English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Research on knowledge mobilization in policy making has beenlargely focused on identifying relevant factors having an effect on the uptake ofevidence by actors and organizations. However, evidence on the magnitude of thoseeffects remains limited and existing methods allowing for this have been scarcely usedin this field. In this article, we first provide a rationale for greater investigationof substantive effect sizes, using methods such as mediation analysis and conditionalprobabilities. Using cross-sectional data from Québec (Canada) government policyanalysts, we test an absorptive capacity model and describe direct, specific indirect,and total effects estimated from a path analysis. The results show that some factorshave considerable effects, such as physical access and individual field of training,whereas some mediated relations are worth considering. Finally, we discuss somepractical implications with regard to policy making and policy analysis but also themethodological standards of empirical research in this field

The Mobilization of Scientific Evidence by Public Policy Analysts