Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Researcher and Practitioner Agency

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Local Researchers and International Practitioners

Part of the book series: Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies ((RCS))

  • 126 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter sharpens the analytical tools of hybridity and the everyday by conceptualising the contribution of researchers and international practitioners to policy-making. The theoretical concepts encourage a deep understanding of the challenges local research poses to international SSR and the positive benefits these challenges afford to international practitioners. It centres on the concepts of epistemic community and research contribution, which help to explain how, in an interactive policy-making process, researchers challenge and contribute to SSR. It highlights the capacity of researchers to produce new knowledge and push these ideas onto policy-maker agendas. Interaction strategies, and the forging of relationships with policy-makers, provide the critical means to penetrate the knowledge pool of policy-makers. The chapter also highlights the discretion of policy-makers, and posits that individual personalities, attitudes and values are critical factors in determining the extent to which practitioners engage with local researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adler, E. (2005). Communitarian international relations: The epistemic foundations of international relations. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, E., & Barnett, M. (Eds.). (1998). Security communities. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autesserre, S. (2014). Peaceland: Conflict resolution and the everyday politics of international intervention. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Mahoney, C. (2008). The two faces of framing: Individual-level framing and collective issue definition in the European Union. European Union Politics, 9(3), 435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BBC. (2018). Yellow vest protest in Paris sees police detain hundreds. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46492070. December 2018.

  • Birkland, T. A. (2016). An introduction to the policy-process: Theories, concepts and models of public policy-making (4th ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bueger, C. (2015). Making things known: Epistemic practices, the United Nations, and the translation of piracy. International Political Sociology, 9(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buxton, M., & Hanney, S. (1996). How can payback from health research be assessed? Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1(1), 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Health Service Research Foundation. (2000). Health services research and evidence-based decision making. https://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/migrated/pdf/mythbusters/EBDM_e.pdf. June 2016.

  • Carothers, T. (2002). The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy, 13(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jager, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8086–8091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age (2nd ed.). Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2006a). Empire in Denial: The politics of statebuilding. Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2006b). Peace without politics? Ten years of state-building in Bosnia. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, K., & Ison, R. (2006). Dare we jump off Arnstein’s ladder? Social learning as a new policy paradigm. In Proceedings of PATH (Participatory Approaches in Science & Technology) Conference, held 4–7 June 2006, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bruycker, I. (2016). Framing and advocacy: A research agenda for interest group studies. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(5), 775–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. N. (2004). Public policy analysis: An introduction (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyrmishi, A., & Qesaraku, M. (2018). Diplomacy and the integration of the Western Balkans’. In S. Stojanovic-Gajic, & F. Ejdus (Eds.), Security community practices in the Western Balkans (pp. 13–27). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1957). An approach to the analysis of political systems. World Politics, 9(3), 383–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhard, S. (2016). Political guidance or autonomy in peacebuilding? EU police reform in Afghanistan and Kosovo. International Peacekeeping, 23(3), 363–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estabrooks, C. A., Derksen, L., Winther, C., Lavis, J. N., Scott, S. D., Wallin, L., & Profetto-McGrath, J. (2008). The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilisation field: A longitudinal author co-citation analysis: 1945 to 2004. Implementation Science, 3, 49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. (2001). Understanding dialectics in policy network analysis. Political Studies, 49, 542–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, T. (2010). Professional discretion in welfare services: Beyond street level bureaucracy. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, T., & Harris, J. (2004). Street level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faleg, G. (2012). Between knowledge and power: Epistemic communities and the emergence of security sector reform in the EU security architecture. European Security, 21(2), 161–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, P. H., Nadash, P., & Gursen, M. (2001). Improving communication between researchers and policy makers in long-term care: Or, researchers are from Mars; policy makers are from Venus. The Gerontologist, 41(3), 312–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freire, A. O. G., Viara, R. R., & Palotti, P. M. L. (2015). (2015) Influencing the decision-making process: What is the explanation for middle-level bureaucrats protagonist role? In P. L. C. Cavalcante & G. S. Lotta (Eds.), Middle level bureaucrats: Profile, trajectory and performance (pp. 89–110). National School of Public Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, W. (2000). Pressure groups and British politics. MacMillan Press LTD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guardian. (2018). ‘Gilets jaunes’ protestors threaten to bring France to a standstill. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/16/gilet-jaunes-yellow-jackets-protesters-france-standstill. December 2018.

  • Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. M. (2016). Epistemic communities, constructivism, and international environmental politics. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanney, S. R., Gonzalez-Block, M. A., Buxton, M. J., & Kogan, M. (2003). The utilisation of health research in policy-making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Research Policy and Systems 1(2), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanney, S. R., Grant, J., Wooding, S., & Buxton, M. J. (2004). Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes of health research: The impact of findings by the UK’s Arthritis Research Campaign. Health Research Policy and Systems 2(4), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In D. McCool (Eds.) (1995), Public policy theories, models and concepts: An anthology (pp. 262–287). Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, A. D., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D., & Weible, C. (2014). Policy change in comparative contexts: Applying the advocacy coalition framework outside the United States and Western Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 16(4), 299–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, M. (2015). Parades, parties and pests: Contradictions of everyday life in peacekeeping economies. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 9(3), 372–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hupe, P. (2013). Dimensions of discretion: Specifying the object of street-level bureaucracy research. Zeitschrift Für Public Policy Recht Und Management, 6(2), 425–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hupe, P., Hill, M., & Buffat, A. (2015a). Conclusion: The present and future study of street-level bureaucracy. In P. Hupe, M. Hill, & A. Buffat (Eds.), Understanding street-level bureaucracy (pp. 315–339). Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hupe, P., Hill, M., & Buffat, A. (Eds.). (2015b). Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. (2018). Explaining municipal governance in Kosovo: Local agency, credibility and party patronage. Southeast Europe and Black Sea Studies, 18(2), 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2003). Development of a framework for knowledge translation: Understanding user context. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 8(2), 94–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Ingold, K. (2018). The advocacy coalition framework: An overview of the research program. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process [Online: EBSCOhost Ebooks] (4th ed., pp. 138–170). Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, H., Jones, N., Shaxson, L., & Walker, D. (2012). Knowledge, policy and power in international development: A practical guide. Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, H., Jones, N., Shaxson, L., & Walker, D. (2013). Knowledge, policy and power in international development: A practical framework for improving policy. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8201.pdf. February 2016.

  • Jones, N., Datta, A., & Jones, H. with EBPDN Partners. (2009). Knowledge, policy and power: Six dimensions of the knowledge-development policy interface. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/4919.pdf. February 2016.

  • Jordan, G. (2005). Bringing policy communities back in? A comment on grant. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7, 317–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. S. (2012). Advocacy coalitions and policy change: The case of South Korea’s Saemangeum project. Administration and Society, 44(6), 85–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (2014). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingiri, A. N. (2014). Comparative strategic behaviour of advocacy coalitions and policy-brokers: The case of Kenya’s biosafety regulatory policy (2014). Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 16(4), 373–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klautzer, L., Hanney, S., Nason, E., Rubin, J., Grant, J., & Wooding, S. (2011). Assessing policy and practice impacts of social science research: The application of the payback framework to assess the future of work programme. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 201–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klüver, H., Mahoney, C., & Opper, M. (2015). Framing in context: How interest groups employ framing to lobby the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(4), 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, S. (2004). Sharing sovereignty: New institutions for collapsed and failing states. International Security, 29(2), 85–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B., Abelson, J., & The Knowledge Transfer Group. (2003). How can research organisation more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? The Millbank Quarterly 81(2), 221–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann Nielsen, V. (2015). Law enforcement behaviour of regulatory deterrence. In P. Hupe, M. Hill, & A. Buffat (Eds.), Understanding street-level bureaucracy (pp. 115–133). Policy Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, Y. W. (2011). The political consequences of the rise of the internet: Political beliefs and practices of Chinese netizens. Political Communication, 28(3), 291–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucrats: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomas, J. (2000). Using “linkage and exchange” to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Affairs, 19(3), 236–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomas, J. (2007). The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ, 334, 129–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotta, G. S., & Cavalcante, P. L. C. (2015). Conclusion: Profiles, trajectories and relations: In a pursuit of a comprehensive analysis of middle-level bureaucrats of the federal government. In P. L. C. Cavalcante & G. S. Lotta (Eds.), Middle level bureaucrats: Profile, trajectory and performance (pp. 291–303). National School of Public Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2011). International peacebuilding and local resistance: Hybrid forms of peace. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R., & Richmond, O. (2016). The fallacy of constructing hybrid political orders: A reappraisal of the hybrid turn in peacebuilding. International Peacekeeping, 23(2), 219–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marfo, E., & Mckeown, J. P. (2013). Negotiating the supply of legal timber to the domestic market in Ghana: Explaining policy-change intent using the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Forest Policy and Economics, 32, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, D., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (1992). Policy networks in British government. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, D., & Smith, M. (2000). Understanding policy ntworks: Towards a dialectical approach. Political Studies, 48, 4–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCool, D. (1990). Subgovernments as determinants of political viability. Political Science Quarterly, 105(2), 269–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meagher, L., & Lyall, C. (2013). The invisible made visible: Using impact evaluations to illustrate and inform the role of knowledge intermediaries. Evidence and Policy, 9(3), 409–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meagher, L., Lyall, C., & Nutley, S. (2008). Flows of knowledge, expertise, and influence: A method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research. Research Evaluation, 17(3), 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S. (2009). Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(7), 994–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J., & Tang, P. (2011). Tracing “productive interactions” to identify social impacts: An example from the social sciences. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J., Tang, P., & Morrow, S. (2000). Assessing the non-academic impact of grant-funded socio-economic research: Results from a pilot study. Research Evaluation, 9(3), 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, S. (2015). Progressing research impact assessment: A ‘contributions’ approach. Research Evaluation, 24(4), 405–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Penfield, T., Baker, M. J., Scoble, R., & Wykes, M. C. (2014). Assessment, evaluation and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qehaja, F., & Prezelj, I. (2017). Issues of local ownership in Kosovo’s security sector. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 17(3), 403–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O., & Mitchell, A. (2012). Hybrid forms of peace: From everyday agency to post-liberalism. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ripley, R. B., & Franklin, G. A. (1991). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy (5th ed.). Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. University of Maryland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotberg, R. I. (2004). The failure and collapse of nation-states: Breakdown, prevention, and repair. In R. I. Rotberg (Ed.), When states fail: Causes and consequences (pp. 1–49). Princeton.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, S. B. (2017). The rhetoric and practice of the ‘ownership’ of security sector reform processes in fragile countries: The case of Kosovo. International Peacekeeping, 24(3), 461–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneiker, A. (2015). Humanitarian NGOs, (In)security and identity: Epistemic communities and security governance. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sending, O. J. (Ed.). (2010). Learning to build a sustainable peace: Ownership and everyday peacebuilding, No. 4. https://www.cmi.no/publications/file/3732-learning-to-build-a-sustainable-peace.pdf. February 2016.

