The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis

Cairney, Paul; Weible, Christopher M.

doi:10.1007/s11077-017-9304-2

Cited by 83 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, they use cognitive shortcuts to manage information (Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017). Second, they operate in a complex policy environment containing: many policymakers and influencers in many levels and types of government; each with their own rules and norms guiding collective behaviour and influencing the ways in which they understand policy problems and prioritise solutions; and, each responding to policy conditions-including demography, mass behaviour, and economic factors-often outside their control (Cairney and Weible, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) employs over 2000 scientists and seeks to maximise the value and impact of research in the EU policy process. To that end, its Knowledge management for policy (KMP) initiative synthesised the insights of a large amount of interdisciplinary work on the 'evidence-policy interface' to promote a new skills and training agenda. It developed this training initially for Commission staff, but many of its insights are relevant to organisations which try to combine research, policymaking, management, and communication skills to improve the value and use of research in policy. We recommend that such organisations should develop teams of researchers, policymakers, and 'knowledge brokers' to produce eight key practices: (1) research synthesis, to generate 'state of the art' knowledge on a policy problem; (2) management of expert communities, to maximise collaboration; (3) understanding policymaking, to know when and how to present evidence; (4) interpersonal skills, to focus on relationships and interaction; (5) engagement, to include citizens and stakeholders; (6) effective communication of knowledge; (7) monitoring and evaluation, to identify the impact of evidence on policy; and (8) policy advice, to know how to present knowledge effectively and ethically. No one possesses all skills relevant to all these practices. Rather, we recommend that organisations at the evidence-policy interface produce teams of people with different backgrounds, perspectives, and complementary skills.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most incentives in science push researchers to communicate primarily to their peers, but many actors exhibit the intrinsic motivation to do more (Cairney and Weible, 2017). Effective communicators lead by example, showing how to do it effectively and demonstrating the payoffs to scientists and their audiences (Weible and Cairney, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an era in policy process studies where conceptual drift is empirical fact (e.g., Cairney & Jones, 2016;Jones et al, 2016;Pierce, Siddiki, et al, 2014;Pierce, Peterson, Jones, Garrard, & Vu, 2017), where satirical policy process frameworks such as Knot Policy Theory get attention (Breunig, Koski, & Workman, 2016), and increases in conceptual drift almost a guaranteed certainty with prominent voices in the field appealing for yet even more diversity in approaches (e.g., Cairney & Weible, 2017), the NPF will have to fend off the imprecision in the use of its concepts, while simultaneously embracing the same phenomenon. How is this even possible?…”

Section: Some Miscellaneous Observations and Concluding Thoughtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing the Narrative Policy Framework? The Musings of a Potentially Unreliable Narrator

Jones¹

2018

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inspired by postmodernism and the seemingly contradictory charter of science, the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) was named in a 2010 issue of the Policy Studies Journal for the purposes of understanding the role of narrative in the policy process. Since its inception we have seen a proliferation of research applications. In this issue of the PSJ you will find some of the best representatives of those applications. Studies within show a productive merging of NPF with other theories, refinement of concepts, sophisticated methodologies, and an expanding list of policy areas to which the NPF is being applied. You will also see examples of the NPF being clear enough to be wrong and—at times—being wrong. Among other observations, I argue that findings herein illuminate gaps in our understanding of narrative's role in the policy process, including a need for more refined strategy theory, a better understanding of the intersection between framing theory and the NPF, and a need to directly address the NPF's ongoing struggle to deal with varied contexts. I argue that to develop more generalizable narrative concepts that the division between interpretive and scientific approaches to the study of policy must continue to be overcome.

show abstract

“…They use two shortcuts to gather information quickly: 'rational' ways to establish the best evidence and sources of evidence, and 'irrational' ways to understand policy problems, drawing on emotions, habits, and deeply held beliefs (Cairney and Kwiatkowski 2017;Kahneman 2012, p. 20;Haidt 2001, p. 818;Alter and Oppenheimer 2009, p. 220). The accumulation of scientific knowledge, and large capacity of government, does not solve this problem (Simon 1976;Botterill and Hindmoor 2012;Cairney and Kwiatkowski 2017;Cairney and Weible 2017). Rather, policymakers have too many problems to which to pay attention, too many solutions to consider, and too many choices to make, based on more information than they can process.…”

Section: We Will Always Identify Pbe If Comparing the Real World To Amentioning

confidence: 99%

The UK government’s imaginative use of evidence to make policy

Cairney

2018

Br Polit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is easy to show that the UK Government rarely conducts 'evidencebased policymaking', but not to describe a politically feasible use of evidence in Westminster politics. Rather, we need to understand developments from a policymaker's perspective before we can offer advice to which they will pay attention. 'Policy-based evidence' (PBE) is a dramatic political slogan, not a way to promote pragmatic discussion. We need to do more than declare PBE if we seek to influence the relationship between evidence and policymaking. To produce more meaningful categories we need clearer criteria which take into account the need to combine evidence, values, and political judgement. To that end, I synthesise policy theories to identify the limits to the use of evidence in policy, and case studies of 'families policies' to show how governments use evidence politically.

show abstract

The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis

Cited by 83 publications

References 34 publications

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

Advancing the Narrative Policy Framework? The Musings of a Potentially Unreliable Narrator

The UK government’s imaginative use of evidence to make policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About