Search

Background: 'Co-production' is one of the key concepts in evidence-informed policy and practice -- in terms of both its theoretical importance and its practical applications - being consistently discussed as the most effective strategy for mobilising evidence in policy and practice contexts. The concept of co-production was developed (almost) independently across multiple disciplines and has been employed in various policy and practice fields including environment, sustainability, and health. Aims and objectives: This paper surveys the literature to identify different meanings of co-production across different disciplinary bodies of knowledge. Such exploration is aimed at identifying the key points of convergence and divergence across different disciplinary and theoretical traditions. Methods: We performed a systematic search of Web of Science via a query designed to capture literature likely focusing on co-production, and then manually examined each document for relevance. Citation network analysis was then used to 'map' this literature by grouping papers into clusters based on the density of citation links between papers. The top-cited papers within each cluster were thematically analysed. Findings: This research identified five meanings of co-production, understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention. Discussion and conclusions: Even though different clusters of scholarship exploring co-production are closely connected, this concept is mobilised to capture phenomena at different levels of abstraction -- from post-structuralist theories of knowledge and power to specific strategies to be employed by researchers and policymakers.

With the rise of research impact as a 'third' space (next to research and teaching) within the universities in the United Kingdom and beyond, academics are increasingly expected to not only produce research but also engage in brokering knowledge beyond academia. And yet little is known about the ways in which academics shape their practices in order to respond to these new forms of institutionalised expectations and make sense of knowledge brokering as a form of academic practice. Drawing on 51 qualitative interviews with researchers and research users involved in two large knowledge brokering initiatives in the UK, this study identifies four repertoires of co-production practices: (i) "Challenge" to the existing policy framework, (ii) "Deliberation" between diverse stakeholders, (iii) "Evidence" intervention producing of actionable knowledge, and (iv) "Advocacy" for specific evidence-based options. By exploring knowledge brokering as navigation of different knowledge production regimes -- traditionally academic and policy-oriented -- the paper contributes to the existing debates by providing insights into the nature of navigating science-policy interactions as a process of epistemological bricolage, requiring an assemblage of different meanings, values and practices into new repertoires of practice. Importantly, the choice of a repertoire is not limited to the individual choice of a researcher but rather, it is shaped by the broader institutional context of higher education, risking "instrumental bias" in which practices oriented towards practical solutions are incentivised over critical or participatory forms of engagement.

Performance assessment is permeating increasingly diverse domains of higher education, even in areas previously perceived to be too complex and idiosyncratic to quantify. The UK's attempts to assess 'research impact' within the Research Excellence Framework (REF) are illustrative of this trend and are being closely monitored by several other countries. A fundamental rationale for employing narrative case studies to assess impact within REF, rather than taking a (less resource intensive) quantified approach, was that this would allow for the variation, complexity and idiosyncrasy inherent in research impact. This paper considers whether this promise of narrative flexibility has been realised, by analysing a combination of REF impact case study reports and interviews and focus group discussions with actors involved in case study production. Informed by this analysis, our central argument is that the very quality which allows narratives to govern is their ability to standardise performance (albeit whilst retaining a degree of flexibility). The paper proposes that REF impact case studies position narratives of impact as technologies of governance in ways that restrict the 'plot line' and belie the far more complex accounts held by those working to achieve research impact. This is partly because, as research impact becomes institutionalised within universities' measurement infrastructures, higher education institutions become impact gatekeepers, filtering out narratives that are deemed overly complex or insufficiently persuasive, while perpetuating particular approaches to recounting tales of impact that are deemed likely to perform well. Crucially, these narratives not only describe impact but actively construct it as an auditable phenomenon.

Background: The canonical view of expert legitimacy in policymaking links it to objectivity and autonomy from politics. Yet, in practice such 'epistemic gains' stemming from the separation of facts and values are problematic, as expert advice inherently combines political and technical considerations. Aims and objectives: This article addresses the puzzle of double --- technocratic and political --- legitimacy of experts by proposing a framework for understanding expert legitimacy as an interplay of three analytical levels: epistemic, individual actor and institutional. The paper explores this problem in the case study of global poverty measurement as a field located at the interface of science and policy. Methods: This is a comparative case study of poverty measurement in the World Bank and UNICEF. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 40 experts employed by the two organisations. Findings: The analysis posits expert legitimacy as constructed via navigation between specific practices of knowledge production, such as the production of policy-relevant and methodologically robust knowledge, a strategic distance between the research and the political setting aimed at extending or shortening the distance between experts and policymakers, and institutionalised cultures of evidence of the organisations through which expert advice is given. Discussion and conclusion: The paper offers a theorisation of expert legitimacy as symbiotic negotiation between technocratic and political modes of accountability which are irrevocably linked while remaining strategically separated.

In this article, we argue that number-making is a mode of imagining political futures – not only futures that are probable but, crucially, futures that are desired. In this way, rather than simply a mode of 'technicising' policy challenges, quantification fleshes out the utopian dream of a better world. Global governance is faced with the paradox of, on one hand, the utopian aspiration of the Sustainable Development Goals to create a perfect world (free of poverty, inequality, diseases and climate disaster) and, on the other hand, the dystopian effects of inaction – both tracked carefully through a complex network of indicators. This article focuses on the materiality of the Sustainable Development Goals as a productive device through which a monitoring agenda such as the Sustainable Development Goals has become ever more influential and has led to the emergence of a global public policy space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do governments visually communicate policies, and what does this reveal about actors' political objectives? Governments strategically narrate their priorities, yet few studies examine this process through visual modes. We contribute to theoretical and empirical understanding in policy studies by focusing on the UK government's COVID-19 response through its daily press briefings during the first wave of 2020. Combining quantitative changepoint and content analysis with qualitative discourse analysis, we examine all 79 sets of slides when briefings occurred. We identify a reactive phase focused on communicating knowledge about the pandemic in a boundedly rational manner, and a proactive phase that created new policy-based narratives of the pandemic. Besides contributing to emerging pandemic-related policy scholarship, we argue that conceiving these visualizations as visual narrative assemblages is relevant more broadly because it shifts attention to the interaction and interdependence of multiple visualizations as they enable policymakers to perform their authority to govern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The production of data and numbers has become the key mechanism of both knowing and governing global public policy. And yet, processes of quantification are inherently paradoxical: from expectations of technocratic rationality and political usability of producing 'global' numbers that count for 'local' politics and needs to practical limitation of measurement and the necessity to work with 'good enough' data. This begs a question – how do these competing epistemic, political and value orders manifest themselves through the work that experts do? In this article, we explore the problem by focussing on reflexivity as a way for experts (primarily those working in key International Organisations) to make sense of and tame the tensions inherent in their work. Through rich qualitative exploration of over 80 semi-structured interviews with experts working in the areas of poverty, education and statistical capacity development, we contribute to debates in the social studies of quantification by arguing that reflexivity is not just a mental process that experts engage in but rather an important resource allowing them to make sense of the contradictions inherent in their work and to mobilise political and ethical considerations in the technocratic process of producing numbers. We identify three types of reflexivity: (1) epistemic reflexivity – regarding the quality of data and its epistemic status as reflecting the reality; (2) care-ful reflexivity – regarding values embedded in data and the duty of care to the populations affected by the measurement and (3) instrumental reflexivity – regarding political rationality and necessary trade-off required to realise political goals. Overall, the article argues that reflexivity becomes an increasingly central expert practice, allowing the transformation of the process of quantification into one of qualification enabling them to attach political attributes and values to data and measurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]