Evidence & Policy最新文献

{"title":"Peep show: a framework for watching how evidence is communicated inside policy organisations","authors":"Christiane Gerblinger","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16426978266831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16426978266831","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Seeing how governments formulate decisions on our behalf is a crucial component of their ability to claim democratic legitimacy. This includes being seen to draw on the knowledge and evidence produced by their civil service policy advisers. Yet much of the advice provided to governments is being increasingly withdrawn from public accessibility.Aims and objectives: To counter this diminishing transparency, I propose a framework for observing how evidence is made and used in the political decision-making process. Although my framework is constructed within the Australian context, I hope to encourage its use in other government and policy settings.Methods: Using an example from my own research into the language of rejected policy advice, I construct a framework for locating how policy actors formulate and communicate their evidence. With primary material drawn from Freedom of Information releases, my framework qualitatively examines three impact factors with which to situate policy advice: text, organisational influences and the interplay between the front and back regions of politics and policy. To counter releases’ limitations, they are contextualised with publicly available, contemporaneous statements.Findings: Text displayed excessive detail, inviting multiple interpretations. Organisational influences suggested an insular culture over-reliant on its reputation. Interplay linked to evidence as ostensibly authority-imparting but ultimately adding to the lack of transparency around how political decisions were made.Discussion and conclusions: Even when processes are hidden from public view, they can be found. By connecting an array of impact factors, my framework here illuminated a complex choreography of civil servants communicating with their government about a contentious policy issue and revealed the political affordances they enabled in the process.Key messagesIt is difficult to observe how policy knowledge is constructed and if or how it informs political decision making.Interviews and ethnographic research have been recommended as ways to understand the inner workings of policy organisations – but these are not always possible (or reliable), especially for researchers who want to qualitatively examine politically uncomfortable policy issues.To counter diminishing transparency, I propose a framework for getting closer to watching how evidence is made and used, which includes analyses of texts, organisational culture, and the interplay between policy and politics.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287849","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}

{"title":"Exploring the value and role of creative practices in research co-production","authors":"Joe Langley, N. Kayes, I. Gwilt, Erna Snelgrove-Clarke, Sarah Smith, C. Craig","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16478821515272","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16478821515272","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:p> </jats:p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76243335","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}

{"title":"The Midwifery Unit Self-Assessment (MUSA) Toolkit: embedding stakeholder engagement and co-production of improvement plans in European midwifery units","authors":"Lucia Rocca-Ihenacho, C. Yuill, Ellen Thaels, Nazihah Uddin","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16448363973807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16448363973807","url":null,"abstract":"Background: For women with straightforward pregnancies midwifery units (MUs) are associated with improved maternal outcomes and experiences, similar neonatal outcomes, and lower costs than obstetric units. There is growing interest and promotion of MUs and midwifery-led care among European health policymakers and healthcare systems, and units are being developed and opened in countries for the first time or are increasing in number. To support this implementation, it is crucial that practice guidelines and improvement frameworks are in place, in order to ensure that MUs are and remain well-functioning.Aims and objectives: This project focused on the stakeholder engagement and collaboration with MUs to implement the Midwifery Unit Self-Assessment (MUSA) Tool in European MUs. A rapid participatory appraisal was conducted with midwives and stakeholders from European MUs to explore the clarity and usability of the tool, to understand how it helps MUs identifying areas for further improvement, and to identify the degree of support maternity services need in this process.Key conclusions: Engagement and co-production principles used in the case studies were perceived as empowering by all stakeholders. A fresh-eye view from the external facilitators on dynamics within the MU and its relationship with the obstetric unit was highly valued. However, micro-, meso- and macro-levels of organisational change and their associated stakeholders need to be further represented in the MUSA-Tool. The improvement plans generated from it should also reflect these micro-, meso- and macro-level considerations in order to identify the key actors for further implementation and integration of MUs into European health services.Key messagesEngagement and co-production principles used in the case studies were perceived as empowering by all stakeholders.A fresh-eye view from the external facilitators were highly valued by stakeholders.Micro-meso-macro levels of change need to be further represented in the MUSA-Tool.The high impact actions need to reflect the micro-meso-macro levels to identify the correct players.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90513245","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}

{"title":"Editorial transition: introductions and farewells","authors":"Katherine E. Smith, M. Pearson, Z. Neal, C. Oliver","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16390558891798","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16390558891798","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:p> </jats:p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"201 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287039","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}

