TL;DR: In this article, a conceptual framework focusing on the belief systems of advocacy coalitions within policy subsystems is proposed to understand the role of policy analysis in policy-oriented learning and the effect of such learning on changes in governmental programs.
Abstract: There has been a great deal of research in recent years concerning the use of substantive policy analysis in public policymaking. This article seeks to integrate those findings—e.g., the “enlightenment function” of policy research—into a more general model of policymaking over periods of a decade or more. The conceptual framework focuses on the belief systems of advocacy coalitions within policy subsystems as the critical vehicle for understanding the role of policy analysis in policy-oriented learning and the effect, in turn, of such learning on changes in governmental programs.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a Handbook on the Knowledge Economy, which is a collection of contributions from experts in knowledge management and knowledge-related policy, with a focus on how to explain what knowledge is or how it works socially, organizationally or economically.
Abstract: The central motivation for assembling the contributions in this Handbook on the Knowledge Economy derives from the observation that many in government and business seem to have taken up the challenge of putting in place whatever is needed for a knowledge-based economy or a knowledge-based organization but very few appear to be inclined to explain what knowledge is or how it works socially, organizationally or economically. While there are good reasons for this situation, not knowing what knowledge is or how it works in any detail is problematic for those who are charged with managing or facilitating it. Policymakers would not consider constructing monetary policy without the input of some detailed knowledge of economics. Managers would not implement an information system without detailed input from knowledgeable information systems experts. Similarly, good knowledge of knowledge should be seen as essential for knowledge management and knowledge- related policy.
TL;DR: The main elements of the conceptual framework for the overall approach to PISA taken in this special issue are discussed in this paper, where PISA is examined as a knowledge for policy regulatory instrument made by intertwined cognitive and social practices, and involving multidirectional flows of knowledge and policy elements.
Abstract: This article sets forth the main elements of the conceptual framework for the overall approach to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) taken in this special issue. PISA is here examined as a (knowledge for policy) regulatory instrument made by intertwined cognitive and social practices, and involving multidirectional flows of knowledge and policy elements. Additionally - and using materials from a study on the fabrication of PISA - the article gives closer attention to the process of gathering and coordinating the social worlds involved in the making of the instrument, to the plasticity of knowledge for policy and to the fictions - which the instrument carries - regarding education and its governing practices. As a whole, the article relates to the ubiquity of PISA - that is, its conspicuous albeit not similar presence in various geopolitical territories and discursive spaces. Fabricated under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, by bringing together individuals and organisations from various social spaces, its materials and texts generated often reach national and local policy and knowledge contexts, where different social groups have interests in them and are using them differently, though attached to PISA's dicta on regulatory processes.
TL;DR: The German case shows the coordination challenges of fragmented systems and attempts to improve coherence and provide orientation through means such as (limited) disentanglement of responsibilities, strategic, cross-cutting initiatives, and the usage of standards, evaluation and advisory bodies.
Abstract: The governance of Germany's public 'knowledge system' is characterised by a variety of coordination needs and modes in a layered and fragmented federal system. Competences are divided between horizontal sectoral ministries and agencies at the federal level and between federal level and the states (L�nder), the latter being endowed with major competences in education and science policy. This fragmentation may have advantages regarding interfaces with stakeholders, but coordination between and within ministries is indeed insufficient when it comes to providing policy consistency and overall orientation. The German case shows the coordination challenges of fragmented systems and attempts to improve coherence and provide orientation through means such as (limited) disentanglement of responsibilities, strategic, cross-cutting initiatives, and the usage of standards, evaluation and advisory bodies.
TL;DR: In this article, the players and the position of STS, Rhetoric, Social Epistemology, and Social Disciplinarity as Interpenetration are discussed.
Abstract: Contents: Introduction 2003. The More Things Remain the Same, the More They Change. Part I: The Players and the Position. The Players: STS, Rhetoric, Social Epistemology. The Position: Interdisciplinarity as Interpenetration. Part II: Interpenetration at Work. Incorporation, or Epistemology Emergent. Reflexion, or the Missing Mirror of the Social Sciences. Sublimation, or Some Hints on How to Be Cognitively Revolting. Excavation, or the Withering Away of History and Philosophy of Science and the Brave New World of Science and Technology Studies. Part III: Of Policy and Politics. Knowledge Policy: Where's the Playing Field? Knowledge Politics: What Position Shall I Play? Part IV: Some Worthy Opponents. Opposing the Relativist. Opposing the Antitheorist. Postcript: The World of Tomorrow, as Opposed to the World of Today. Appendix: Course Outlines for STS in a Rhetorical Key.