Müller, B (2016) Policy gaps: Future challenges for research. Building Research & Information, 44(3), pp. 338-341. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This commentary considers the Building Research & Information special issue (volume 43/4) entitled 'Closing the Policy Gaps: From Formulation to Outcomes'. Although the call for papers received an international response, the special issue has a focus on cases of policy-making and outcomes in the UK. A critical review is presented addressing several questions for the international research, consultancy and policy-making communities. What can these international communities learn from the presented examples? How do variations in governance regimes and structures influence policy formulation and outcomes, particularly the reduction in policy 'gaps'? What future steps could be taken to produce more internationally oriented comparative research on policy-making and implementation regarding the built environment and urban-regional development? How can evidence and analysis be used to build theory? Do the research and consultancy communities need to improve their policy literacy? What lessons can the research community, in particular, learn from this process in advising on policy formation and implementation processes?; This commentary considers the Building Research & Information special issue (volume 43/4) entitled 'Closing the Policy Gaps: From Formulation to Outcomes'. Although the call for papers received an international response, the special issue has a focus on cases of policy-making and outcomes in the UK. A critical review is presented addressing several questions for the international research, consultancy and policy-making communities. What can these international communities learn from the presented examples? How do variations in governance regimes and structures influence policy formulation and outcomes, particularly the reduction in policy 'gaps'? What future steps could be taken to produce more internationally oriented comparative research on policy-making and implementation regarding the built environment and urban-regional development? How can evidence and analysis be used to build theory? Do the research and consultancy communities need to improve their policy literacy? What lessons can the research community, in particular, learn from this process in advising on policy formation and implementation processes?;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | policy advice; urban-regional development; built environment; policy-making; comparative research; governance; international |
| Index terms: | comparative research, governance, building research, consultancy, implementation, policy advice, built environment, regional development, evidence, variation, policy formation |
| Subjects: | contractual condition, infrastructure and transport systems, research management, evaluation and assessment methods, policy studies, business, organization, research design and methodology, contractual arrangements, urban planning |
| Topics: | Governance, Procurement, Research Practice, Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here