Advertisement

Traditional Academic Presentation of Research Findings and Public Policies

  • Graciela TononEmail author
Reference work entry

Abstract

The transmission process of research results in the field of public policy reveals various peculiarities. In order to approach its study, it ought first to be pointed out that, in the academic field, power mechanisms have been observed, which have traditionally institutionalized certain topics and certain actors, making others invisible during the process. Furthermore, the last decades have revealed the role of politics in research production, which may be understood as a chance that the research results might be taken into account and exert an influence on public policy decisions oriented toward the people’s life improvement – though this does not always happen, in practice. The aim of this chapter is to review the subject of power in the scientific field (Bourdieu, Sociología y cultura. México: Grijalbo, 1984) and the researchers’ freedom to make further progress in the definition of the concept of public policy and, on that basis, study the possible ways in which research results may be reflected in the arena of political decisions by identifying its obstacles and facilitators and proposing options to bridge the gap.

Keywords

Academic presentation Research findings Public policies Knowledge 

References

  1. Almeida C, Báscolo E. Use of research results in policy decision-making formulation, and implementation: a review of the literature, vol. 22. Rio de Janeiro: Cad Saude Publica; 2006. p. 7–33.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu P. Sociología y cultura. México: Grijalbo; 1984.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu P. Los usos sociales de la ciencia. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión; 2000.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu P. Homo Academicus. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores; 2008.Google Scholar
  5. Bowen S, Zwi AB. Pathways to “evidence-informed” policy and practice: a framework for action. PLoS Med. 2005;2:600–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown L. Knowledge and power: health services research as a political resource. In: Ginzberg E, editor. Health services research: key to health policy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1991. p. 20–45.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell D, Redman S, Jorm L, Cooke M, Zwi AB, Rychetnik L. Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice and views of policy makers and researchers. Aust N Z Health Policy. 2009;6(21):1–11. Retrieved from https://anzhealthpolicy.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1743-8462-6-21?site=anzhealthpolicy.biomedcentral.com. 7 Sept 2017.Google Scholar
  8. Caplan N. The use of social science information by Federal Executives. In: Lyons G, editor. Social science and public policies. Hannover: Dartmouth College Public Affairs Center; 1975. p. 47–67.Google Scholar
  9. Caplan N. The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Sci. 1979;22(3): 459–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrizo L. El investigador y la actitud transdisciplinaria. Condiciones, implicancias y limitaciones. Documento de debate. Programa MOST-UNESCO. Washington, DC; 2003. p. 58–78.Google Scholar
  11. Carrizo L. Producción de conocimiento y políticas públicas. Desafíos de la universidad para la gobernanza democrática. Cuadernos del CLAEH n° 89, Montevideo 2° serie, año 27-2; 2004. p. 69–84.Google Scholar
  12. Crewe E, Young J. Bridging research and policy: context, evidence and links. WP 173. London: ODI; 2002.Google Scholar
  13. Davis P, Howden-Chapman P. Translating research findings into health policy. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43(5):865–72. Great Britain. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Estébanez ME. Conocimiento científico y políticas públicas: un análisis de la utilidad social de las investigaciones científicas en el campo social. Espacio Abierto, vol. 13, núm. 1, enero-marzo. Maracaibo: Universidad del Zulia; 2004. p. 7–37.Google Scholar
  15. Fleury S. Estado sin ciudadanos. Buenos Aires: Lugar Editorial; 1997.Google Scholar
  16. Furtado JP. Um método construtivista para a avaliação em saúde. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva. 2001;6:165–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. González Perdomo A. La interdisciplinariedad en la formación del pensamiento y el espíritu crítico que lo guía. In: Cuadernos de Sociología, vol. 40. Bogotá: Universidad Santo Tomás; 2006. p. 17–34.Google Scholar
  18. Huberman M. Research utilization: the state of the art. Knowl Policy. 1994;7(4):13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. INDES. Documento de trabajo Medición del desarrollo y políticas públicas. Washington, DC: BID; 2006.Google Scholar
  20. Landry R, Lamari M, Amara N. The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Adm Rev. 2003;63(2):195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lester J. The utilization of policy analysis by state agency officials. Knowl Creat Diff Util. 1993;14(3):267–90.Google Scholar
  22. Lomas J. Improving research dissemination and uptake in the health sector: beyond the sound of one hand clapping. Hamilton: Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis; 1997.Google Scholar
