Abstract
The chapter concludes the book by presenting the main findings of the research, providing some practical recommendations to increase the influence of research on SSR policy, and setting the project within the current and future literature on research utilisation and post-war recovery. The recommendations section of the chapter abandons the descriptive, explanatory approach of the book for a more normative and prescriptive tone, suggesting some practical measures to promote and improve the use of research in internationally-led SSR policy. These recommendations reinforce the methodological, theoretical, and empirical contribution of the study to the literature and discipline. They are aimed at impacting the theoretical research-policy debate and help researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers maximise the influence of research on policy. While these recommendations mainly target Her Majesty’s Government departments, such as the Department for International Development (DFID) or the Stabilisation Unit, similar organisations such as bilateral aid-financing agencies like the United States Agency for International Development and the Canadian International Development Agency, governments or intergovernmental bodies like the United Nations or the European Commission, international financial institutions such as the World Bank, non-governmental or philanthropic entities such as Oxfam or the Gates Foundation, research sponsors like the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) or the Leverhulme Trust, and the private sector could equally benefit from some of the findings of this study to improve the commissioning, management, dissemination, and utilisation of research in their programmes and policy. Finally, the last section of the book focuses on the importance of this study vis-à-vis the general literature on research utilisation and post-war recovery and points to future research directions that could stem from this work.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ball, N., & Hendrickson, D. (2006). Trends in security sector reform (SSR): Policy, practice and research. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Barakat, S., Waldman, T., & Varisco, A. (2011). The influence of DFID-sponsored state building-oriented research on British policy in Fragile, post-conflict environments—Project concept paper. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/my-esrc/grants/RES-167–25-0596/outputs/Read/1ec3193f-46a2-4ec6-9255-884486a86d7e.
Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459–470.
Carden, F. (2004). Issues in assessing the policy influence of research. International Social Science Journal, 56(179), 135–151.
Coleman, D. A. (1991). Policy research—Who needs it? Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 4(4), 420–455.
Conflict, Security & Development Group. (2008). State responsiveness to public security needs: The politics of security decision-making—A comparative study of Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Uganda. SSR Policy Briefing for HMG. London: CSDG.
Department for International Development. (2010). Building peaceful states and societies. London: DFID.
Edwards, M. (2005). Social science research and public policy: Narrowing the divide. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64, 68–74.
Evans, M. (2007). The art of prescription: Theory and practice in public administration research. Public Policy and Administration, 22(1), 128–152.
Garrett, J. L. & Islam, Y. (1998). Policy research and the policy process: Do the Twain ever meet? (Gatekeeper Series no. 74). Washington, DC: International Institute for Environment and Development.
Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mulgan, G. (2005). Government, knowledge and the business of policy making: The potential and limits of evidence-based policy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 1(2), 215–226.
Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Walter, I. (2002). Evidence based policy and practice: Cross sector lessons from the UK (ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice Working Paper 9). St. Andrews: Research Unit for Research Utilisation, University of St. Andrews.
Perri 6. (2002). Can policy making be evidence-based? MCC: Building Knowledge for Integrated Care, 10(1), 3–8.
Porter, R. W., & Prysor-Jones, S. (1997). Making a difference to policies and programmes: A guide for researchers. Washington, DC: Support for Analysis and Research in Africa Project.
Sen, K. (2010). Literature review on rates of return to research. Research for development record. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/Output/183629/Default.aspx.
Shaxson, L. (2005). Is your evidence robust enough? Questions for policy makers and practitioners. Evidence & Policy, 1(1), 101–112.
Stone, D. (2002). Using knowledge: The dilemmas of bridging research and policy. Compare, 32(3), 285–296.
Sugden, J. (2006). Security sector reform: The role of epistemic communities in the UK. Journal of Security Sector Management, 4(4), 1–20.
Vanderheiden, S. J. (2010). Environmental philosophy and theories. In J. B. Butts & K. L. Rich (Eds.), Philosophies and theories for advanced nursing practice (pp. 313–326). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Varisco, A.E. (2018). Conclusions and Recommendations. In: Research in Security Sector Reform Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58675-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58675-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58674-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-58675-9
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)