Samarbejde mellem forskning og praksis i forvaltningsforskningen: potentialer, barrierer og løsningsmuligheder
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/politica.v51i3.131155Abstract
Forvaltningsforskningen befinder sig i et krydspres mellem international publicering og relevans for dansk forvaltningspraksis. Det krydspres kommer både til udtryk ved besættelse af stillinger på universiteterne og ved uddeling af midler fra offentlige og private forskningsfonde. Samtidig forventer mange, at der vil komme større fokus på såkaldt dobbelt impact, hvor forskere og universiteter både måles på at publicere i højt anerkendte tidsskrifter og på at skabe viden, der kan anvendes i praksis. Denne artikel diskuterer muligheder, gevinster og udfordringer ved et styrket samarbejde mellem forskning og praksis i offentlig forvaltning. Artiklen fokuserer især på nogle af de gevinster, som et tættere samarbejde med praksis kan indebære, men den diskuterer også en række udfordringer og barrierer for at etablere et tættere samspil mellem forskning og praksis.
References
Allison, Graham T. (1971). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.
Babbie, Earl (1998). The Basics of Social Research, 5. udg. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bartunek, Jean M. (2007). Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Towards a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal 50 (6): 1323-1333.
Bowman, James (1978). Managerial theory and practice: The transfer of knowledge in public administration. Public Administration Review 38 (6): 563-570.
Bækgaard, Martin, Caroline Baethge, Jens Blom-Hansen et al. (2015). Conducting experiments in public management research: A practical guide. International Public Management Journal 18 (2): 323-342.
Christensen, Jørgen Grønnegård og Peter Bjerre Mortensen (2018). Overmod og afmagt. København: DJØF Forlag.
Creswell, John W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 3. udg. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Del Rosso, Stephen J. (2015). Our new three Rs: Rigor, relevance, and readability. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 28 (2): 127-130.
Ejersbo, Niels, Kira Solveig Larsen, Niels Matti Søndergaard, Rasmus Højbjerg Jacobsen, Emil Thranholm og Tobias Sønderby Jørgensen (2018). Undersøgelse af forskningsfrihed i forhold til offentliggørelse på Aarhus Universitet. København: VIVE.
Gall, Meredith Damine, Walter R. Borg og Joyce P. Gall (1996). Educational Research: An Introduction, 6. udg. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gulati, Ranjay (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal 50: 775-782.
Head, Brian William (2010). Public management research: Towards relevance. Public Management Review 12 (5): 571-585.
Jakobsen, Morten (2012). Can government initiatives increase citizen coproduction? Results of a randomized field experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 (1): 27-54.
Kieser, Alfred og Lars Leiner (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies 46 (3): 516-533.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane og Sidney Verba (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lynn, Laurence E. (1994). Public management research: The triumph of the art over science. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13 (2): 231-259.
Mead, Lawrence M. (2010). Scholasticism in political science. Perspectives on Politics 8 (2): 453-464.
Meier, Kenneth J. og Kendall D. Funk (2017). Experiments and the classical roots of public administration: Comments on the potential utility of experiments for contemporary public management, pp. 37-56 i Oliver James, Sebastian R. Jilke og Gregg G. Van Ryzin (red.), Experiments in Public Management Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newman, Joshua, Adrian Cherney og Brian William Head (2016). Do policy makers use academic research? Reexamining the “two communities” theory of research utilization. Public Administration Review 76 (1): 24-32.
Orr, Kevin og Mike Bennet (2012). Public administration scholarship and the politics of coproducing academic-practitioner research. Public Administration Research 72 (4): 487-495.
Pedersen, Mogens J. (2015). Activating the forces of public service motivation: Evidence from a low‐intensity randomized survey experiment. Public Administration Review 75 (5): 734-746.
Petersen, Ole Helby og Peter Triantafillou (2016). Udarbejdelse af problemstillinger og problemformuleringer i samfundsvidenskabelige universitetsopgaver, i Catharina Juul Kristensen og M. Azhar Hussain (red.), Metoder i samfundsvidenskaberne. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Pollitt, Christopher (2017). Public administration research since 1980: Slipping away from the real world? International Journal of Public Sector Management 30 (6-7): 555-565.
Raadschelders, Jos C. N. og Kwang-Hoon Lee (2011). Trends in the study of public administration: Empirical and qualitative observations from Public Administration Review, 2000-2009. Public Administration Review 71 (1): 19-33.
Scharpf, Fritz W. (1994). Games real actors could play: positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics 6 (1): 27-53.
Simon, Herbert A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York: Macmillan.
Simon, Herbert A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press
Vogel, Rick (2010). Parallel, transfer or collaboration strategy of relating theory to practice? A case study of public management debate in Germany. Public Administration 88 (3): 680-705.
