首页> 外文OA文献 >Choosing between Research Rigour or Support for Advocacy Movements, a False Dichotomy?
【2h】

Choosing between Research Rigour or Support for Advocacy Movements, a False Dichotomy?

机译:研究严谨或支持宣传运动,虚假二分法之间的选择?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Using the case study of the Hunger and Nutrition Commitment Index (HANCI), this article seeks to answer key questions relating to the conceptualisation and operationalisation of engaged excellence, exploringthe tensions between research and policy advocacy. While the concept of ‘engaged excellence’ recognises that excellence can be constituted by high‑quality research as well as by research that supports efforts to influence policy, it could be more specific in taking position on discussions that situate these to be mutually incompatible. Evidence from multiple contexts has shown that research is much more likely to influence policy if researchers engage with civil society. Research for international development, which explicitly aims to reduce inequalities, accelerate sustainability, and build more inclusive societies, can gain from active engagement with policy advocates. It is a false dichotomy to separate out research from research for advocacy, and there is much to be gained from such a collaboration.
机译:本文以“饥饿与营养承诺指数(HANCI)”为案例研究,旨在回答与卓越参与的概念化和运作化有关的关键问题,探讨研究与政策倡导之间的紧张关系。尽管“敬业卓越”的概念认识到,卓越可以由高质量的研究以及支持影响政策的努力的研究构成,但在将其定位为互不相容的讨论上可能更具体。来自多种情况的证据表明,如果研究人员与公民社会互动,则研究更有可能影响政策。国际发展研究的明确目标是减少不平等现象,加速可持续发展,并建立更具包容性的社会,可以从与政策倡导者的积极参与中受益。将研究与倡导研究区分开来是错误的二分法,而这种合作有很多收获。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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