Policy-Making Context Matters, But Can (and Should) It Be Operationalised?; Comment on “Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-Country Analysis”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

Division of History, Heritage, and Politics, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

Abstract

Squires et al note that too many people use terms like ‘context’ imprecisely. The result (to avoid) is a catch-all term that lacks explanatory value and hinders the efforts of policy designers. Their list of 66 factors is a useful exercise to unpack what people mean when describing context. However, some problems will arise when the authors seek to move from research to practice. First, the list is too long to serve its purpose. Second, in many cases, it categorises rather than operationalises key terms. The result is the replacement of one vague term with a collection of others. Third, many categories describe what policy designers might need, rather than what they can reasonably expect to happen. In that context, wider studies of implementation and complex systems provide cautionary tales in which the outcomes of research become overwhelming rather than practical.

Keywords

  • epublished Author Accepted Version: January 19, 2022
  • epublished Final Version: February 14, 2022

References

  1. Squires JE, Hutchinson AM, Coughlin M, et al. Stakeholder perspectives of attributes and features of context relevant to knowledge translation in health settings: a multi-country analysis. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.32
  2. Smith KB, Larimer CW. The Public Policy Theory Primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 2009:170-172.
  3. O'Toole LJ Jr. Research on policy implementation: assessment and prospects. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2000;10(2):263-288. doi:1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024270
  4. O'Toole LJ Jr. The theory–practice issue in policy implementation research. Public Adm. 2004;82(2):309-329. doi:1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00396.x
  5. Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, Cairney P. Never the twain shall meet?--a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implement Sci. 2013;8:63. doi:1186/1748-5908-8-63
  6. Cairney P. Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues. 2nd ed. London: Red Globe Press; 2020.
  7. Hogwood B, Gunn L. Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1984.
  8. Hjern B. Implementation research—the link gone missing. J Public Policy. 1982;2(3):301-308. doi:1017/s0143814x00001975
  9. Barrett SM, Fudge C. Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy. London: Methuen; 1981.
  10. Cairney P. The Politics of Policy Analysis. London: Palgrave; 2021.
  11. Osborne SP. The New Public Governance?: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. London: Routledge; 2010.
  12. Ansell C, Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2008;18(4):543-571. doi:1093/jopart/mum032
  13. O'Flynn J. From new public management to public value: paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Aust J Public Adm. 2007;66(3):353-366. doi:1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00545.x
  14. Kjaer AM. Governance. Cambridge: Polity; 2004.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 11, Issue 8
August 2022
Pages 1584-1586

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 September 2021
  • Revise Date: 11 January 2022
  • Accept Date: 18 January 2022
  • First Publish Date: 19 January 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics