Edna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center.
Department of Psychological Sciences.
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2019;89(4):434-441. doi: 10.1037/ort0000389.
Researchers generally engage in few interactions with policymakers, which limits the extent to which empirical evidence is used to guide public policy and, consequently, the potential effectiveness of public policies in improving societal wellbeing. Although many researchers wish to see their work used for social impact, several factors contribute to researchers' limited policy engagement, including a lack of opportunities for developing policy competencies (i.e., knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy that support effective policy engagement) and limited support or incentives from research, training, and philanthropic institutions. Moreover, despite work that shows that researchers are more likely to engage in policy when they report greater policy competencies, little descriptive or evaluative research has explored the effectiveness of policy training. The current work seeks to expand the limited empirical base by drawing connections between training approaches and conditions that support policymakers' use of research evidence. Policy training approaches that combine direct instruction (i.e., information-based, often didactic teaching via classes) and experiential learning (i.e., skills and knowledge obtained through active engagement, hands-on application) appear most promising. Various pathways for policy training are described, and one specific policy training and engagement strategy is further described alongside evaluation data regarding benefits associated with direct instruction and experiential learning approaches. We conclude with recommendations to strengthen researchers' policy competency development and engagement. These recommendations range from increasing access to training opportunities to adjusting institutional incentive systems that currently hinder researchers' policy engagement. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
研究人员通常与政策制定者很少互动,这限制了经验证据在指导公共政策方面的应用程度,从而限制了公共政策在改善社会福利方面的潜在效果。尽管许多研究人员希望看到他们的工作用于产生社会影响,但有几个因素导致研究人员与政策的互动有限,包括缺乏发展政策能力的机会(即支持有效政策互动的知识、技能和自我效能),以及研究、培训和慈善机构的支持或激励有限。此外,尽管有研究表明,当研究人员报告其政策能力更强时,他们更有可能参与政策制定,但很少有描述性或评价性研究探讨政策培训的效果。当前的工作旨在通过将培训方法与支持政策制定者使用研究证据的条件联系起来,来扩大有限的经验基础。直接指导(即通过课程进行基于信息的、通常是说教式的教学)和体验式学习(即通过积极参与、实践应用获得的技能和知识)相结合的政策培训方法似乎最有前途。描述了各种政策培训途径,并进一步描述了一种特定的政策培训和参与策略,以及与直接指导和体验式学习方法相关的益处的评估数据。最后提出了加强研究人员政策能力发展和参与的建议。这些建议范围从增加培训机会到调整当前阻碍研究人员参与政策制定的机构激励制度。(APA 心理学数据库记录(c)2019,保留所有权利)。