The role of bureaucrats in the dynamics of absorption, transformation and production of evidence in Brazilian public policies

Overview

Contribute to evidence-based public policy study in Brazil.

You have:

• Doctorate in Social Sciences or Human Sciences.
• Minimum of 3 years of experience in research and/or higher teaching in Social Sciences or Human Sciences.
• Experience in qualitative methods in the field of public policy studies.
• Desirable - publication in the consulting area.
• Fluency in Portuguese.
• English - Desirable.

Result of Service The results of the study will provide greater robustness to the body of knowledge produced on the use of scientific information and evidence by policymakers in Brazil.

Work Location Brasília

Expected duration 330 Days

Duties and Responsibilities The project "The sources of information for federal public policies: the use and non-use of evidence by the Brazilian federal bureaucracy" began in 2020 with the objective of contributing to the debate about information sources for Brazilian public policies and the level of adherence of public organizations to the paradigm of evidence-based public policy (PPBE).

Up to the moment, the findings of the project point to a plurality of information sources utilized in the daily activities of the federal bureaucracy. Despite the growing presence of PPBE discourse in public debates, especially in the context of Covid-19, scientific sources were not among those most directly utilized by federal bureaucrats, according to the results of two surveys. in 2019 and 2021 within the scope of the project (Koga, Palotti, Gontyjo, Nascimento, Lins, 2020 and Koga, Palotti, Gontyjo, Lins and Nascimento, 2021). The results are similar to those found in research in other countries, including in those where the PPBE movement is strong and established, such as Canada and Australia (Cherney et al, 2015; Weiss, 1979).

The survey results also demonstrate that bureaucrats and federal leaders resort more intensely to sources produced by the State itself, such as regulations, technical notes, administrative records, control recommendations and legal opinions, as well as sources arising from the experience of bureaucrats and their colleagues. On the other hand, survey data referring to the level of education and training indicate a high individual analytical capacity of the federal bureaucracy, understood as an accumulated capacity to identify, produce and use knowledge about and for public policy (Koga et al., 2020; Koga et al., soon to be released).

Furthermore, case studies revealed more diverse and reflexive interactions between the fields of academia and management than the mere demand for scientific evidence and instrumental use to solve pre-defined problems as advocated by the PPBE (Filgueiras, Palotti, Nascimento; Koga, Viana, Marques, Couto and Goellner; Mello; all three soon to be released). They demonstrated, on the contrary, that the contact with scientific knowledge by bureaucrats and federal organizations is not passive, in the sense of mere reception of studies and research and direct transmission to interlocutors, but that there is critical action and joint production of knowledge when interactions between intermediary bureaucrats and researchers occur.

Knowledge about public management also seems to be an element of authority that entitles bureaucrats to debate with researchers and generate new knowledge and new sources of information. This finding makes the case that bureaucrats, in general, essentially use sources produced by the bureaucracy itself or from their own experiences, to be interpreted more carefully. In the cases analyzed, standards, technical notes, seminars, management reports and experiences were produced from interaction with academics and also with other sources of information, such as recommendations from multilateral organizations, perception of users of public services or produced by think tanks and specialized government units.

In other words, differently from what is argued in the Theory of Two Communities (Caplan, 1979; Newman and Head, 2015) about the separation between management and academia, the results gathered so far indicate processes of absorption, production and use of knowledge that appear much more complex. We could see in the analyzed cases movements of opening and dissolution of borders, in which bureaucrats and researchers’ transit through the two spheres, forming a single enlarged epistemic community. Trust between managers and researchers is established in the recurrence of their interactions. Joint knowledge and expertise are generated. And this dialogued accumulation is recognized and used as a means of foundation, legitimation and also conceptualization to boost the creation of new knowledge and forms of interaction with academia.

The next phases of the research raise the following questions: a) How does knowledge circulate within the Brazilian State? Are academia and management really two separate communities? Do production and use of evidence take place in isolation? b) Are there layers of bureaucracy or institutional arrangements that act as knowledge brokers (knowledge intermediaries) in the process of knowledge absorption by the State? Who are the public policy analysts? What do they do? How do they do it? What do they do it for? c) Would the sources of information produced by the State (such as control recommendations) be intermediaries or substitutes for scientific knowledge? And from other sources of knowledge? What are the implications of any intermediation or replacement? d) What kind of knowledge do the different profiles of bureaucracy and organizations absorb and produce? Are there different epistemic communities within the federal bureaucracy? How do they dialogue (or don’t they)? In order to advance in this research agenda, the need was identified for qualitative analyses that allow mapping and understanding in depth the various contexts of action and the informational flows established between public bureaucrats/organizations and entities that produce scientific evidence and other informational sources.

The products to be developed through this Term of Reference will have the purpose, therefore, to support the mapping and analysis of the chain of circulation, transformation, production and absorption of knowledge within the Brazilian Public Administration. Using analytical keys from the literatures of knowledge brokerage (Meyer, 2010; Mackillop et al., 2020) and knowledge translation from Science, Technology and Society studies (Latour, 1997; Latour and Woolgar, 1997), it is intended that the products will contribute to the analysis of both the performance of the so-called "public policy analysts", as well as the production of state sources (Mello, in press), in order to test the hypothesis of knowledge intermediation that may be exercised by public policy analysts and state sources.

Qualifications/special skills Academic Qualifications: Doctorate in Social Sciences or Human Sciences. Experience: - Minimum of 3 years of experience in research and/or higher teaching in Social Sciences or Human Sciences; experience in research, with qualitative methods, in the field of public policy studies. -desirable - publication in the consulting area Language: - English - Desirable - fluency in Portuguese

Additional Information Outputs/ Works Assignment: Product 1 – Definition and justification of appropriate methods for research questions . To be submitted 30 days after start Product 2. Design proposal for research instruments and case selection. To be submitted 60 days after start Product 3. Pre-testing of the research instruments and any adjustments to the instruments. To be submitted 120 days after start Product 4. Application of instruments in a sample of selected cases. To be submitted 240 days after start Product 5. Proposal for an analysis and synthesis model of the collected data base. To be submitted 270 days after start Product 6. Analytical report of the main categories identified in the role of bureaucrats within their organizations and areas of activity. To be submitted 330 days after start

No Fee THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE AT ANY STAGE OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS (APPLICATION, INTERVIEW MEETING, PROCESSING, OR TRAINING). THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH INFORMATION ON APPLICANTS’ BANK ACCOUNTS.

Apply now

Potential interview questions

Added 4 years ago - Updated 1 year ago - Source: careers.un.org