Worlds apart or coproduction? Investigating the relationship between knowledge users and producers

Øyunn Syrstad Høydal

doi:10.1177/1356389020931880

Abstract

Based on interviews and survey data, this article examines the role of civil servants in the process of external evaluations. Traditionally the political–administrative system and the research sector have been seen as worlds apart, their differences hindering the use of evidence in policy, creating a need for knowledge brokering. However, there are perspectives taking the opposite position, recognizing the mutual influence of policy and research in the coproduction of knowledge. This study suggests that both perspectives are relevant and together could provide a better point of departure for understanding the production and use of evidence in policy.

Highlights

Based on interviews and survey data, this article examines the role of civil servants in the process of external evaluations
This article is an investigation of the role of civil servants in the process of initiating and following up public evaluations performed by external researchers or consultants
The political– administrative system and the research sector have traditionally been seen as worlds apart, and their differences are believed to hinder the use of research or evaluation results

Summary

Methods

The data in this study consist of the results of a cross-sectional online survey of civil servants from six Norwegian social policy agencies and semistructured interviews with 12 civil servants. There are several likely reasons for the civil servants in the agencies to take the role of knowledge brokers in these situations: (1) as employees in the agencies, their mandate is to ensure a high-quality knowledge base for Norwegian policy; (2) they will normally have better methodological or evaluation competence than the politicians, and they are qualified to assess these matters from a professional point of view; (3) they are under less political pressure than their colleagues in the ministries, in a better position to discuss these issues; (4) the agency organizing the evaluation must manage the practical implications of inadequate choices; and (5) the agencies will be responsible for its final quality—and the unit to blame—if the evaluation is of insufficient quality to be useful. Both are central factors in the use of evaluation results (Cousins and Leithwood, 1986; Johnson et al, 2009)

Study limitations

Findings

Discussion and conclusion