Three strategies for attaining legitimacy in policy knowledge: Coherence in identity, process and outcome

Williams, Kate

doi:10.1111/padm.12385

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In that sense, knowledge production processes must match embedded expectations of the performance and purpose of knowledge. Therefore, the result of successful research practices is the attainment of a 'brand' of cognitive autonomy and epistemic authority, or in other words, (socio-scientific) legitimacy (Williams 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Link Between Funding and Intellectual Interventions Across Universities and Think Tanks: a Theoretical Framework

Hernando

Williams

2018

Int J Polit Cult Soc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy-oriented expert knowledge is increasingly applied, collaborative and socially accountable, created in a variety of organisations and institutions that display a diversity of funding patterns with a wide range of requirements and expectations. Given the complexities of knowledge production and recent changes in its funding environment (e.g. mode and availability of research funding and evaluation), few existing theoretical elaborations consider tensions between structural funding conditions and intellectual production in policy research contexts. This paper examines the role of funding in shaping the policy issues, format and content of intellectual output across two research contexts (universities, think tanks). It sets out a theoretical and methodological approach to understand the link between funding modalities and the type of knowledge and intellectual interventions they facilitate or thwart.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Link Between Funding and Intellectual Interventions Across Universities and Think Tanks: a Theoretical Framework

Hernando

Williams

2018

Int J Polit Cult Soc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We want to know what shapes the credibility afforded to different experts and forms of expertise, and how to cultivate credibility to enable better decision-making (Grundmann, 2017;Jacobson and Goering, 2006;Mullen, 2016;Williams, 2018). What does credibility enable (greater attention or influence; greater participation by researchers in policy processes; a more diverse debate)?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations

Oliver

Boaz

2019

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For decades, the question of how evidence influences policy and practice has captured our attention, cutting across disciplines and policy/practice domains. All academics, funders, and publics have a stake in this conversation. There are pockets of great expertise about evidence production and use, which all too often remains siloed. Practical and empirical lessons are not shared across disciplinary boundaries and theoretical and conceptual leaps remain contained. This means that we are not making the most of vast and increasing investment in knowledge production. Because existing lessons about how to do and use research well are not shared, funders and researchers are poorly equipped to realise the potential utility of research, and waste resources on-for exampleineffective strategies to create research impact. It also means that the scarce resources available to study evidence production and use are misspent on overlynarrow or already-answered questions. Patchy and intermittent funding has failed to build broadly relevant empirical or theoretical knowledge about how to make better use of evidence, or to build the communities required to act on this knowledge. To transform how we as a community think about what evidence is, how to generate it, and how to use it well, we must better capture lessons being learned in our different research and practice communities. We must find ways to share this knowledge, to embed it in the design of our research systems and practices, and work jointly to establish genuine knowledge gaps about evidence production and use. This comment sets out one vision of how that might be accomplished, and what might result.

show abstract

“…Arguably, the most central type of independence is academic independence , that is, the freedom to produce analysis and results in line with the rules of academic integrity. This type of independence has been treated only in passing in the existing literature (but see some interesting observations in Lindquist, 1989), with the notable exception of Williams (2018), who thoroughly discusses the manufacturing of “cognitive autonomy” and the processes in which think tanks and other knowledge producers engage in order to claim legitimacy. This focus on internal processes of manufacturing and maintaining “cognitive autonomy” is useful for our broader aim of highlighting the independence paradox and the dynamic interplay between different types of independence.…”

Section: Independence: From An Independent To a Dependent Variablementioning

confidence: 99%

Proximity and distance: Think tanks handling the independence paradox

Jezierska

Sörbom

2020

Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The credibility of think tanks is grounded in their image as independent experts. In order to gain authority to act, think tanks must be seen as independent, but in order to exert influence and gain funding, think tanks are forced to compromise this independent image. We focus on how think tanks handle this independence paradox. How do think tanks use different resources to construct an independent image? The aim of the article is conceptual, as we develop a theoretical model of the independence paradox. This conceptual work is based on empirical analysis of attempts by think tanks in Poland and Sweden to create independence while maintaining influence. The two desirables central for think tanks, independence and influence, force them to make strategic choices about their relations with various actors. We conclude that the processes of keeping distance and arranging proximity are at the core of the independence paradox.

show abstract

Three strategies for attaining legitimacy in policy knowledge: Coherence in identity, process and outcome

Cited by 18 publications

References 30 publications

Examining the Link Between Funding and Intellectual Interventions Across Universities and Think Tanks: a Theoretical Framework

Examining the Link Between Funding and Intellectual Interventions Across Universities and Think Tanks: a Theoretical Framework

Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations

Proximity and distance: Think tanks handling the independence paradox

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About