Evidence & Policy最新文献_第10页

What is research? Educators' conceptions and alignment with United States federal policies. 什么是研究?教育工作者的观念及其与美国联邦政策的一致性。

IF 2.1 3区社会学

Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-08-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426419x15468576296175

Kristen J Mills, Jennifer A Lawlor, Jennifer Watling Neal, Zachary P Neal, Kathryn McAlindon

{"title":"What is research? Educators' conceptions and alignment with United States federal policies.","authors":"Kristen J Mills, Jennifer A Lawlor, Jennifer Watling Neal, Zachary P Neal, Kathryn McAlindon","doi":"10.1332/174426419x15468576296175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419x15468576296175","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study draws on two communities theory to address two major research questions related conceptions of research in educational practice and policy. First, how do educators conceptualize research? Second, to what extent do educators' conceptions of research align with recent U.S. federal educational policies? We conducted 90 semi-structured interviews with educators in the United States, asking them what comes to mind when they think of research. We used open, axial, and selective coding to characterize educators' conceptions of research. We also compared educators' conceptions of research to two U.S. federal educational policies that define scientifically based research and evidence-based interventions. Findings indicate that educators and policies defined research in similar ways, but each included some unique characteristics. Implications from the study include the need for increased communication between federal policy-makers and educators and improved reporting by researchers to better attend to the needs of educators and policymakers.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 3","pages":"337-358"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8570567/pdf/nihms-1748548.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39703901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Improving the enabling environment for evidence-informed policymaking: an example from Indonesia 改善有利于循证决策的环境：以印度尼西亚为例

IF 2.1 3区社会学

Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-08-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426418X15394255863408

Elisabeth Jackson, Arnaldo Pellini, B. Prasetiamartati

{"title":"Improving the enabling environment for evidence-informed policymaking: an example from Indonesia","authors":"Elisabeth Jackson, Arnaldo Pellini, B. Prasetiamartati","doi":"10.1332/174426418X15394255863408","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426418X15394255863408","url":null,"abstract":"Background:Indonesia’s growth and prosperity as a lower-middle-income country hinges on the ability of policymakers to develop effective public policies based on evidence. Yet Indonesia’s policy and regulatory environment does not support the production of high-quality\u0000 evidence and its use in policymaking. Key points for discussion:This article examines an international donor programme which aims to build sustainable capacity for evidence-informed policymaking by improving this enabling environment. The article reflects on the programme’s\u0000 experience in working with local stakeholders to reform public procurement regulations to make commissioning of research easier. This experience suggests that facilitating stakeholders to work together to define a problem and break it down into its component parts helps generate realistic\u0000 entry points and feasible solutions. It also suggests that a focus on purposively expanding the space for reform is necessary throughout the reform process. Leadership by individuals with decision-making authority is critical, as is building consensus around problems and maintaining momentum\u0000 for solving them. Most importantly, to work effectively, programme staff and facilitators need to engage with the political economy of the policy problem. Conclusion and implications:This experience provides lessons for those seeking to support the systems that underpin\u0000 evidence-informed policymaking in other middle-income country contexts.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"503-514"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1332/174426418X15394255863408","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43011319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Making evidence and policy in public health emergencies: lessons from COVID-19 for adaptive evidence-making and intervention 在突发公共卫生事件中制定证据和政策：新冠肺炎的适应性证据制定和干预经验教训

IF 2.1 3区社会学

Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-08-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426420x15913559981103

K. Lancaster, T. Rhodes, M. Rosengarten

{"title":"Making evidence and policy in public health emergencies: lessons from COVID-19 for adaptive evidence-making and intervention","authors":"K. Lancaster, T. Rhodes, M. Rosengarten","doi":"10.1332/174426420x15913559981103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420x15913559981103","url":null,"abstract":"Background:In public health emergencies, evidence, intervention, decisions and translation proceed simultaneously, in greatly compressed timeframes, with knowledge and advice constantly in flux. Idealised approaches to evidence-based policy and practice are ill equipped to\u0000 deal with the uncertainties arising in evolving situations of need. Key points for discussion:There is much to learn from rapid assessment and outbreak science approaches. These emphasise methodological pluralism, adaptive knowledge generation, intervention pragmatism, and\u0000 an understanding of health and intervention as situated in their practices of implementation. The unprecedented challenges of novel viral outbreaks like COVID-19 do not simply require us to speed up existing evidence-based approaches, but necessitate new ways of thinking about how a more emergent\u0000 and adaptive evidence-making might be done. The COVID-19 pandemic requires us to appraise critically what constitutes ‘evidence-enough’ for iterative rapid decisions in-the-now. There are important lessons for how evidence and intervention co-emerge in social practices, and for\u0000 how evidence-making and intervening proceeds through dialogue incorporating multiple forms of evidence and expertise. Conclusions and implications:Rather than treating adaptive evidence-making and decision making as a break from the routine, we argue that this should be\u0000 a defining feature of an ‘evidence-making intervention’ approach to health.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1332/174426420x15913559981103","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48859071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 54

Implementation of shared decision-making in healthcare policy and practice: a complex adaptive systems perspective 医疗保健政策和实践中共享决策的实施：一个复杂的适应性系统视角

IF 2.1 3区社会学

Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-08-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426419X15468571657773

S. Munro, J. Kornelsen, Elizabeth S Wilcox, Sarah Kaufman, N. Bansback, Kitty K Corbett, P. Janssen

{"title":"Implementation of shared decision-making in healthcare policy and practice: a complex adaptive systems perspective","authors":"S. Munro, J. Kornelsen, Elizabeth S Wilcox, Sarah Kaufman, N. Bansback, Kitty K Corbett, P. Janssen","doi":"10.1332/174426419X15468571657773","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15468571657773","url":null,"abstract":"Background:Despite the suggested benefits of shared decision-making (SDM), its implementation in policy and practice has been slow and inconsistent. Use of complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory may provide understanding of how healthcare system factors influence implementation\u0000 of SDM. Methods:Using the example of choice of mode of birth after a previous caesarean section, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients, providers, and decision makers in British Columbia, Canada, to explore the system characteristics and processes\u0000 that influence implementation of SDM. Implementation and knowledge translation principles guided study design, and constructionist grounded theory informed iterative data collection and analysis. Findings:Analysis of interviews (n=58) revealed that patients formed early\u0000 preferences for mode of delivery (after the primary caesarean) through careful deliberation of social risks and benefits. Physicians acted as information providers of clinical risks and benefits, while decision makers revealed concerns related to liability and patient safety. These concerns\u0000 stemmed from perceptions of limited access to surgical resources, which had resulted from budget constraints. Discussion and conclusions:To facilitate the effective implementation of SDM in policy and practice it may be critical to initiate SDM once patients become aware\u0000 of their healthcare options, assist patients to address the social risks that influence their preferences, manage perceptions of risk related to patient safety and litigation among physicians, and enhance access to healthcare resources.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"393-411"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49510450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Defining brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a systematic review 定义经纪人、中介机构和边界管理者：系统综述

IF 2.1 3区社会学

Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-21 DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/psd9u

J. Neal, Z. Neal, Brian Brutzman

{"title":"Defining brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a systematic review","authors":"J. Neal, Z. Neal, Brian Brutzman","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/psd9u","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/psd9u","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Background: A growing literature focuses on the roles of brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) in addressing the challenges of transferring research evidence between the research and practice or policy communities.Aims and objectives: In this systematic review, we examined two research questions: (1) where, how, and when are different BIBS terms (broker, intermediary, and boundary spanner) used? and (2) which BIBS terms get defined, and when these terms are defined, who are BIBS and what do they do?Methods: We conducted literature searches designed to capture articles on BIBS and the transfer of research evidence. We extracted information about eligible articles’ characteristics, use of BIBS terms, and definitions of BIBS terms.Findings: The search revealed an initial pool of 667 results, of which 277 articles were included after screening. Although we coded 430 separate uses of BIBS terms, only 37.2% of these uses provided explicit definitions. The terms, ‘broker’ and ‘brokerage’, were commonly applied in the health sector to describe a person engaged in multiple functions. The term, ‘intermediary’, was commonly applied in the education sector to describe an organisation engaged in dissemination. Finally, the terms ‘boundary spanner’ and ‘boundary spanning’ were commonly applied in the environment sector to describe people or organisations that engage in relationship building.Discussion and conclusions: Results demonstrated that when BIBS were defined, there were important (albeit implicit) distinctions between terms. Based on these results, we identify archetypal definitions for brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners and offer recommendations for future research.Key messagesOnly 37.2% of coded uses of BIBS in articles included explicit definitions.Brokers were commonly defined in health as people engaged in multiple functions.Intermediaries were commonly defined in education as research-disseminating organisations.Boundary spanners were commonly defined in environment as relationship-building entities.\u0000","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42194788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 17

Risk, uncertainty and medical practice: changes in the medical professions following disaster 风险、不确定性和医疗实践:灾难后医疗行业的变化

IF 2.1 3区社会学

Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426419x15717232423159

S. Abeysinghe, Claire Leoppold, Akihiko Ozaki, Mariko Morita

{"title":"Risk, uncertainty and medical practice: changes in the medical professions following disaster","authors":"S. Abeysinghe, Claire Leoppold, Akihiko Ozaki, Mariko Morita","doi":"10.1332/174426419x15717232423159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419x15717232423159","url":null,"abstract":"Risk and uncertainty can destabilise and reconstruct the relationships between medicine, policy and publics. Through semi-structured interviews with medical staff following the Fukushima 3.11 Disaster, this paper demonstrates the way in which disruption (caused by disaster), coupled\u0000 with uncertainty (in this case, around radiation risk) can serve to transform medical practices. After Fukushima, a deficit in publicly-trusted approaches to disaster management meant that the role and status of key medical professionals was transformed. This reorganisation of medical work\u0000 included the development of new forms of expertise, the stretching of expertise beyond previously well-defined professional boundaries, and shifts in the way in which medical professionals understand and interact with publics. These changes signified the rise of new relationships between the\u0000 medical workers and their community, as well as adjustments in what were regarded as the boundaries of medical work. Given both the ubiquitous threat of disasters and calls for increased engagement between the medicine and the public, this case study provides insight into the forms which such\u0000 engagements can take, especially when bound by conditions of uncertainty. The paper draws upon the theoretical literature around the impact of uncertainty on policy, and combines this with medical sociological literature on the nature of medical expertise. The paper examines the shifting of\u0000 medical expertise towards mode 2 forms, and evidences the impact of a democratised science of risk on the roles and functions of medical practice.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44835683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Sharing confidential health data for research purposes in the UK: where are ‘publics’ in the public interest? 在英国为研究目的共享机密健康数据：“公众”在哪里符合公众利益？

IF 2.1 3区社会学

Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426419X15578209726839

A. Sorbie

{"title":"Sharing confidential health data for research purposes in the UK: where are ‘publics’ in the public interest?","authors":"A. Sorbie","doi":"10.1332/174426419X15578209726839","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15578209726839","url":null,"abstract":"In this article I respond to the tendency of the law to approach ‘the public interest’ as a legal test, thereby drawing the criticism that this narrow notion of what purports to be in the public interest is wholly disconnected from the views of actual publics, and\u0000 lacks social legitimacy. On the other hand, to simply extrapolate outputs from public engagement work into policy (or indeed law) is equally problematic, and risks being at best ineffective and at worst reinforcing existing inequalities. Given this apparent disconnect between these conceptions\u0000 of the public interest, and the shortfalls inherent in each, this article scrutinises this disjuncture. I argue that the application of a processual lens to the construction of the legal and regulatory role of the public interest sheds light on how legal notions of the public interest,\u0000 and attitudes of actual publics towards data sharing, might be reconciled. I characterise this processual approach as being iterative and flexible, specifically drawing attention to the way that multiple actors, processes and interests interact, change and evolve over time in the health research\u0000 endeavour. This approach is elaborated through two case studies that illustrate how the public interest appears in law (broadly conceived). Its application provides novel insights into the ways in which the public interest can be crafted within and beyond the law to better inform the development\u0000 of health research regulation.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"249-265"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46688486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Walking the (argumentative) talk using citizen science: involving young people in a critical policy analysis of vaccination policy in Austria 利用公民科学进行（辩论性）演讲：让年轻人参与奥地利疫苗接种政策的批判性政策分析

IF 2.1 3区社会学

Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426419x15752578285791

K. Paul, Thomas Palfinger

{"title":"Walking the (argumentative) talk using citizen science: involving young people in a critical policy analysis of vaccination policy in Austria","authors":"K. Paul, Thomas Palfinger","doi":"10.1332/174426419x15752578285791","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419x15752578285791","url":null,"abstract":"Background:Vaccination policy has grown increasingly polarised, and concerns about vaccination practices are often articulated jointly with fears over declining trust in scientific expertise and the demise of evidence-based policy. This has led to a discursive deadlock in\u0000 which evidence comes to denote something that is crafted and monopolised by a trained élite, with no role to play for the workings of democracy. Our own methodologies tend to accentuate this epistemic hierarchy, for much qualitative research relies on élite interviews\u0000 with officials and scientific experts. The introduction of the vaccine against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), on which we report in this paper, is a case in point. Objectives and methods:With this study, we intervene in this discursive and methodological deadlock using unconventional\u0000 methods: inspired by the participatory spirit of the ‘argumentative turn’ in policy analysis, we experimented with citizen science to produce critical knowledge about HPV policy in Austria and simultaneously intervene in this expert-driven policy discourse. Specifically, we involved\u0000 adolescents in analysing HPV policy discourse using press releases and a combination of inductive and deductive textual coding. Findings and conclusions:Our results point to the sidelining of sexuality and gender in the presentation of scientific evidence on HPV in press\u0000 releases, and highlight the dominance of the pharmaceutical industry in shaping the political-administrative decision to offer the HPV vaccine to all children in 2014. Our study points to ways of integrating citizen science in the social sciences and contributes to a rethinking of methodologies\u0000 in qualitative policy analysis.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"229-247"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43103348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

The new evidence-based policy: public participation between ‘hard evidence’ and democracy in practice 新的循证政策:“确凿证据”与实践中的民主之间的公众参与

IF 2.1 3区社会学

Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426419x15704985880872

Helen Pallett

引用次数: 6

Opportunities for youth participatory action research to inform school district decisions 青年参与行动研究的机会，为学区决策提供信息

IF 2.1 3区社会学

Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI: 10.1332/174426419x15649816542957

Alison K. Cohen, Emily J Ozer, Michelle Abraczinskas, Adam M. Voight, B. Kirshner, Molly Devinney

{"title":"Opportunities for youth participatory action research to inform school district decisions","authors":"Alison K. Cohen, Emily J Ozer, Michelle Abraczinskas, Adam M. Voight, B. Kirshner, Molly Devinney","doi":"10.1332/174426419x15649816542957","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419x15649816542957","url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundYouth participatory action research (YPAR) is an equity-focused approach intended to generate local knowledge and democratise the production of research evidence. Aims/objectivesWe explore the promise and challenges of YPAR to inform education\u0000 policy decision making. We focus on California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)’s Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) initiative, which requires districts to engage with diverse stakeholders to make decisions. We provide a case example of California’s Stockton\u0000 Unified School District. Stockton currently uses the Peer Leaders Uniting Students’s YPAR curriculum to inform their LCAP work. Key conclusionsYPAR offers opportunities for new insights, and can be implemented successfully at scale. While Stockton was doing YPAR before\u0000 LCFF and LCAP existed, they enabled Stockton to expand its YPAR programming, with the goal of using YPAR evidence to provide useful information for educational decision making, policies, and programmes. For example, one YPAR project focused on student tardiness and, using data from multiple\u0000 sources, proposed lengthening the passing period so that it was physically possible to walk to class in the time permitted. Here, YPAR supports those people most affected by education policy ‐ the students ‐ to have the power to inform decisions that affect them. YPAR can broaden\u0000 the set of evidence and perspectives that decision makers review to inform policy decisions. We encourage researchers and practitioners to study and create policy structures that support using YPAR to inform policy. We also encourage policy makers to develop more policies that can facilitate\u0000 the use of YPAR, in education and beyond.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41650820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 9