IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/spppps/0138.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innowacje w kształceniu kadr analitycznych administracji. Przykład szkolenia opartego na grze

Author

Listed:
  • Olejniczak, Karol

    (Uniwersytet Warszawski, Instytut Ameryk i Europy)

  • Wojtowicz, Dominika

    (Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego, Katedra Ekonomii)

Abstract

Pomimo mnogości prowadzonych badań i analiz ich faktyczne wykorzystanie w projektowaniu i wdrażaniu polityki publicznej jest dość ograniczone. Najnowsze badania wskazują, że skuteczną strategią wzmacniania wykorzystania wyników badań w praktyce polityki publicznej jest brokering wiedzy. Artykuł przedstawia użycie innowacji dydaktycznej umożliwiającej nauczanie brokeringu wiedzy poprzez praktykę - za pomocą szkolenia opartego na grze symulacyjnej. Dotychczasowe doświadczenia z zastosowania gry Brokerzy wiedzy do nauczania analityków polityki publicznej z Polski, Stanów Zjednoczonych i Kanady potwierdzają, że gra pomaga w: (1) zrozumieniu roli wyników badań i analiz w polityce publicznej, (2) opanowaniu sześciu kluczowych umiejętności brokera wiedzy oraz (3) zrozumieniu ograniczeń brokera we wpływaniu na procesy decyzyjne. Instytucje administracji publicznej mogą wykorzystać Brokerów wiedzy do praktycznego kształcenia swoich kadr analitycznych i podnoszenia swojego organizacyjnego potencjału do prowadzenia polityki publicznej opartej na dowodach.

Suggested Citation

  • Olejniczak, Karol & Wojtowicz, Dominika, 2016. "Innowacje w kształceniu kadr analitycznych administracji. Przykład szkolenia opartego na grze," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 3(3), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:spppps:0138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econjournals.sgh.waw.pl/KSzPP/article/view/981
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: azybal@sgh.waw.pl
    ---><---

    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. Rebecca Clark & John Holmes, 2010. "Improving input from research to environmental policy: challenges of structure and culture," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(10), pages 751-764, December.
    2. Esther Turnhout & Marian Stuiver & Judith Klostermann & Bette Harms & Cees Leeuwis, 2013. "New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 354-365, February.
    3. Eva Heiskanen & Oksana Mont & Kate Power, 2014. "A Map Is Not a Territory—Making Research More Helpful for Sustainable Consumption Policy," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 27-44, March.
    4. Sarah Batterbury, 2006. "Principles and purposes of European Union Cohesion policy evaluation," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 179-188.
    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. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    2. Brunet, Lucas & Tuomisaari, Johanna & Lavorel, Sandra & Crouzat, Emilie & Bierry, Adeline & Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2018. "Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-34.
    3. Attila Varga, 2014. "Challenges in modeling the impacts of modern development policies: The case of the GMR-approach," EcoMod2014 7151, EcoMod.
    4. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Pierre Squevin & Valérie Pattyn & Jens Jungblut & Sonja Blum, 2024. "There, across the border – political scientists and their boundary-crossing work," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 437-457, June.
    6. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    7. Mónica Ramos-Mejía & Alejandro Balanzo, 2018. "What It Takes to Lead Sustainability Transitions from the Bottom-Up: Strategic Interactions of Grassroots Ecopreneurs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    8. Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    9. Bart Rijken & Edwin Buitelaar & Lianne van Duinen, 2020. "Exploring the feasibility of future housing development within existing cities," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(2), pages 336-351, February.
    10. Honeck, Erica & Gallagher, Louise & von Arx, Bertrand & Lehmann, Anthony & Wyler, Nicolas & Villarrubia, Olga & Guinaudeau, Benjamin & Schlaepfer, Martin A., 2021. "Integrating ecosystem services into policymaking – A case study on the use of boundary organizations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    11. Zsuzsanna Tron, 2009. "Examining the impact of European regional policy," IWE Working Papers 188, Institute for World Economics - Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    12. Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Zofío, José L., 2021. "Is more always better? On the relevance of decreasing returns to scale on innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Dieuwke Lamers & Marc Schut & Laurens Klerkx & Piet van Asten, 2017. "Compositional dynamics of multilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(6), pages 739-752.
    14. Markus Hesse, 2018. "Approaching the Relational Nature of the Port‐City Interface in Europe: Ties and Tensions Between Seaports and the Urban," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 109(2), pages 210-223, April.
    15. Roberto Barraza & Gilberto Velazquez-Angulo & Edith Flores-Tavizón & Jaime Romero-González & José Ignacio Huertas-Cardozo, 2016. "The Role of Science in Advising the Decision Making Process: A Pathway for Building Effective Climate Change Mitigation Policies in Mexico at the Local Level," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, April.
    16. Samuel Assefa & Aad Kessler & Luuk Fleskens, 2021. "Using Agent-Based Modelling to Assess Scenarios for Enhanced Soil and Water Conservation in the Boset District, Ethiopia," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 24(4), pages 1-8.
    17. Jiménez-Sáez, Fernando & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Zofío, José L. & Castro-Martínez, Elena, 2011. "Evaluating research efficiency within National R&D Programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 230-241, March.
    18. Joanne Vinke‐de Kruijf & Laura Verbrugge & Barbara Schröter & Robert‐Jan den Haan & Juliette Cortes Arevalo & Jan Fliervoet & Jennifer Henze & Christian Albert, 2022. "Knowledge co‐production and researcher roles in transdisciplinary environmental management projects," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 393-405, April.
    19. Sedlačko Michal & Staroňová Katarína, 2015. "An Overview of Discourses on Knowledge in Policy: Thinking Knowledge, Policy and Conflict Together," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 10-31, December.
    20. Bauer, Anja & Kastenhofer, Karen, 2019. "Policy advice in technology assessment: Shifting roles, principles and boundaries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 32-41.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    polityka publiczna; zarządzanie; polityka publiczna oparta na dowodach;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Z18 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Public Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ris:spppps:0138. 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: Marcin Ochalski (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sgwawpl.html .

    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.