  • Shaxson, L., Bielak, A,. Ahmed, I., Brien, D., Conant, B., Fisher, C., Gwyn, E., Klerkx, L., Middleton, A., Morton, S., Pant, L., & Phipps, D. (2012). Expanding our understanding of K* (Kt, KE, Ktt, KMb, KB, KM, etc.). Concept paper emerging from the K* conference. UNU-INWEH. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235434226_Shaxon_et_al_2012_K_concept_paper_Expanding_our_understanding_of_K_KT_KE_KTT_KMb_KB_KM_etc. March 2015.

  • Spaapen, J., & Van Drooge, L. (2011). Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 211–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stojanovic-Gajic, S., & Ejdus, F. (Eds.). (2018). Security community practices in the Western Balkans. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2002) Using knowledge: The dilemmas of ‘bridging research and policy’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 32(3), 285–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden, J. (2006). Security sector reform: The role of epistemic communities in the UK. Journal of Security Sector Management, 4(4), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadic, K., & Elbasani, A. (2018). State building and patronage networks: How political parties embezzled the bureaucracy in post-war Kosovo. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 18(2), 185–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetroe, J. (2007). Knowledge translation at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: A primer. National Centre for the Dissemination of Disability Research Technical Brief 18, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urqhart, R., Porter, G. A., & Grunfeld, E. (2011). Reflections on knowledge brokering within a Multidisciplinary Research Team. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 31(4), 283–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visoka, G., & Richmond, O. (2017). After liberal peace? From failed state-building to an emancipatory peace in Kosovo. International Studies Perspectives, 18(1), 110–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, T., Barakat, S., & Varisco, A. (2014). Understanding influence: The use of statebuilding research in British policy. Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M. (2018a). Introduction: The scope and focus of policy process research and theory. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process [Online: EBSCOhost Ebooks] (4th ed., pp. 10–22). Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M. (2018b). Moving forward and climbing upward: Advancing policy process research. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process [Online: EBSCOhost Ebooks] (4th ed., pp. 351–365). Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (Eds.). (2018). Theories of the policy process [Online: EBSCOhost Ebooks] (4th ed.). Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilisation. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, J., & Court, J. (2004). Bridging research and policy in international development: An analytical and practical framework. ODI. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/198.pdf. February 2016.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Coventry University, Coventry, UK

    Jacob Phillipps

Authors
  1. Jacob Phillipps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob Phillipps .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Phillipps, J. (2022). Researcher and Practitioner Agency. In: Local Researchers and International Practitioners . Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82661-1_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation