Policy, University of Tehran

Abstract

All decisions in politics and policy are always to be taken with regard to the various ‎considerations which one of the most important is, the achievements in the field of science and ‎research and utilization of them, in order to strengthen and improve the quality of the decisions. ‎Special considerations in the public domain increase the importance of relying on knowledge base ‎of decisions in this field. However the fundamental differences between the two fields of ‎knowledge and research with politics and policy, always makes it difficult to conduct relevant ‎and appropriate research and communicate it to political and policy processes. Thus, it raises the ‎demand for the detailed architecting of the interface in-between and required intermediary ‎functions. So in this paper, the intermediary concepts and institutions in politics and policy, ‎the supply-demand relationship of knowledge in governance processes and diverse functions of academic centers and advisory institutions is discussed. Then, ‎concepts around and functions of academic centers and advisory institutions will be elaborated and based on an innovative combination of these functions a comprehensive and integrated typology of ‎functions is presented in five categories: "Facilitating access to research," "organizing and appropriating of research", "promotion and facilitation of dialogue and exchange of views", "linking, networking and issue advocacy" and "increasing the policy capacity".
 

Keywords

References

الف) فارسی
1-       حسن‌پور، آ.، ربانی، ع.، (1393)، نقد مطالعات گونه‌شناسی دینداری و ارائه چارچوبی نو، راهبرد فرهنگ، ش 28: صص 61-89.
2-     حمیدی‌زاده، ع.، قلی‌پور، ر.، (1393)، نگاشت مفهومی و اعتباریابی مدل عوامل مؤثر بر به ‌کارگیری سیاست‌پژوهی در سیاستگذاری، مدیریت فرهنگ سازمانی، دوره 12، ش 4: صص 787-808.
3-       ذوالفقارزاده، م.، امیری، ع.، زارعی متین، ح.، (1390)، کشف فرهنگ دانشگاه: واکاوی نظری و گونه‌شناختی مطالعات فرهنگ دانشگاهی، اندیشه مدیریت راهبردی، ش 9: صص 45-97.
4-       صادقی فسایی، س.، عرفان‌منش، ا.، (1394)، مبانی روش‌شناختی پژوهش اسنادی در علوم اجتماعی، راهبرد فرهنگ، ش 29: صص 62-91.
5-       قلی‌پور، ر.، پورسید، ب.، حمیدی‌زاده، ع.، امیری، ع.، (1389)، بررسی تأثیر سیاست‌پژوهی در فضای خط‌مشی‌گذاری (مطالعه موردی مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی، نشریه مدیریت دولتی، دوره 2، ش 4: صص 127-144.
6-       کبیری، م.، (1386)، بررسی و مقایسه دیدگاه سطوح استفاده‌‌کننده از نتایج پژوهشی نسبت به مدل‌های کاربست، فصلنامه نوآوری‌های آموزشی، سال پنجم، ش 16، صص 59-36.
7-       کبیری، م.، (1388)، مدل‌های کاربست یافته‌های پژوهشی و نقش آنها در مدیریت پژوهشی؛ به مثابه یک حوزه میان‌رشته‌ای، فصلنامه مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، دوره اول، ش 4، صص 168-147.
8-       لطیفی، م.، (1388)، بازپردازی مفهوم نظم و انضباط در سازمان (رویکردی اسلامی)، رساله دکتری، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
9-       نامداریان، ل.، (1395)، بررسی و تبیین کاربردپذیری نتایج پژوهشی در سیاستگذاری: پلی میان نظر و عمل، فصلنامه سیاستگذاری عمومی، دوره 2، شماره 3، صص 101-117
ب) انگلیسی
10- Abderrahmane, M. (2005), RESEARCH-POLICY LINK(AGE). UNESCO Social and Human Sciences ‎Documentation Centre.
11- Abderrahmane, P. b. (n.d.). RESEARCH-POLICY LINK(AGE). UNESCO Social and Human Sciences ‎Documentation Centre.
12- Albæk, E. (1995), Between knowledge and power: Utilization of social science in public policy making. 28(1).
13- Albæk, E. (1995), Between knowledge and power: Utilization of social science in public policy making. 28(1).
14- ‎Australia, L. &. (2006), Knowledge for Regional NRM: Connecting Researchers and ‎Practitioners. Canberra‎: Land & Water Australia.
15- Banks, G. (2015), Could Academic Research Be More Policy Infuential? Public Administration Review, 33-34.
16- Campbell, A. (2006). Knowledge for Regional NRM: Connecting Researchers and ‎Practitioners. Canberra‎: Land & Water Australia.
17- Caplan, N. (1975), The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level: A Report to Respondents. Michigan: Publications Office, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
18- Caplan, N. (1979), The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization. 22(3).
19- Colin J. Bennett, & Michael Howlett. (1992), The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. 25(3).
20- Dobuzinskis, L., Howlett, M., & Laycock, D. (2005), Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art. Toronto : University of Toronto Press.
21- Engels, A. (2005), The Science-Policy Interface. Integrated Assessment.
22- Fisher, C. , & Vogel, I. (2008), Locating the Power of In-between: How Research Brokers and ‎Intermediaries Support Evidenced-based Pro-poor Policy and Practice‎. London: IDS.
23- Fisher, C. (2010), Knowledge Brokering and Intermediary concepts. Impact and Learning Team, Institute of Development Studies.
24- Fisher, C. (2010), Knowledge Brokering and Intermediary Concepts: Analysis of an E-discussion on the ‎Knowledge Broker’s Forum‎. Publisher Unknown.
25- Fisher, C., & Kunaratnam, Y. (2007), Between Ourselves: the New Generation of Information & ‎Knowledge Intermediaries. notes from the ‘Intermediary Workshop: Summarisers, Singposters and ‎Synthesiser’.
26- Gregrich, R. (2003), A note to researchers: Communicating science to policy makers and ‎practitioners. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 233-237.
