The Institutional Arrangements for Connecting Evidence and Policy: The Case of Drug Misuse

Public Policy and Administration

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 76-94

  Nutley, Sandra ^a   Walter, Isabel ^a   Bland, Nick ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

^b Effective Interventions Unit   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644515492     PISSN: 09520767     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/095207670201700306     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bogenschneider, K., Olson, J., Linney, K. and Mills, J. (2000), ‘Connecting research and policymaking: implications for theory and practice from the Family Impact Seminars’, Family Relations, Vol 49, No 3, pp. 327-339.
2. Carley, M. (1980), Rational Techniques in Policy Analysis, ( London: Policy Studies Institute/ Heinemann ).
3. Cm 4310 (1999), Modernising Government White Paper, ( London: The Stationery Office ), http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/modemgov/whtpaper
4. Daniels, D. and Solesbury, W. (2002), The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach: tracing the influence of research on policy and practice, ( London: Policy Impact Consortium ).
5. Davies, H.T.O. and Nutley, S.M. (1999), ‘The rise and rise of evidence in health care’, Public Money and Management, Vol 19, No 1, pp. 9-16.
6. Davies, H.T.O., Nutley, S.M. and Smith, P.C. (2000), What works? Evidence based policy and practice in public services, ( Bristol: The Policy Press ).
7. Finch, J. (1986), Research and Policy: The Use of Qualitative Methods in Social and Educational Research, ( London: The Falmer Press ).
8. Hanney, S., Packwood, T. and Buxton, M. (2000), ‘Evaluating the benefits from health R and D centres: a categorisation, a model and examples of application’, Evaluation, Vol 6, No 2, pp. 137-160.
9. Heinemann, R.A., Bluhm, W.T., Peterson, S.A. and Kearney, E.N. (1990), The World of the Policy Analyst: Rationality, Values and Politics, ( Chatham, NJ: Chatham House ).
10. Huberman, M. (1987), ‘Steps toward an integrated model of research utilization’, Knowledge, June, pp.586-611.
11. James, S. (1997), British Government: A Reader in Policy Making, ( London: Routledge ).
12. Laycock, G. (2001), ‘Hypothesis-based research: The repeat victimization story’, Criminal Justice - The International Journal of Policy and Practice, Vol 1, No 1, pp. 59-82.
13. Marinetto, M. (1999), Studies of the Policy Process, ( Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall ).
14. Parsons, W. (1995), Public Policy, ( Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar ).
15. Rushmer, R. and Pallis, G. (2003), ‘Inter-professional working: the wisdom of integrated working and the disaster of blurred boundaries’, Public Money and Management, Vol 23, No 1, forthcoming.
16. Weiss, C.H. (1998), ‘Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?’, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol 19, No 1, pp. 21-33.
17. Weiss C.H. (1999), ‘The Interface between Evaluation and Public Policy’, Evaluation, Vol 5, No 4, pp. 468-486.
18. Wilensky, H.L. (1997), ‘Social science and the public agenda: reflections on the relation of knowledge to policy in the United States and abroad’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, Vol 22, No 5, pp. 1241-1265.