IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v41y2022i4p513-527..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hybrid knowledge production and evaluation at the World Bank
[The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context]

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Williams

Abstract

Before problems can be solved, they must be defined. In global public policy, problems are defined in large part by institutions like the World Bank, whose research shapes our collective understanding of social and economic issues. This article examines how research is produced at the World Bank and deemed to be worthwhile and legitimate. Creating and capturing research on global policy problems requires organizational configurations that operate at the intersection of multiple fields. Drawing on an in-depth study of the World Bank research department, this article outlines the structures and technologies of evaluation (i.e., the measurements and procedures used in performance reviews and promotions) and the social and cultural processes (i.e., the spoken and unspoken things that matter) in producing valuable policy research. It develops a theoretically informed account of how the conditions of measurement and evaluation shape the production of knowledge at a dominant multilateral agency. In turn, it unpacks how the internal workings of organizations can shape broader epistemic infrastructures around global policy problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Williams, 2022. "Hybrid knowledge production and evaluation at the World Bank [The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 513-527.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:41:y:2022:i:4:p:513-527.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/polsoc/puac009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Gemma E. Derrick & Vincenzo Pavone, 2013. "Democratising research evaluation: Achieving greater public engagement with bibliometrics-informed peer review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(5), pages 563-575, April.
    2. Adler, Niclas & Elmquist, Maria & Norrgren, Flemming, 2009. "The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1136-1149, September.
    3. Martin Ravallion, 2013. "Knowledgeable bankers? The demand for research in World Bank operations," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1-29, March.
    4. Linda Butler, 2007. "Assessing university research: A plea for a balanced approach," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 565-574, October.
    5. Justyna Bandola-Gill, 2022. "Statistical entrepreneurs: the political work of infrastructuring the SDG indicators [The legitimacy of experts in policy: navigating technocratic and political accountability in the case of global," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 498-512.
    6. Craig Boardman & Barry Bozeman, 2007. "Role Strain in University Research Centers," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 78(4), pages 430-463, July.
    7. Sarah de Rijcke & Paul F. Wouters & Alex D. Rushforth & Thomas P. Franssen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2016. "Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 161-169.
    8. Susan Leigh Star & Karen Ruhleder, 1996. "Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 111-134, March.
    9. Donovan, Kevin P., 2018. "The rise of the randomistas: on the experimental turn in international aid," SocArXiv xygzb, Center for Open Science.
    10. Marlee Tichenor & Sally E Merry & Sotiria Grek & Justyna Bandola-Gill, 2022. "Global public policy in a quantified world: Sustainable Development Goals as epistemic infrastructures [The ethics of a formula: Calculating a financial-humanitarian price for water]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 431-444.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    2. Sotiria Grek, 2022. "The education Sustainable Development Goal and the generative power of failing metrics [The Learning Metrics Task Force 2.0: Taking the Global Dialogues on Measuring Learning to the Country Level]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 445-457.
    3. Marlee Tichenor & Sally E Merry & Sotiria Grek & Justyna Bandola-Gill, 2022. "Global public policy in a quantified world: Sustainable Development Goals as epistemic infrastructures [The ethics of a formula: Calculating a financial-humanitarian price for water]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 431-444.
    4. Justyna Bandola-Gill, 2022. "Statistical entrepreneurs: the political work of infrastructuring the SDG indicators [The legitimacy of experts in policy: navigating technocratic and political accountability in the case of global," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 498-512.
    5. Alessandro Margherita & Gianluca Elia & Claudio Petti, 2022. "What Is Quality in Research? Building a Framework of Design, Process and Impact Attributes and Evaluation Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Marlee Tichenor, 2022. "Statistical capacity development and the production of epistemic infrastructures [The millennium development goals: A critique from the south]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 541-554.
    7. David Tilson & Kalle Lyytinen & Carsten Sørensen, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 748-759, December.
    8. Xuming He & Heng Xi & Xianbo Li, 2024. "Multi-Dimensional Decomposition, Measurement, and Governance Mechanism of Relative Poverty in Chinese Households under the Goal of Common Prosperity: Empirical Analysis Based on CFPS2020 Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-25, June.
    9. Julia Fischer-Mackey, 2024. "What Do Practitioners Want from Research? Exploring Ugandan and American Development Practitioners’ Interest in Research," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 24(1), pages 27-47, January.
    10. Emmanuelle Vaast & Geoff Walsham, 2009. "Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 547-564, December.
    11. Pradeep Racherla & Munir Mandviwalla, 2013. "Moving from Access to Use of the Information Infrastructure: A Multilevel Sociotechnical Framework," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 709-730, September.
    12. Maia Green, 2021. "The work of class: Cash transfers and community development in Tanzania," Economic Anthropology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 273-286, June.
    13. Zheng Yan & Wenqian Robertson & Yaosheng Lou & Tom W. Robertson & Sung Yong Park, 2021. "Finding leading scholars in mobile phone behavior: a mixed-method analysis of an emerging interdisciplinary field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9499-9517, December.
    14. Cass, Noel & Schwanen, Tim & Shove, Elizabeth, 2018. "Infrastructures, intersections and societal transformations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 160-167.
    15. Katharina Löhr & Christian Hochmuth & Frieder Graef & Jane Wambura & Stefan Sieber, 2017. "Conflict management programs in trans-disciplinary research projects: the case of a food security project in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(6), pages 1189-1201, December.
    16. Ashley Carse & Joshua A Lewis, 2017. "Toward a political ecology of infrastructure standards: Or, how to think about ships, waterways, sediment, and communities together," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(1), pages 9-28, January.
    17. Susan Christopherson & Jennifer Clark, 2010. "Limits to ‘The Learning Region’: What University-centered Economic Development Can (and Cannot) do to Create Knowledge-based Regional Economies," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 25(2), pages 120-130, March.
    18. Froese, Anna & Woiwode, Hendrik & Suckow, Silvio, 2019. "Mission Impossible? Neue Wege zu Interdisziplinarität: Empfehlungen für Wissenschaft, Wissenschaftspolitik und Praxis," Discussion Papers, Research Group Science Policy Studies SP III 2019-601, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    19. Ulf Stein & Benedict Bueb & Gabrielle Bouleau & Gaële Rouillé-Kielo, 2023. "Making Urban Water Management Tangible for the Public by Means of Digital Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-14, January.
    20. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Ranking research institutions by the number of highly-cited articles per scientist," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 915-923.

    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:oup:polsoc:v:41:y:2022:i:4:p:513-527.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    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.