Table 1 Definitions of key terms
Term | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
Research use domains | The four ways in which research can be used in policymaking based on the literature on evidence-informed policymaking. Throughout the paper, research use domains are numbered with Arabic numerals. | 1. Instrumental use: research directly influences what issues to prioritise and/or what action should be taken to deal with the identified issue(s) |
2. Conceptual use: research is used to provide new ideas, understanding, or concepts to clarify thinking about the policy issue without directly influencing content | ||
3. Tactical use: research is used to justify or lend weight to pre-existing decisions and courses of action relating to the issue | ||
4. Imposed use: research is used to meet organisational, legislative, or funding requirements to use research | ||
Subactions | Subactionsa are the essential features or main actions of each research use domain. They often refer to broad, concrete example actions of using research in each of the four domains. Each research use domain has a number of subactions that were identified through examination of literature on evidence-informed policymaking and interviews with policymakers. Subactions are numbered with letters. | Examples of subactions of tactical research use include: |
a. Research is used to support, confirm, or justify established positions or decisions relating to the issue | ||
b. Research is used to provide hard evidence to persuade targeted stakeholders to support an existing decision or view | ||
c. Research is used to provide hard evidence to persuade peripheral stakeholders to support an existing decision or view | ||
d. Research is used to inform stakeholders about key issues relating to the health issue | ||
Level | Levels in conjoint analysis refer to all the possible values of a subaction and are often described in concrete terms. To undertake a conjoint analysis, each subaction must be divided into concrete, perceptible levels. In the present study, the majority of subactions were divided into two levels (i) Yes, the subaction was performed by the policymaker, or (ii) No, it was not performed by the policymaker. Different levels of subactions are combined in various combinations to form profiles. Throughout the paper, levels are numbered using Roman numerals. | As above, one of the subactions of tactical research use was “using research to support, confirm, or justify established positions or decisions relating to the issue”. This subaction has two levels: |
(i) Yes, the policymaker used research to support, confirm, or justify an established position or decision relating to the issue | ||
(ii) No, the policymaker did not use research to support, confirm, or justify an established position or decision relating to the health issue | ||
Profile | A research use profile is made up of a combination of subaction levels. Specifically, a profile consists of one level of each subaction within that research use domain | Using the research use domain – tactical research use, an example profile would be: |
a. (i) Yes, research was used to support, confirm, or justify established positions or decisions relating to the issue | ||
b. (ii) No, research was not used to provide hard evidence to persuade targeted stakeholders to support an existing decision or view | ||
c. (ii) No, research was not used to provide hard evidence to persuade peripheral stakeholders to support an existing decision or view | ||
d. (i) Yes, research was used to inform stakeholders about key issues relating to the health issue |