Getting evidence into policy: The need for deliberative strategies?

Abstract

Getting evidence into policy is notoriously difficult. In this empirical case study we used document analysis and key informant interviews to explore the Australian federal government's policy to implement a national bowel cancer screening programme, and the role of evidence in this policy. Our analysis revealed a range of institutional limitations at three levels of national government: within the health department, between government departments, and across the whole of government. These limitations were amplified by the pressures of the 2004 Australian federal election campaign. Traditional knowledge utilisation approaches, which rely principally on voluntarist strategies and focus on the individual, rather than the institutional level, are often insufficient to ensure evidence-based implementation. We propose three alternative models, based on deliberative strategies which have been shown to work in other settings: review of the evidence by a select group of experts whose independence is enshrined in legislation and whose imprimatur is required before policy can proceed; use of an advisory group of experts who consult widely with stakeholders and publish their review findings; or public discussion of the evidence by the media and community groups who act as more direct conduits to the decision-makers than researchers. Such deliberative models could help overcome the limitations on the use of evidence by embedding public review of evidence as the first step in the institutional decision-making processes. Highlights Achieving evidence-based policy implementation is much harder than the rhetoric suggests.  Our case study showed traditional voluntarist approaches are not enough to overcome institutional filtering of the evidence.  Deliberative strategies open up the decision-making processes to greater expert and public scrutiny.  Our framework illustrates the potential for deliberative strategies to increase the relative weight of evidence in policy.2 | P a g e  This article challenges researchers and policy-makers to acknowledge and address the institutional context of decision-making.

Rethinking policy-related research: charting a path using qualitative comparative analysis and complexity theory

“…Evidence, however, is just one of multiple streams into policy action and is rarely if ever unfiltered by bureaucratic, business and political interests and considerations (Schön and Rein, 1994;Kingdon, 1995;Flitcroft et al, 2011;Stevens, 2011). The article has argued that 'evidence' itself can have serious limitations, if not actually mis-represent the social world in the case of much variables-based research or provide little by way of practical tools in the case of many intensive qualitative studies.…”

Increasing the influence of one’s research on policy

“…12 To a large degree, the relevance of the subject matter will be determined by government policy, the annual budget cycle and the electoral cycle. 2,11,12 You are well advised to regularly review government publications and websites, so that you can frame your research findings in terms of how it will help address current policy priorities, and arrange to do so at the most apposite time. Policy is invariably developed in a contested space of multifarious views and differing demands.…”

“…when speaking with departmental officers ask them to explain the budget cycle) straightforward activity of undertaking consultancies 27 to a legislatively protected 'deliberative' approach to policy development. 2 The latter proposal is conceptually and politically challenging, and exists only in theory at present. However, the Victorian government went some way to adopting this approach last year, when it established the Health Innovation and Reform Council under legislation.…”

An integrated decision-support process for adaptation planning: climate change as impetus for scenario planning in an agricultural region of Canada

“…To be successfully adopted into land use and management plans, adaptations must also be accepted by members of the society in question; any proposed changes must reflect shared views on what are and are not acceptable levels of risk, common values, and objectives (Eriksen et al 2011). This makes it important to include a broad range of perspectives to ensure that complex multi-sectoral trade-offs, and potential conflicts in cross-sector policy are considered (Flitcroft et al 2011;van Buuren et al 2014). To increase policy coherence during the planning process, engagement can explicitly aim at considering a more complete set of social, economic, and environmental determinants that will influence a region's vulnerability (Adger et al 2005;Polasky et al 2011) and increase the legitimacy of outcomes (Stirling 2006;Volkery et al 2006).…”