  23. Lomas J. Using linkage and exchange to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Aff (Millwood). 2000;19:236–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Natanson M. Introducción. In: Schutz A, editor. El problema de la realidad social. Amorrortu: Barcelona; 1974. p. 15–32.Google Scholar
  25. Nielson S. Knowledge utilization and public policy processes: a literature review. Evaluation UNIT IDRC. 2001. Retrieved from https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/31356/117145.pdf?sequence=1. 3 Sept 2017.
  26. Nutbeam D, Boxall A. What influences the transfer of research into health policy and practice? Observations from England and Australia. Public Health. 2008;122:747–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e21704.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oszlak O. Políticas Públicas y Regímenes Políticos: Reflexiones a partir de algunas experiencias Latinoamericanas. Documento de Estudios CEDES Vol. 3 N° 2. Buenos Aires; 1980.Google Scholar
  29. Oszlak O, O’Donnell G. Estado y políticas estatales en América Latina.: hacia una estrategia de investigación. Documento CEDES/G. E. CLACSO 4. Buenos Aires; 1976.Google Scholar
  30. Pellegrini FA. Ciencia en pro de la salud. Notas sobre la organización de la actividad científica para el desarrollo de la salud en América Latina y el Caribe. Washington DC: Organización Panamericana de la Salud; Publicación Científica y Técnica; 2000. p. 578.Google Scholar
  31. Pittman P. Allied research: experimenting with structures and processes to increase the use of research in health policy. In: Global Forum for Health Research – final documents [CD-ROM]. Mexico: Global Forum for Health Research; 2004.Google Scholar
  32. Plascencia Castellanos G. Palabra libre. Condición de la Universidad. México: Universidad Iberoamericana; 2006.Google Scholar
  33. Regonini G. El estudio de las políticas públicas. In: Panebianco A, editor. El análisis de la política. Bologna: Il Mulino; 1989.Google Scholar
  34. Reimers F, McGinn N. Informed dialogue: using research to shape education policy around the world. Connecticut: Praeger; 1997.Google Scholar
  35. Sabatier P. The acquisition and utilization of technical information by administrative agencies. Adm Sci Q. 1978;23(3):396–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sabatier P, Jenkins-Smith H, editors. Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  37. Seck D, Phillips LC. Adjusting structural adjustment: the research-policy Nexus: conceptual and historical perspectives. In: Adjusting structural adjustment: best practices in policy research in Africa (Draft Manuscript); 2001.Google Scholar
  38. Sen A. Desarrollo y Libertad. Bogota: Planeta; 2000.Google Scholar
  39. Sotolongo Codina P, Delgado Diaz C. La revolución contemporánea del saber y la complejidad social. Buenos Aires: CLACSO Libros; 2006.Google Scholar
  40. Tonon G. La propuesta teórica de la calidad de vida como escenario facilitador de construcción de redes de investigación. Hologramática – Año. 2010a;VI(7):15–21. Fac. C. Soc. UNLZ.Google Scholar
  41. Tonon G. La utilización de indicadores de calidad de vida para la decisión de políticas públicas. Número 26 Revista Polis. Universidad Bolivariana. Santiago de Chile agosto; 2010b.Google Scholar
  42. Tonon G. Los sujetos como protagonistas de las políticas de bienestar: una reflexión desde la calidad de vida y las human capablities. In: Gómez Álvarez D, Ortiz Ortega V, (comp.). El bienestar subjetivo en América Latina. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara; 2015. p. 75–87.Google Scholar
  43. Torres Carrillo A. Subjetividad y sujeto: perspectivas para abordar lo social y lo educativo. In: Revista Colombiana de Educación N° 50. Primer semestre 2006: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional; 2006. p. 87–103.Google Scholar
  44. Uzochukwu B, Onwujekwe O, Mbachu C, Okwuosa C, Etiaba E, Nyström ME, Gilson L. The challenge of bridging the gap between researchers and policy makers: experiences of a Health Policy Research Group in engaging policy makers to support evidence informed policy making in Nigeria. Glob Health. 2016;2016:12–67.Google Scholar
  45. Veenhoven R. Why social policy needs subjective indicators ? In: Casas F, Saurina C, editors. Proceedings of the Third Conference of the ISQOLS: Universidad de Girona; 2000. p. 807–17.Google Scholar
  46. Webber D. Political conditions motivating Legislator’s use of policy information. Policy Stud Rev. 1984;4(1):110–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Webber DJ. The distribution and use of policy knowledge in the policy process. Knowl Policy. 1991;4(4):6–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weiss C. Research for policy’s sake: the enlightenment function of social science research. Policy Anal. 1977;3(4):531–45.Google Scholar
  49. Weiss C. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev. 1979;39(5 (sept.–Oct.)): 426–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weiss. Measuring the use of evaluation. In: Ciarlo J, editor. Utilizing evaluation. Concepts and measuring techniques. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1981. p. 17–33.Google Scholar
  51. Weiss C. Policy research as advocacy: pro and con. Knowl Policy. 1991;4(1/2):37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Master Program in Social Sciences and CICS-UPUniversidad de PalermoBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.UNICOM- Universidad Nacional de Lomas de ZamoraBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations