The Experts below are selected from a list of 1324905 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Peter Scholten - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Research–Policy Dialogues on Migrant Integration in Europe
Bridging the Gaps, 2019Co-Authors: Han Entzinger, Peter ScholtenAbstract:This chapter analyses the relationship between Research and Policy-making on integration. Drawing on a large, cross-country, empirical Research project conducted during 2011–2014 (the DIAMINT project), the chapter considers how Research and Policy-making in the field of migrant integration have developed over time, and how their relationship functions under the present conditions of strong politicization of the issue in Europe. The authors propose a theoretical framework that distinguishes between three aspects of Research–Policy dialogues in the domain of immigrant integration: dialogue structures—including the formal and informal arrangements created for the exchange and communication of knowledge and Research; knowledge utilization—the cultures and practices of knowledge utilization in Policy processes; and taking the perspective of Researchers, knowledge production. The chapter considers—first theoretically and then empirically—how the increasing politicization of the issue of integration in Europe can affect the various dimensions of Research–Policy dialogues in different countries.
-
Research-Policy Relations and Migration Studies
IMISCOE Research Series, 2018Co-Authors: Peter ScholtenAbstract:Migration Research and Policymaking can interact in many different ways. Sometimes Policy actors are directly or indirectly involved in defining migration Research, for instance, by commissioning specific studies or developing funding schemes with specific objectives. Alternatively, Research can also play a role in agenda setting, defining Policy problems and triggering Policy responses. This chapter examines how different configurations of Research-Policy relations can affect (and have affected) qualitative (as well as quantitative) migration Research. The chapter looks at Policy-related as well as academic factors that play a role in configuring mutual relations, at the European and the national level as well as the local level. Amongst others, the chapter will discuss the role of European and national funding schemes, advisory bodies, knowledge institutes and the role of international Research networks such as IMISCOE. In particular, the chapter makes the argument that Research-Policy relations, when involving strong relations of mutual interdependency, could have a constraining effect on Research questions and methodologies in migration Research. This applies to qualitative as well as quantitative Research. A more reflective attitude in Research-Policy dialogues could, in contrast, lead to more critical reflection based on migration Research and prevent paradigmatic closure.
-
Integrating Immigrants in Europe - Integrating immigrants in Europe: Research-Policy dialogues
IMISCOE Research Series, 2015Co-Authors: Peter Scholten, Han Entzinger, Rinus Penninx, Stijn VerbeekAbstract:1: Research-Policy dialogues on migrant integration in Europe: A conceptual framework and key questions: Peter Scholten, Han Entzinger and Rinus Penninx.- PART I - FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF Research-Policy DIALOGUES: 2: Cultures of knowledge use in Policymaking: The functions of Research in German and UK immigration Policy: Christina Boswell.- 3: Migration statistics in Europe: A core component of governance and population Research: Albert Kraler, David Reichel and Han Entzinger.- 4: The coproduction of national models of integration: A view from France and the Netherlands: Christophe Bertossi, Jan Willem Duyvendak and Peter Scholten.- 5: Consultative commissions and the rethinking of integration policies in the Netherlands and Germany: The Blok Commission and the Sussmuth Commission compared: Jan Schneider and Peter Scholten.- 6: European cities in search of knowledge for their integration policies. Rinus Penninx.- 7: EU Policymaking and Research: Case studies of the Communication on a Community Immigration Policy and the Common Basic Principles for Integration: Sandra Pratt.- 8: Speaking truth to power? Why civil society, beyond academia, remains marginal in EU migration Policy: Ann Singleton.- PART II - Research-Policy DIALOGUES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND SEVEN OF ITS MEMBER STATES: 9: Research-Policy dialogues in Austria: Maren Borkert.- 10: Research-Policy dialogues in Italy: Tiziana Caponio.- 11: Research-Policy dialogues in Germany: Friedrich Heckmann and Delia Wiest.- 12: Research-Policy dialogues in the Netherlands: Stijn Verbeek, Han Entzinger and Peter Scholten.- 13: Research-Policy dialogues in the United Kingdom: Alistair Hunter and Christina Boswell.- 14: Research-Policy dialogues in Poland: Mikolaj Pawlak.- 15: Research-Policy dialogues in Denmark: Martin Bak Jorgensen.- 16: Research-Policy dialogues in the European Union: Andrew Geddes and Marthe Achtnich.- PART III - COMPARISON AND CONCLUSIONS: 17. Research-Policy dialogues on migrant integration in Europe: Comparison and conclusions: Peter Scholten, Han Entzinger and Rinus Penninx.- Appendix I: Biographies of Authors.- Appendix II: Publications of the DIAMINT Project/IMISCOE Standing Committee on Research-Policy Dialogues.
-
Research-Policy Dialogues in the Netherlands
IMISCOE Research Series, 2015Co-Authors: Stijn Verbeek, Han Entzinger, Peter ScholtenAbstract:The Netherlands was one of the first countries in Europe to formulate a coordinated national Policy on migrant integration, in the early 1980s. In the 2000s, it was again among the first to make a sharp assimilationist turn away from the multicultural model. Much of the extensive ethnic monitoring structure set up in the 1980s and 1990s still exists, but the positivist belief in the role of scientific Research as a tool for societal engineering in this area has clearly declined. Formal Research-Policy dialogue structures have been largely dismantled, and dialogues that continue to exist have become strongly politicised and mediatised. Knowledge use has become more selective and largely instrumental, mainly dictated be the needs of politicians. The analysis in this chapter also suggests that the combined politicisation and mediatisation of Research-Policy dialogues on migrant integration may have created a new boundary, one between mediatised and non-mediatised Research-Policy dialogues. Consequently, the old boundary between the two worlds of Research and Policy may have lost some of its relevance. At the same time, the growing apart of Policymakers and the academic world has also facilitated the development of a more varied, and therefore much richer Research landscape.
-
Research-Policy dialogues on migrant integration in Europe: comparison and conclusions
IMISCOE Research Series, 2015Co-Authors: Peter Scholten, Han Entzinger, Rinus PenninxAbstract:This concluding chapter compares forms of Research-Policy dialogues on migrant integration in the seven European countries included in this book as well as at the level of the EU. It analyses how knowledge for these dialogues is being produced and how Policymakers make use of it. This comparative analysis is guided by the question how the politicisation of the issue, which has become visible all over Europe now, has impacted on the development of such dialogues, on the use of knowledge in Policymaking and on the production of knowledge for Policy purposes. A key conclusion of this book is that Research-Policy dialogue structures are increasingly diverse in form, and do not follow any uniform or converging pattern. There is, however, a clear tendency among Policymakers to use knowledge more symbolically than instrumentally. This means that knowledge serves more often to substantiate Policy arguments and to legitimize Policy actors rather than for the direct development of policies and their instrumentalisation. Also, knowledge production tends to become more diversified under politicised conditions.
Michele Bloch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
women and tobacco a call for including gender in tobacco control Research Policy and practice
Tobacco Control, 2012Co-Authors: Amanda Amos, Lorraine Greaves, Mimi Nichter, Michele BlochAbstract:Objectives Female smoking is predicted to double between 2005 and 2025. There have been numerous calls for action on women9s tobacco use over the past two decades. In the present work, evidence about female tobacco use, progress, challenges and ways forward for developing gendered tobacco control is reviewed. Methods Literature on girls, women and tobacco was reviewed to identify trends and determinants of tobacco use and exposure, the application of gender analysis, tobacco marketing, the impact of tobacco control on girls and women and ways to address these issues particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Results Global female tobacco use is increasingly complex, involving diverse products and factors including tobacco marketing, globalisation and changes in women9s status. In high-income countries female smoking is declining but is increasingly concentrated among disadvantaged women. In low-income and middle-income countries the pattern is more complex; in several regions the gap between girls9 and boys9 smoking is narrow. Gendered analyses and approaches to tobacco control are uncommon, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Conclusions Tobacco control has remained largely gender blind, with little recognition of the importance of understanding the context and challenges of girl9s and women9s smoking and secondhand smoke exposure. There has been little integration of gender considerations in Research, Policy and programmes. The present work makes a case for gender and diversity analyses in tobacco control to reflect and identify intersecting factors affecting women9s tobacco use. This will help animate the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control9s concern for gender specificity and women9s leadership, and reduce the impact of tobacco on women.
Annette Boaz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Research, Policy and Practice – Worlds Apart?
Social Policy and Society, 2004Co-Authors: Louise Locock, Annette BoazAbstract:The relationship between Research, Policy and practice remains a contested area. This article explores pressures for Researchers to make their work more useful and relevant to Policy and practice, and for practitioners to undertake Research. Whilst there are clearly areas of mutual interest and benefit, we argue that the Research, Policy and practice communities also have distinct traditions, skills and obligations which should be recognised and valued rather than artificially suppressed. Narrow conceptions of Research utility constrain the debate about what each community has to offer and how best to communicate with each other across borders.
Amanda Amos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
women and tobacco a call for including gender in tobacco control Research Policy and practice
Tobacco Control, 2012Co-Authors: Amanda Amos, Lorraine Greaves, Mimi Nichter, Michele BlochAbstract:Objectives Female smoking is predicted to double between 2005 and 2025. There have been numerous calls for action on women9s tobacco use over the past two decades. In the present work, evidence about female tobacco use, progress, challenges and ways forward for developing gendered tobacco control is reviewed. Methods Literature on girls, women and tobacco was reviewed to identify trends and determinants of tobacco use and exposure, the application of gender analysis, tobacco marketing, the impact of tobacco control on girls and women and ways to address these issues particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Results Global female tobacco use is increasingly complex, involving diverse products and factors including tobacco marketing, globalisation and changes in women9s status. In high-income countries female smoking is declining but is increasingly concentrated among disadvantaged women. In low-income and middle-income countries the pattern is more complex; in several regions the gap between girls9 and boys9 smoking is narrow. Gendered analyses and approaches to tobacco control are uncommon, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Conclusions Tobacco control has remained largely gender blind, with little recognition of the importance of understanding the context and challenges of girl9s and women9s smoking and secondhand smoke exposure. There has been little integration of gender considerations in Research, Policy and programmes. The present work makes a case for gender and diversity analyses in tobacco control to reflect and identify intersecting factors affecting women9s tobacco use. This will help animate the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control9s concern for gender specificity and women9s leadership, and reduce the impact of tobacco on women.
Pauline Harris - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Critical Examination of the Nexus between Literacy Research, Policy and Practice
English in Australia, 2008Co-Authors: Pauline Harris, Barbra Mckenzie, Honglin Chen, Lisa Kervin, Philip R. FitzsimmonsAbstract:This paper interrogates relationships among literacy Research, Policy development and classroom practice. It does so with concern that the fields of literacy Research, Policy and practice do not interact with one another in ways that are congruent or productive, as evidenced in recent government literacy reports in Australia and overseas. With a view to understanding how this relationship might be enhanced, this paper provides a critical analysis of the nexus between literacy Research, Policy and practice, the issues that arise therein, and directions for further investigation, including our ARC Discovery 'Nexus Project' (Harris, Derewianka, Chen, Fitzsimmons, Kervin, Turbill, Cruickshank, McKenzie and Konza, 2007).
-
Conversations across borders: interactions between literacy Research, Policy and practice
2007Co-Authors: Pauline HarrisAbstract:This discussion paper critically examines the nexus of literacy Research, Policy and practice from two key theoretical perspectives – frame analysis and sensemaking theory. The nexus of literacy Research, Policy and practice is problematic and conversations and ongoing dialogue based on understanding the complex ways in which these three fields interact are much needed. Driven by this concern, the Literacies Research Initiative team at the University of Wollongong initiated an inquiry into the nexus of literacy Research, Policy and practice (Harris, Derewianka, Chen, Fitzsimmons, Kervin, Turbill, Cruickshank, McKenzie & Konza, 2006). This paper explores this nexus from two key theoretical perspectives used in this inquiry: frame analysis (Goffman, 1974) and sensemaking theory (Weick, 1995). Frame analysis and sensemaking theory work synergistically together to illuminate the three fields and the interactions among them; and elucidate directions for conversations and issues that might be explored. The purpose of this discussion is twofold: to provoke thinking and dialogue about the issues that it presents; and to identify ways that this nexus might be enhanced by conversations between the three fields.
-
Investigating relationships between literacy Research, Policy and practice: a critical review of the related literature
2007Co-Authors: Pauline Harris, Barbra Mckenzie, Honglin Chen, Lisa Kervin, Philip R. FitzsimmonsAbstract:This paper is driven by concern that the fields of literacy Research, Policy and practice do not interact with one another in ways that are congruent or productive, as evidenced in recent government literacy reports in Australia and overseas. This concern leads us to interrogate the nature of the relationship between literacy Research, Policy development and classroom practice. With a view to understanding how this relationship might be enhanced, this paper provides a literature review of the nexus between literacy Research, Policy and practice, the issues that arise therein, and directions for further investigation, including our ARC Discovery ‘Nexus Project’ (Harris, Derewianka, Chen, Fitzsimmons, Kervin, Turbill, Cruickshank, McKenzie & Konza, 2007).
