Final Flashcards
years to translate research into practice
17
challenge with our pluralistic society
founders envisioned robust competition between factions
groups involved in policy-making
researchers
policy makers
policy enforcers
3 separate kingdoms - no hierarchy like in EB-research
legislators in policy-making
80% part time
little scientific training
institutional turnover
evidence has low direct salience
agency administrators more independent and skilled at dealing with research evidence
salience of evidence in legislators policy-making process
“officials universally characterized research-based evidence as neither a necessary nor a sufficient part of the policymaking process”
define punctuated equilibrium
institutional and cultural stickiness yields consistency with periodic paradigm change
define policy monopolies
differing interests and access to power allow small groups with disproportionate power to dominate policy-making
leads to punctuated equilibrium
what influences agenda setting?
focusing events: Junior Seau, Columbine
shocks: emergencies are opportunities
example of punctuated equilibirum
regulation of marijuana
no change in criminalization and prohibition for decades and then a sudden and accelerating change, a paradigm shift
example of policy monopolies
access to opioids
drug control is a concentrated interest. everyone has a diffuse interest in access until a painful episode; people in pain are hard to organize.
example of framing
ACA: uninsured vs underinsured
smoking: more heavily regulated when issue of SHS and occupational safety; that defined the liberty out of the problem
problems in problem definition
problems define solutions both practically and politically
problem definition is essential, but also hard
societal impulses when new problems emerge
tendency to rely on same tools can cloud more capacious understanding of problems
availability bias
Kingdon’s 3 Streams theory of policy-making
policy emerges when and depending on how 3 streams come together:
problem definition (first)
policy options
“politics”
components of a good problem definition
accurate
actionable
socially salient
patterns and determinants of policy change
the “issue attention cycle”
- pre-problem
- alarmed discovery & euphoric enthusiasm
- realizing costs of significant progress
- gradual decline of public interest
- post-problem
two models to turn knowledge into action
linear model
enlightenment model
Linear Model of turning knowledge into action
evidence goes directly to policymakers who make consistent policy
not a realistic account usually
Enlightenment Model of turning knowledge into action
evidence filters into the way problems are discussed, changing meaning and vocabularies in ways that eventually bubble up in different politics and policies
hindrances to using EBP in policy
limited capacity to access and process research
glut of information
turnover and hierarchy
relative advantage of “the anecdote”
focusing events are necessary but problematic
facilitators to using EBP in policy
studies that concretize effects cost-benefit analysis evidence-assessment training ideas (rather than data) researcher-policymaker interaction
old view of EBP in policy
pipeline view of researchers “disseminating” or pushing knowledge
new view of EBP in policy
“exchange view” based on ideas of transfer and reciprocity
ex: CBPR NIH translation science awards changes to academic incentives learning institutes
