Deliberative Dialogues Between Policy Makers and Researchers in Canada and Australia

Bibliographic Data

ID12364892
AuthorsKatherine M Boydell (Black Dog Institute, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia), Katherine Boydell (0000-0002-1464-8532, University of Toronto, corresponding author), Angela Dew (0000-0002-8800-5660, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia), Michael Hodgins (0000-0002-6013-5789, Western Sydney University, New South Wales, Australia), Alex Bundy (0000-0003-4743-9144, The University of Sydney), Anita Bundy (The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia), Gisselle Gallego (0000-0002-3243-8176, University of Notre Dame, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia), Alexandra Iljadica (The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia), Michelle Lincoln (0000-0001-7536-5993, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia), Antonio Pignatiello (University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada), John Teshima (The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada), David Willis (0000-0003-0755-9248, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada), David O Willis (University of Toronto)
Year2017
Volume28
Issue1
Pages13-22
Publication date2017-05-09
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Disability Policy Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1044-2073 • E-ISSN: 1538-4802
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/1044207317694840
OpenAlexW2613384262
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited26

Knowledge translation (KT) and implementation science are growing fields in Canada, Australia, and worldwide. Many audiences are targeted as KT knowledge users—policy makers represent one key knowledge user in the health care field. The need for policy makers to understand research and for researchers to understand policy processes is commonly recognized. There is also increasing interest in health policy that focuses on KT as a framework for understanding the use of evidence and, in particular, describing the influence of research on policy along with concepts of coproduction and user involvement. With relationship building central to successful evidence-informed policy, this article explores deliberative dialogue as a potential approach to enhancing KT. It describes two examples of researcher efforts to cultivate relationships and contacts with policy and decision makers via such dialogues and illustrates the inherent opportunities and challenges of doing so

Coproduction · Engineering ethics · Field (mathematics · Health care · Key (lock · Knowledge management · Knowledge translation · Political science · Public relations · Science policy · Computer Science · Engineering · Health Policy Implementation Science · Health Sciences Research and Education · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access