Pathways From Research Into Public Decision Making: Intermediaries as the Third Community

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-58
Author(s):  
Kimberley R Isett ◽  
Diana Hicks

Abstract Scholars and practitioners in public administration have often been referred to as the two communities, reflecting their differing incentives, constraints, and foci. In this paper, we examine the knowledge surrounding the use of empirical evidence in public decision making from both the academic and practice of policymaking literatures. After identifying points of convergence, we compare the important factors identified in each literature to four known cases of impact of empirical findings. We discuss how well each set of literature explains our cases and identify an important third community underidentified in the current conceptualizations of evidence translation—knowledge intermediaries.

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2 (118)) ◽  
pp. 28-34
Author(s):  
IRINA P. SIDORCHUK ◽  
◽  
ANTON A. PARFENCHIK ◽  

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaclyn Carroll ◽  
Pete Bsumek

The field of Environmental Communication has often critiqued the shortcomings of public hearings, noting their limitations in bringing about effective and equitable public decision making. While this work has been significant, it has tended to limit the deliberative field to public hearings themselves, sometimes going so far as to assume that public hearings are the only spaces in which significant deliberations occur. Using a field analysis of the “No Coal Plant” campaign in Surry County, Virginia (2008–2013), the authors illuminate some limitations of existing literature. Their analysis suggests that while public hearings can be extremely limiting, even “failed” public hearings can play a critical role in constituting, organizing, and pacing formal and informal deliberative spaces, which are necessary for communities as they manage the stresses and strains of the decision-making process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document