Õppimisprotsess avaliku juhtimise ja poliitika väljal võiks paljudele huvi pakkuda, sest tegemist on ühega vähestest valdkondadest, millele aja kulutamine vähemalt kahju ei tohiks tekitada. 🙂
Tegemist on vabalevis oleva tekstiga, sestap pikki kommentaare vaja ei ole. Lisan vaid mõned vihjed lugemishuviks.
Policy processes involve policy actors ranging from politicians and public oﬃcials to managers of public and private companies, members of interest groups (i.e., stakeholders, lobbyists, users, etc.), academics, consultants or active citizens. Policy actors acquire, translate, and disseminate new information and knowledge, flowing from interactions, experience, and from the accumulation of evidence on policy problems and solutions (Heikkila & Gerlak, 2013).
The purpose of this article is to systematically review the existing practices for measuring policy learning in the public administration and policy research.
Õppimine toimub või mitte? (viimase puhul on küll küsimus, kas see on üldse võimalik)
One important pitfall of mediocre measurement methods is that they incorrectly assume the occurrence of learning where it does not actually occur. Theoretically, ‘censoring’ learning (Dunlop & Radaelli, 2018) involves the incorrect attribution of policy changes to putative belief updates instead of recognizing the effects of other factors (power, context, events, institutions, social interactions, etc.).
Policy learning plays a central role in policy interdependency (Gilardi, 2010; Meseguer, 2004; Volden et al., 2008). Learning achieves preferred outcomes by processing information on policies adopted in other settings.
Alguses arvati nii:
The early research on policy learning (e.g., Bennett & Howlett, 1992, p. 291) suggested that, next to cognitive changes, policy learning may also refer to behavioral changes. However, none of the reviewed articles assumes that policy learning is fundamentally more than a cognitive process. In contrast, a variation across existing studies persists regarding the type of belief changes that occur as a result of learning.
Järeldusi ja ideid on siin veelgi, kuid viimasena midagi sellist:
We find that, despite their eclecticism, the measurement practices for policy learning are closer than they appear. Indeed, the research field on policy learning may be viewed as divided into several relatively autonomous subfields (Moyson & Scholten, 2018). […] Social learning research tends to favor micro and meso analyses of policy learning, even if institutional factors may influence learning dynamics, for example the transformation of individual learning into collective learning (see Witting & Moyson, 2015). In contrast, the policy interdependency studies focus on macro analyses although individual factors can also play a role in this type of policy process (e.g., Gilardi, 2010).
Squevin, P., Aubin, D., Montpetit, É., & Moyson, S. (2021). Closer than they look at first glance: A systematic review and a research agenda regarding measurement practices for policy learning. International Review of Public Policy, 3(3: 2)