Measuring the Use of Knowledge in Policy Development

• Authors: Antje Witting
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Public hearings are frequently used on all levels of government to systematically collect and analyze information in the early stages of legislative policymaking. The methods currently employed measure knowledge utilization in this context by means of citation analysis of edited articles and/or reports that summarize the information shared at these meetings. By combining citation analysis and social network analysis, this article develops a methodology that can be used to capture citations in transcripts of public hearings that precede these reports. In order to demonstrate its strengths and weaknesses, the method is utilized to analyze the 2009 hearings that informed the 2010 House of Commons Transport Committee report on developing the capacity of major roads in the United Kingdom to meet the country’s strategic transport needs. The research shows a good degree of consistency between two independent coders who employed this method to distinguish citations from non-citations and classify the data. It is concluded that the method can be utilized to reliably measure knowledge utilization at public hearings, and that it can be employed in conjunction with research that focuses on measuring citations in memos, briefings, articles or reports integrating some of the evidence given at these meetings.

Keywords

EN

knowledge utilization; content analysis; citation analysis; policy analysis

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Central European Journal of Public Policy
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 9
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 54-62

Dates

published

2015-12-01

online

2016-02-16

Contributors

author

Antje Witting

• Dep. Politics and Public Administration at the University of Konstanz

References

• Adams, D. (2004). Usable knowledge in public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1):29-42.[Crossref]
• Arguello, J., Callan, J., and Shulman, S. (2008). Recognizing citations in public comments. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 5(1):49-71.[Crossref]
• Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3):459-470.[Crossref]
• Desmarais, B. a. and Hird, J. A. (2014). Public policy’s bibliography: The use of research in US regulatory impact analyses. Regulation and Governance, 8:497-510.
• Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D. (1996). Who Learns What from Whom: a Review of the Policy Transfer Literature. Political Studies, 21:343-351.[Crossref]
• Evans, B. and Wellstead, A. (2013). Policy dialogue and engagement between nongovernmental organizations and government: A survey of processes and instruments of Canadian policy workers. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 7(1):60-87.
• Gray, V. and Lowery, D. (2000). Where do Policy Ideas Come From? A Study of Minnesota Legislators and Staffers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(3):573-597.[Crossref]
• Hird, J. a. (2005). Policy Analysis for What? The Effectiveness of Nonpartisan Policy Research Organizations, 33(1):83-105.
• House of Commons (2010) Major Road Network: Government Response to HC 505 of session 2009-10. First special report (HC 421 of session 2010-11). London: The Stationery Office Limited.
• House of Commons Transport Committee (2010). Major road network. Eights Report (HC 505 of session 2009-10). London: The Stationery Office Limited.
• Howlett, M. (2014). Policy advisory systems in theory and practice: concepts, empirical findings and research agendas. Prepared for delivery at the Workshop on Analytical Communities in Policy Advisory Systems at Global and Local level: Comparative Analysis of Policy Impact, Moskow.
• Howlett, M. (2009). Policy Analytical Capacity and Evidence-Based Policy-Making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration 52(2): 153-75.[WoS][Crossref]
• Ingold, K. (2011). Network Structures within Policy Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3):435-459.[WoS][Crossref]
• Jackson-Elmoore, C., Dell, K., Creed, E., and Kearsley, D. (2014). The Gender Influence: Creating Access to the Public Policy Process. Prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Political Studies Association, Sydney.
• James, T. E. and Jorgensen, P. D. (2009). Policy knowledge, policy formulation, and change: Revisiting a foundational question. Policy Studies Journal, 37:141-162. Ledermann, S. (2014). Evidenz und Expertise im vorparlamentarischen Gesetzgebungsprozess: Die Rolle von Verwaltung und externen Experten. Swiss Political Science Review, 20(3):453-485.
• Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(9): 1303-1319.[Crossref][WoS]
• Marsden, P. V. (2011). Survey Methods for Network Data. In Scott, J. and Carrington, P. J., editors, Social Network Analysis, pages 370-385. Sage Publications, London.
• McAllister, R. R., McCrea, R., and Lubell, M. N. (2014). Policy networks, stakeholder interactions and climate adaptation in the region of South East Queensland, Australia. Regional Environmental Change, 14:527-539.[Crossref][WoS]
• Mooney, C. Z. (2015). Information Sources in State Legislative Decision Making. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16(3):445-455.[Crossref]
• Nicolaisen, J. (2007). Citation Analysis. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, chapter 13, pages 609-641.[WoS][Crossref]
• O’Connor, L. and Rapchak, M. (2012). Information use in online civic discourse: a study of health care reform debate. Liberty Trends, 60(3):497-521.
• Rich, A. (2004). Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Rich, A. (2001). The Politics of Expertise in Congress and the News Media. Social Science Quarterly, 82(3):583-601.[Crossref]
• Rich, R. F. (1997). Measuring Knowledge Utilization: Processes and Outcomes. Knowledge and Policy, 10(3):11-24.
• Sabatier, P. A. and Whiteman, D. (1985). Legislative Decision Making and Substantive Policy Information: Models of Information Flow. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10(3):395-421.[Crossref]
• Shulock, N. (1999). The Paradox of Policy Analysis: If It Is Not Used, Why Do We Produce So Much of It? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(2):226-244.[Crossref]
• Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (2008). Social Network Data. In Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, chapter 2, pages 28-66. Cambridge University Press, New York.
• Weible, C. M. (2008). Expert-based information and policy subsystems: a review and synthesis. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(4):615-636.[WoS][Crossref]
• Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration. September/October: 426-431.[Crossref]
• Weiss, C. H. (1999). The Interface between Evaluation and Public Policy. Evaluation, 5(4):468-486.
• Yan, E. and Ding, Y. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: a coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10):2107-2118.[WoS][Crossref]
• Zhang, G., Ding, Y., and Milojevic, S. (2013). Citation Content Analysis (CCA): a framework for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/cejpp-2016-0012