What works now? An introduction

Boaz, Annette; Davies, Huw M. L.; Fraser, Alec; Nutley, Sandra

doi:10.51952/9781447345527.ch001

Cited by 16 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there are documented country-level case studies of evidence use in Canada, the US, New Zealand, and the UK, and across the Scandinavian region (Boaz et al, 2019), this is the first country-level policy-oriented analysis from a L&MIC. The growing body of evidence from the ecosystems in a growing number of countries, including Uganda (Mijumbi et al, 2014;Ongolo-Zogo et al 2014, Cameroon (Ongolo-Zogo et al 2014, Nigeria (Uneke et al, 2012;Uneke et al, 2016Uneke et al, , 2017, Brazil (Dias et al, 2014) and Chile (Pantoja et al, 2018;Rodríguez Osiac et al, 2017), are all limited to the health sector, and have a strong emphasis on the production of useful evidence and its consideration by decision-makers, rather than the government policy-making system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How evidence, implementation, policy, and politics come together within evidence systems: Lessons from South Africa

Stewart¹

2023

Development Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motivation: Although the field of evidence-informed policy-making has grown significantly in the last 20 years, little is written about how it manifests within government policy, and whether it makes a meaningful difference to development outcomes. This article seeks to fill that gap. Purpose: Through reflection and analysis of shifts in the wider evidence ecosystem, and developments in South Africa specifically, the article describes how in South Africa the political and policy spheres come together with changes in production and use of evidence to increase the potential to improve the lives of millions of people. Methods and approach: This article is based on structured reflection and analysis of 20 years of contributions to the evidence ecosystem in low-, lower-middle, and upper-middle income countries (L&MICs), in particular in Africa. It includes analysis of documentation of initiatives, policies, and practices relating to the production and use of evidence, with a focus on South Africa. Findings: There are clear shifts within evidence-informed decisionmaking (EIDM) systems over time in the production of evidence and in the implementation of evidence approaches. The varied experiences documented in South Africa and across L&MICs highlight valuable lessons for others. In South Africa the policies underpinning evidence use, and the political context in which evidence-informed decision-making takes place, combine to contribute to increasing use of evidence in the country. Reflecting on the system developments across Africa and further afield reveals how one country's system is both influenced by these wider contexts and has potential to influence the wider system with clear policy implications. Policy implications: Routine use of evidence in decision-making requires new practices to become standard across not only policy systems, but also evidence systems. Changes are needed across a range of actors, organizations, and institutions. There are lessons to be learnt from varied experiences including those in L&MICs, to inform advances towards the institutionalization of evidence use in policy. This case study highlights the importance of synergistic developments in both evidence

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How evidence, implementation, policy, and politics come together within evidence systems: Lessons from South Africa

Stewart¹

2023

Development Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There has been a shift away from conceptualising the solution as the need for more 'evidence-based policy', to a recognition of the complex, non-linear relationship between research and policy and the role of politics (French, 2019;Simons and Schniedermann, 2021) -often termed 'evidence-informed policy'. The so-called translational gap between research and policy has been the subject of academic investigation across policy contexts and countries (Boaz et al, 2019), yet 'solutions' to the 'problem' of this gap are often targeted at individual researchers, rather than at the cultural or systemic level at which these complex, political dynamics play out. For example, in the 1970s, Nathan Caplan introduced the notion of two communities to explore how the differences between those who produce and those who consume research might influence the use of research (Caplan, 1979).…”

Section: Background and Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How well do the UK government’s ‘areas of research interest’ work as boundary objects to facilitate the use of research in policymaking?

Boaz

Oliver

2023

Policy &Amp; Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Articulating the research priorities of government is one mechanism for promoting the production of relevant research to inform policy. This study focuses on the Areas of Research Interest (ARIs) produced and published by government departments in the UK. Through a qualitative study consisting of interviews with 25 researchers, civil servants, intermediaries and research funders, the authors explored the role of ARIs. Using the concept of boundary objects, the paper considers the ways in which ARIs are used and how they are supported by boundary practices and boundary workers, including through engagement opportunities. The paper addresses the following questions: What boundaries do ARIs cross, intended and otherwise? What characteristics of ARIs enable or hinder this boundary-crossing? and What resources, skills, work or conditions are required for this boundary-crossing to work well? We see the ARIs being used as a boundary object across multiple boundaries, with implications for the ways in which the ARIs are crafted and shared. In the application of ARIs in the UK policy context, we see a constant interplay between boundary objects, practices and people all operating within the confines of existing systems and processes. For example, understanding what was meant by a particular ARI sometimes involved ‘decoding’ work as part of the academic-policy engagement process. While ARIs have an important role to play they are no magic bullet. Nor do they tell the whole story of governmental research interests. Optimizing the use of research in policy making requires the galvanisation of a range of mechanisms, including ARIs.

show abstract

“…There is a considerable body of literature on the use of research in public policy and practice and the related area of evidence‐based or evidence‐informed policy (for summaries of this literature, see Boaz et al., 2019; Head, 2016; Nutley et al., 2007). There have also been many detailed case studies of research use and impact in specific policy and practice areas such as public health (Davies et al., 2015; Escoffery et al., 2018; Strauss et al., 2013), education (Cooper, 2014; Gorard, 2020; White, 2020), public administration (Althaus et al., 2021; Cherney et al., 2015; Head, 2015; Shaxson & Boaz, 2021), environmental studies (Reed & Meagher, 2019), social work (Hughes et al., 2021), and many other fields.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are various models of research use in public policy and practice which provide a useful basis for understanding the context and diverse motivations involved (for overviews of the literature, see Best & Holmes, 2010; Boaz et al., 2019; Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010; Head, 2015; Oliver et al., 2014; Oliver & Boaz, 2019; Parkhurst, 2016). Carol Weiss’ (1979) influential and enduring typology outlines seven ways research is used in public policy: knowledge‐driven, problem‐solving, interactive, political, tactical, enlightenment, and mutually influential.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has seen the rise of think tanks, research centres, knowledge brokers, and ‘knowledge‐based policy influence organisations’ based in government, non‐profit, commercial, and education sectors, producing and disseminating a range of research publications and outputs that aim to inform and influence policy decision‐making (Green et al., 2022; Lawrence, 2018; Stone, 2009; Wellstead & Howlett, 2022). The contested nature of politics and public policy decision‐making and the complexity of the evidence ecosystem have been recognised in the preference for more nuanced terms, such as evidence‐informed rather than evidence‐based policy, that better reflect the position of research evidence within a complex, dynamic, and multicentric policy process (Boaz et al., 2019; Cairney et al., 2019; Head, 2016). Parkhurst (2016, p. 160) argues that for research or evidence to be used, it must be appropriate , that is relevant to the particular issue, applicable to the specific context, and constructed and available in ways that are useful for the matter at hand.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research use and publishing diversity: The role of organisation research publishing for policy and practice

Lawrence

2022

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital technologies have enhanced the capacity for organisations across many sectors to produce, publish, and disseminate research in a variety of formats, and a great deal of it is sought and used in public policy and practice‐related research, yet this diversity is often overlooked in studies of research use. While the need for diverse research sources and formats for public policy and practice is increasingly acknowledged, there have been few studies which articulate and categorise what this diversity looks like in practice, and how research is filtered and selected based on genre, source, and other facets. This article reports on a large‐scale online survey and semi‐structured interviews with research users across multiple sectors in Australia on the materials they access and use for policy and practice work. The results indicate that research users are active information seekers who require online access to diverse genres and formats produced by a range of sources and sectors. However, respondents also faced many barriers to research use, including the cost of subscriptions for academic journals, discoverability of reports and data, poor management of publications by organisations including government, and the time required for filtering and evaluation. Based on these findings I argue that policy research requires a far greater variety of genres and sources than is generally recognised with implications for the way research use and the research publishing system is understood and managed in Australia. Points for practitioners Policy research and implementation requires diverse online sources and resources from multiple sectors, including reports, discussion papers, evaluations, and data, produced by organisations (grey literature), as well as journals and books. However, this paper finds there are major barriers to discovery, filtering, and access to diverse research publications for practitioners, resulting in poor productivity and policy outcomes. To improve the use of evidence for policy and practice, we must invest in efficient discovery, access, and management systems for diverse research publications.

show abstract

What works now? An introduction

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

How evidence, implementation, policy, and politics come together within evidence systems: Lessons from South Africa

How evidence, implementation, policy, and politics come together within evidence systems: Lessons from South Africa

How well do the UK government’s ‘areas of research interest’ work as boundary objects to facilitate the use of research in policymaking?

Research use and publishing diversity: The role of organisation research publishing for policy and practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About