How can we demonstrate the public value of evidence-based policy making when government ministers declare that the people ‘have had enough of experts’?

Andrews, Leighton

doi:10.1057/s41599-017-0013-4

Cited by 23 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research has an important role to play in strengthening health system performance and public health 6. Policymaking processes are not well understood, including among HPSRs who wish to see their research have a stronger influence 7–9. We know little about the mechanisms of policy change in LMICs, and there is a particular gap in evidence from ‘difficult’ environments, such as post-conflict and fragile settings.…”

Section: Prominent Debates On Research and Evidence Uptakementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our review of literature exploring evidence-to-policy processes suggests that there are three main theoretical domains that guide models designed to overcome the barriers to research uptake: (1) conceptualising types of policy and practice change13–19; (2) understanding the decision-making environment7 20–26 and (3) actions taken to encourage evidence use (including knowledge translation, knowledge brokering and research uptake) 23 27–34…”

Section: Prominent Debates On Research and Evidence Uptakementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Local ownership of health policy and systems research in low-income and middle-income countries: a missing element in the uptake debate

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health policy and systems researchers (HPSRs) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) aim to influence health systems planning, costing, policy and implementation. Yet, there is still much that we do not know about the types of health systems evidence that are most compelling and impactful to policymakers and community groups, the factors that facilitate the research to decision-making process and the real-world challenges faced when translating research findings into practice in different contexts. Drawing on an analysis of HPSR from LMICs presented at the Fifth Global Symposium on Health Systems Research (HSR 2018), we argue that while there is a recognition in policy studies more broadly about the role of co-production, collective ownership and the value of localised HPSR in the evidence-to-policy discussion, ‘ownership’ of research at country level is a research uptake catalyst that needs to be further emphasised, particularly in the HPSR context. We consider embedded research, participatory or community-initiated research and emergent/responsive research processes, all of which are ‘owned’ by policymakers, healthcare practitioners/managers or community members. We embrace the view that ownership of HPSR by people directly affected by health problems connects research and decision-making in a tangible way, creating pathways to impact.

show abstract

Section: Prominent Debates On Research and Evidence Uptakementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prominent Debates On Research and Evidence Uptakementioning

confidence: 99%

Local ownership of health policy and systems research in low-income and middle-income countries: a missing element in the uptake debate

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Jurisdictions compete with one another for large and growing businesses that offer jobs, and the random allocation of R&D tax credits might be enough to cause business leaders to threaten to relocate to a more 'business-friendly' jurisdiction. Politicians are likely to find the views of business leaders more persuasive than those of evaluators (Andrews, 2017;Cairney, 2016).…”

Section: The Evaluation Of Business Support Programmesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are there (almost) no randomised controlled trial-based evaluations of business support programmes?

Dalziel

2018

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the achievements of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in medicine, and the need for effective government interventions in support of business, some have advocated for the use of RCTs in the evaluation of business support programmes (BSPs). Notwithstanding these recommendations, the use of RCTs in the evaluation of BSPs has been resisted by (almost) all. Policy makers and managers are correct in their reluctance to undertake RCT-based evaluations for four reasons. First, while RCTs require the random allocation of support, judicious programmes select firms on the basis of potential and amenability to support. Second, while RCTs require treatments that exhibit low variability, the most effective BSPs draw upon substantive knowledge to provide support that is customised. Third, BSPs aim to produce outliers-firms whose performance is exceptional. When outliers are present, very large samples will be required to produce reliable results. Finally, an RCT may not yield a meaningful contribution to knowledge. The strength of an RCT is its ability to estimate the magnitude of the treatment effect under controlled conditions. But where much depends on the nature of participants and circumstances, we seek evidence of what works, for whom, in which circumstances, and why.

show abstract

“…nondepartmental public bodies), who are chiefly concerned with policy formulation and evaluation as opposed to enforcement. I focus on academics for a number of interrelated reasons: (i) the processes of policymaking are often poorly understood amongst academics (Andrews, 2017); (ii) in relation to climate change, for example, most of the literature has focused on how to make science advice more effective rather than investigating the experiences of science advisers themselves (Selin et al, 2017); and (iii) I build on a particular lineage of scholarship that has taken scientific advisory bodies to be central sites of the interactions between science, policy, and society (see Jasanoff, 1994;Bijker et al, 2009;Owens, 2015). Moreover, the sporadic nature of academics' appointments as advisers (generally short-term or part-time) suggests the learning experiences of academics are more likely to be associated with discrete events or anecdotes; hence potentially more conducive to being studied.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tapping into science advisers’ learning

Obermeister

2020

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The art and craft of science advice is not innately known by those scientists who choose to step out of the lab or the university to engage with the world of policy. Despite a wealth of literature on the 'science of science advice', in nearly every situation there is no 'teacher' of science advice; it is a typical case of learning on the job. Within that context, the learning of scholars engaging in expert advice is always situated and can sometimes be transformative. To date, however, there has been no systematic, in-depth research into expert advisers' learning-instead focusing mostly on policymakers' and publics' learning about science. In this article, I suggest that such a research programme is timely and potentially a very fruitful line of inquiry for two mains reasons. First, in the case of environmental and climate issues-the focus of the paper-it has become ubiquitous to talk about the need for transformative change(s) towards sustainable futures. If scholars are going to advocate for and inform transformations beyond academia, then in doing so they ought to also take a harder look at how they themselves are transforming within. Specifically, the article illustrates how qualitative research on advisers' learning can contribute to our understanding of how experts are adapting to changing circumstances in science-policy interactions. Second, it is argued that research on advisers' learning can directly contribute to: (i) guidance for present and future advisers (especially early-career researchers wishing to engage with policy) and organisational learning in science-policy organisations; and (ii) improving policy-relevance of research and the design of impact evaluations for research funding (e.g. Research Excellence Framework). With the hope of stimulating (rather than closing off) innovative ideas, the article offers some ways of thinking through and carrying out such a research programme. As the nature of both science and policymaking continues to change, the learning experiences of expert advisers is a bountiful resource that has yet to be tapped into.

show abstract

How can we demonstrate the public value of evidence-based policy making when government ministers declare that the people ‘have had enough of experts’?

Cited by 23 publications

References 36 publications

Local ownership of health policy and systems research in low-income and middle-income countries: a missing element in the uptake debate

Local ownership of health policy and systems research in low-income and middle-income countries: a missing element in the uptake debate

Why are there (almost) no randomised controlled trial-based evaluations of business support programmes?

Tapping into science advisers’ learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About