首页> 外文期刊>BMC Public Health >The evidence-policy divide: a ‘critical computational linguistics’ approach to the language of 18 health agency CEOs from 9 countries
【24h】

The evidence-policy divide: a ‘critical computational linguistics’ approach to the language of 18 health agency CEOs from 9 countries

机译:证据政策分歧:来自9个国家/地区的18位卫生机构首席执行官的语言采用“批判计算语言学”方法

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background There is an emerging body of literature suggesting that the evidence-practice divide in health policy is complex and multi-factorial but less is known about the processes by which health policy-makers use evidence and their views about the specific features of useful evidence. This study aimed to contribute to understandings of how the most influential health policy-makers view useful evidence, in ways that help explore and question how the evidence-policy divide is understood and what research might be supported to help overcome this divide. Methods A purposeful sample of 18 national and state health agency CEOs from 9 countries was obtained. Participants were interviewed using open-ended questions that asked them to define specific features of useful evidence. The analysis involved two main approaches 1)quantitative mapping of interview transcripts using Bayesian-based computational linguistics software 2)qualitative critical discourse analysis to explore the nuances of language extracts so identified. Results The decision-making, conclusions-oriented world of policy-making is constructed separately, but not exclusively, by policy-makers from the world of research. Research is not so much devalued by them as described as too technical— yet at the same time not methodologically complex enough to engage with localised policy-making contexts. It is not that policy-makers are negative about academics or universities, it is that they struggle to find complexity-oriented methodologies for understanding their stakeholder communities and improving systems. They did not describe themselves as having a more positive role in solving this challenge than academics. Conclusions These interviews do not support simplistic definitions of policy-makers and researchers as coming from two irreconcilable worlds. They suggest that qualitative and quantitative research is valued by policy-makers but that to be policy-relevant health research may need to focus on building complexity-oriented research methods for local community health and service development. Researchers may also need to better explain and develop the policy-relevance of large statistical generalisable research designs. Policy-makers and public health researchers wanting to serve local community needs may need to be more proactive about questioning whether the dominant definitions of research quality and the research funding levers that drive university research production are appropriately inclusive of excellence in such policy-relevant research.
机译:背景技术越来越多的文献表明,卫生政策中的证据与实践之间的分歧是复杂和多因素的,但对卫生政策制定者使用证据的过程以及他们对有用证据的具体特征的看法知之甚少。这项研究旨在以有助于探索和质疑如何理解证据政策鸿沟以及可以支持哪些研究来帮助克服这一鸿沟的方式,有助于理解最有影响力的卫生政策制定者如何看待有用的证据。方法收集了来自9个国家/地区的18位国家和州卫生机构CEO的样本。使用不限成员名额的问题采访参与者,要求他们定义有用证据的特定特征。该分析涉及两种主要方法:1)使用基于贝叶斯的计算语言学软件对采访成绩单进行定量映射; 2)定性批判性语篇分析以探索如此确定的语言摘录的细微差别。结果决策,结论为导向的决策世界是由研究领域的决策者们(但并非唯一)构建的。研究并没有像它们所描述的那样过于贬低技术性,但同时其方法学上的复杂性不足以适应本地化的决策环境。决策者并不是对学术或大学持否定态度,而是他们努力寻找面向复杂性的方法来理解其利益相关者社区并改善系统。他们没有形容自己在解决这一挑战方面比学者具有更积极的作用。结论这些访谈不支持对政策制定者和研究人员的定义过于简单,因为它们来自两个不可调和的世界。他们认为,定性和定量研究受到政策制定者的重视,但要成为与政策相关的健康研究,可能需要着重于建立面向复杂性的研究方法,以促进当地社区的健康和服务发展。研究人员可能还需要更好地解释和发展大型统计可推广研究设计的政策相关性。想要满足当地社区需求的决策者和公共卫生研究人员可能需要更加主动地质疑研究质量的主导定义和驱动大学研究成果的研究经费杠杆是否适当地包括了与政策相关的研究中的卓越表现。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号