Robinson Joshua J, Mays Nicholas, Fraser Alec
Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2018 Oct 3;7(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s13584-018-0256-6.
There is keen interest in many jurisdictions in finding ways to improve the way that research evidence informs policy. One possible mechanism for this is to embed academics within government agencies either as advisers or full staff members. Our commentary argues that, in addition to considering the role of academics in government as proposed by Glied and colleagues, we need to understand better how research and policy interactions function across policy sectors. We believe more comparative research is needed to understand if and why academics from certain disciplines are more likely to be recruited to work in some policy sectors rather than others. We caution against treating government as monolithic by advocating the same model for collaborative interaction between academics and government. Lastly, we contend that contextualized research is needed to illuminate important drivers of research and policy interactions before we can recommend what is likely to be more and less effective in different policy sectors.
许多司法管辖区都对寻找改进研究证据为政策提供信息方式的方法有着浓厚兴趣。一种可能的机制是让学者以顾问或全职工作人员的身份进入政府机构。我们的评论认为，除了考虑格利德及其同事所提议的学者在政府中的作用外，我们还需要更好地理解研究与政策互动在不同政策部门是如何运作的。我们认为需要进行更多的比较研究，以了解是否以及为何某些学科的学者更有可能被招募到某些政策部门而非其他部门工作。我们告诫不要将政府视为铁板一块，而主张采用同一种学者与政府合作互动的模式。最后，我们认为在能够推荐不同政策部门中可能更有效和较无效的做法之前，需要进行情境化研究以阐明研究与政策互动的重要驱动因素。