27- Grundmann, R., & Stehr, N. (2012), The Power of Scientific Knowledge: From Research to Public Policy. New York: cambridge university press.
28- Gunter, H. M., David , H., & Colin , M. (2015), Consultants, consultancy and consultocracy in education policymaking in England. Journal of Education Policy, 518-540.
29- Hind, E. (2013), Independent Review of Supply Side Organisations and Government Intermediaries. The Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy: the Knowledge Sector Initiative.
30- Hitchman, K. G. (2010), Organizational structure and functions within intermediary organizations. Waterloo: Canadian Water Network.
31- Honig, M. I. (2004), The New Middle Management: Intermediary Organizations in Education Policy Implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 65–87.
32- Hoppe, R. (2009), Scientific advice and public policy: expert advisers’ and policymakers’ discourses on boundary work. 6.
33- Hoppe, R. (2010), From “knowledge use” towards “boundary work”: sketch of an emerging new agenda for inquiry into science-policy interaction.
34- Howells, J. (2006), Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 715–728.
35- Howlett, M., & Joshua Newman, (2010), Policy analysis and policy work in federal systems: Policy advice and its contribution to evidence-based policy-‎making in multi-level governance systems. Policy and Society, 123-136.
36- Jones, H., Jones, N, & Datta, A. (2009), Knowledge, Policy and Power: Six Dimensions of the ‎Knowledge-Development Interface‎. London: ODI Report.
37- Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009), E stablishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 849–860.
38- Lentsch, J., & Weingart, P. (2011), The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39- Lindquist, E. A. (2001), Discerning Policy Influence: Framework for a Strategic Evaluation of IDRC-Supported Research.
40- Loewenson, D. R. (2010), Connecting the streams: Using health systems research knowledge in low- and middle-income countries. montreux, switzerland: First Global Symposium on Health Systems Research.
41- MAASEN, S., & WEINGART, P. (2005), DEMOCRATIZATION OF EXPERTISE? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
42- Magnuszewski, P., Sodomkova, K., Slob, A., & Muro, M. (2010), Policy Science Interactions: connecting science and policy. Report on conceptual framework for science-policy barriers ‎and bridges.‎Project report from PSI-connect.
43- Martin, S. (2016), Practical Approaches to Increasing the Utilization of Research. Public Administration Review, 18-19.
44- Michaels, S. (2009), Matching Knowledge Brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. 12.
45- Michaels, S. (2009), Matching Knowledge Brokering Strategies to Environmental Policy Problems ‎and Settings‎. Environmental Science & Policy, 994-1011.
46- Newman, J., Cherney, A., & Head, B. W. (2016), Do Policy Makers Use Academic Research? Reexamining the “Two Communities” Theory of Research Utilization, Public Administration Review, 24-36.
47- Owens, S., & Rayner, T. (1999), When knowledge matters’: the role and influence of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 1(1).
48- Pielke, Jr., R. (2007), The Honest Broker: MAKING SENSE OF SCIENCE IN POLICY AND POLITICS. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49- Sabatier, P. (1988), An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of ‎Policy-oriented Learning Therein‎. 21.
50- Sapsed, J., Grantham, A., & DeFillip pi, R. (2007), A bridge over troubled waters: bridging organisations and entrepreneurial opportunities in emerging sectors. Research Policy, 1314–1334.
51- Shaxson, & Gwynn. (2010), Developing a strategy for knowledge translation and brokering in public policymaking. Montreal, Canada: Knowledge Translation and Brokering workshop.
52- Shaxson, & Gwynn. (2010), Developing a strategy for knowledge translation and brokering in public policymaking. Montreal, Canada: Knowledge Translation and Brokering workshop.
53- Stone, D., Maxwell, S., & Keating, M. (2001), Bridging Research and Policy. Warwick University: An International Workshop Funded by the UK Department for ‎International ‎Development.
54- van Kammer, J., Savigy, D., & Sewankambo, N. (2006), Using Knowledge Brokering to Promote ‎Evidence-based Policy-making: the Need for Support Structures‎. Bulletin of the World Health ‎Organisation.
55- Vas, C. B. (2012), TRANSFORMING THINK TANKS INTO ‘POLICY HUBS’: THE CREATION OF RESEARCH−POLICY NETWORKS. School of Politics and International Relations: the Australian National University.
56- Ward, V., House, A., & Hamer, S. (2009), Knowle dge Brokering: the Missing Link in the Evidence to ‎Action Chain?‎. Evid Policy, 267-279.
57- Weaver, K., & Stares, P. (2001), Guidance for Governance: Comparing Alternative ‎Sources of Public Policy Advice. Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange.
58- Weiss, C. H. (1979), The Many Meanings of Research Utilization. 39(5).
59- Wolfe, R. (2006), Changing Conceptions of Intermediaries in Development Processes: Challenging the ‎Modernist View of Knowledge, Communication and Social Change‎. IDS Knowledge Services.
62- Young, J. (2005), Bridging Re search and Policy: The RAPID approach. African Economic Research Institutions and Policy Development: Opportunities and Challenges. Dakar,: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics