IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v40y2007i1p35-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

And the question is? Knowledge growth in welfare policy research

Author

Listed:
  • Charles McClintock
  • Staci Lowe

Abstract

This study examines how federally sponsored research questions about welfare policy have evolved from 1981 to 2001, through a content analysis of Requests for Proposals (RFPs). We treat the RFP as a document that identifies what information is sought as well as what is treated as established knowledge. Results show that research questions represent a mixture of constancy and change. The greatest similarity in research questions is in the areas of employment and earnings/income, with greater variability in the areas of family formation and child outcomes. The research questions, notwithstanding their sophisticated terminology, often boil down to who the poor are, how welfare recipients can be coaxed or forced into the labor market, whether fundamental work supports such as health insurance and reliable childcare are helpful in sustaining employment, and whether welfare is implicated in pregnancy, marital behavior and multi-generational poverty. We interpret these findings in relation to concepts on research utilization. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLP 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Charles McClintock & Staci Lowe, 2007. "And the question is? Knowledge growth in welfare policy research," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 40(1), pages 35-54, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:40:y:2007:i:1:p:35-54
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-007-9033-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-007-9033-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-007-9033-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Levine, 2001. "Cheering for a Team No Longer on the Field: Rhetoric and Reality in American Welfare History," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 733-742, September.
    2. Bas Arts & Jan Tatenhove, 2004. "Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ policy idioms," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(3), pages 339-356, December.
    3. William S. Kern, 1998. "Current Welfare Reform: A Return to the Principles of 1834," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(2), pages 427-432, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joshua Newman & Brian Head, 2015. "Beyond the two communities: a reply to Mead’s “why government often ignores research”," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 383-393, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    2. Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.
    3. Arnouts, Rikke & van der Zouwen, Mariëlle & Arts, Bas, 2012. "Analysing governance modes and shifts — Governance arrangements in Dutch nature policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 43-50.
    4. Marques, Marlene & Juerges, Nataly & Borges, José G., 2020. "Appraisal framework for actor interest and power analysis in forest management - Insights from Northern Portugal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    5. Bergsma, Emmy & Gupta, Joyeeta & Jong, Pieter, 2012. "Does individual responsibility increase the adaptive capacity of society? The case of local water management in the Netherlands," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 13-22.
    6. Maryudi, Ahmad & Citraningtyas, Erlita R. & Purwanto, Ris H. & Sadono, Ronggo & Suryanto, Priyono & Riyanto, Slamet & Siswoko, Bowo D., 2016. "The emerging power of peasant farmers in the tenurial conflicts over the uses of state forestland in Central Java, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 70-75.
    7. Heeres, Niels & Tillema, Taede & Arts, Jos, 2012. "Integration in Dutch planning of motorways: From “line” towards “area-oriented” approaches," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 148-158.
    8. Aurenhammer, Peter K., 2017. "Forest land-use governance and change through Forest Owner Associations – Actors' roles and preferences in Bavaria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 176-191.
    9. Ruostetsaari, Ilkka, 2009. "Governance and political consumerism in Finnish energy policy-making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 102-110, January.
    10. Li, Jia & Bluemling, Bettina & Mol, Arthur P. J. & Herzfeld, Thomas, 2014. "Stagnating Jatropha Biofuel Development in Southwest China: An Institutional Approach," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 6(6), pages 3192-3212.
    11. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Loeber, Anne M.C. & Grin, John, 2021. "Politics of complexity: Conceptualizing agency, power and powering in the transitional dynamics of complex adaptive systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(3).
    12. Takeda, Louise & Røpke, Inge, 2010. "Power and contestation in collaborative ecosystem-based management: The case of Haida Gwaii," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 178-188, December.
    13. Thomas Hoppe & Anna Kuokkanen & Mirja Mikkilä & Helena Kahiluoto & Miia Kuisma & Maarten Arentsen & Lassi Linnanen, 2016. "System Merits or Failures? Policies for Transition to Sustainable P and N Systems in The Netherlands and Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-28, May.
    14. Späth, Philipp & Rohracher, Harald, 2010. "'Energy regions': The transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 449-458, May.
    15. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    16. Šálka, Jaroslav & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Hricová, Zuzana, 2016. "Factors of political power — The example of forest owners associations in Slovakia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 88-98.
    17. Juniyanti, Lila & Purnomo, Herry & Kartodihardjo, Hariadi & Prasetyo, Lilik Budi & Suryadi, & Pambudi, Eko, 2021. "Powerful actors and their networks in land use contestation for oil palm and industrial tree plantations in Riau," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    18. Chaturika Seneviratne & Zahirul Hoque, 2024. "The interplay of episodic power in enabling and coercive budgetary designs in universities: A case study," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 64(1), pages 1011-1036, March.
    19. Veenman, Sietske & Liefferink, Duncan & Arts, Bas, 2009. "A short history of Dutch forest policy: The 'de-institutionalisation' of a policy arrangement," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 202-208, May.
    20. Schusser, Carsten & Krott, Max & Yufanyi Movuh, Mbolo C. & Logmani, Jacqueline & Devkota, Rosan R. & Maryudi, Ahamad & Salla, Manjola & Bach, Ngo Duy, 2015. "Powerful stakeholders as drivers of community forestry — Results of an international study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 92-101.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:40:y:2007:i:1:p:35-54. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.