{"title":"The entanglement of employers and political elites in migration policymaking: the case of Brexit and the revival of UK horticulture’s guestworker scheme","authors":"S. Scott","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16445087491820","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16445087491820","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Following Brexit, and the ending of freedom of movement, labour supply crises have emerged in the UK. The paper focuses on the horticultural sector, where these crises have been particularly pronounced, with fears of crops being left to rot in the fields now commonplace.Aims and objectives: To examine the scale and nature of employer pressure on government with respect to UK low-wage migration policymaking in the period (2016–2020) following the Brexit vote.Methods: Thematic analysis of five parliamentary inquiries over the 2016–2020 Brexit period covering 515 documents and amounting to a total of 4,227 pages of evidence.Findings: Numerous political inquiries emerged after the 2016 Brexit referendum that opened up the opportunity for employers to publicly press government for more liberal low-wage migration policies. Employers responded with concerted, weighty and consistent pressure that revolved around: emphasising a labour supply crisis; underlining the lack of suitable local labour; presenting government with a range of unsavoury alternatives to low-wage immigration; and championing a new seasonal guestworker scheme to avoid these unsavoury alternatives.Discussion and conclusions: The Brexit period (2016–2020) saw a willingness within UK government to listen to employers with respect to migration policy. In the food production industry, employers responded with a strong and consistent voice and they got what they wanted: a new horticultural guestworker scheme. We cannot say for certain though that correlation equals causation, and more research is now needed into the intimate entanglement of employers and political elites in the migration policy process.Key messagesBrexit created a low-wage labour supply crisis in UK horticulture, according to employers.Employers were given extensive opportunity to pressure government about this in the 2016–2020 Brexit period.Reviewing documentary evidence from employers, the paper shows pressure to be concerted, weighty and consistent.Employer pressure is correlated with a new seasonal guestworker visa scheme for UK horticulture.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75798995","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}

{"title":"Promoting action on structural drivers of health inequity: principles for policy evaluation","authors":"Ashley Schram, B. Townsend, T. Mackean, T. Freeman, Matt Fisher, P. Harris, M. Whitehead, H. van Eyk, F. Baum, S. Friel","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16420923635594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16420923635594","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Insufficient progress has been made towards reducing health inequities, due in part to a lack of action on the root causes of health inequities. At present, there is a limited evidence base to guide policy decision making in this space.Key points for discussion: This paper proposes new principles for researchers to conduct health equity policy evaluation. Four key principles are presented: (1) where to evaluate – shifting from familiar to unfamiliar terrain; (2) who to evaluate – shifting from structures of vulnerability to structures of privilege; (3) what to evaluate – shifting from simple figures to complex constructs; and (4) how to evaluate – shifting from ‘gold standard’ to more appropriate ‘fit-for-purpose’ designs. These four principles translate to modifying the policy domains investigated, the populations targeted, the indicators selected, and the methods employed during health equity policy evaluation. The development and implementation of these principles over a five-year programme of work is demonstrated through case studies which reflect the principles in practice.Conclusions and implications: The principles are shared to encourage other researchers to develop evaluation designs of sufficient complexity that they can advance the contribution of health equity policy evaluation to structural policy reforms. As a result, policies and actions on the social determinants of health might be better oriented to achieve the redistribution of power and resources needed to address the root causes of health inequities.Key messagesReducing health inequities requires policy reforms that redistribute power and resources.Guidance on evaluating policy for health equity to shape structural policy reform is limited.Four principles are offered to guide who and what is evaluated, and how and where evaluation occurs.Use of these principles may enhance the impact of policy evaluation in reducing health inequities.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287612","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}

{"title":"He Ture Kia Tika/Let the Law Be Right: informing evidence-based policy through kaupapa Maori and co-production of lived experience","authors":"Katey Thom, Stella Black, D. Burnside, Jessica Hastings","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16432180922551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16432180922551","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Ninety-one per cent of Aotearoa New Zealand prisoners have been diagnosed with either a mental health or substance use disorder within their lifetime. Challenges exist in how to meet their needs. Diverse purakau (stories) of success in whanau ora (wellbeing) and stopping offending are missing from academic and public discourse that should direct law and policy changes.Aims and objectives: We describe a kaupapa Maori co-production project called He Ture Kia Tika/Let the Law be Right. We highlight how kaumatua (Maori indigenous elders), academics, and practitioners merged their voices with people with lived experiences of mental health, addiction, and incarceration to create justice policy and solutions.Methods: We focus on the theory and application of our co-production, directed by kaupapa Maori methodology. We describe the work of a co-design group that actively guides the project, from inception towards completion, using rangahau kawa (research protocols) as culturally clear guidelines and ethically safe practices. We then detail our processes involved in the collection of co-created purakau (storytelling) with 40 whanau (family) participants, and describe our continued collaboration to ensure law and policy recommendations are centred on lived experiences.Findings: Kaupapa Maori informed co-production ensured rangahau kawa (research protocol and guidelines) were created that gave clear direction for an engagement at all levels of the project. We see this as bringing to life co-production, moving beyond theory to the practicalities of ‘being’ and ‘doing’ with each other in safe, ethical ways for all.Discussions and conclusions: A strong association exists between unmet mental health needs and reoffending. Tackling cultural, health, social and justice issues requires a multi-layered approach from a range of rangatira (leaders including kaumatua/elders) and tohunga, or experts, of their lived experiences to inform future policy and law reform.Key messagesThe rationale for the paper draws on the expertise of those with lived experiences to determine how research can be co-designed and co-produced.The paper outlines how kaupapa Maori (cultural approach) can direct co-production.The co-creation of a research kawa (protocol) provided culturally clear guidelines and safe practices.Kaupapa Maori co-production details the creative processes used in co-creating whanau korero purakau (participant storytelling).","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85651693","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}

{"title":"The creative co-design of low back pain education resources","authors":"R. Webber, R. Partridge, C. Grindell","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16437342906266","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16437342906266","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Evidence-based guidelines provide clinicians with best practice recommendations but not the means to implement them. Although co-design is increasingly promoted as a way to improve implementation there is frequently insufficient detail provided to understand its contribution. The presented case study addresses this by providing a detailed account of how a specific co-design approach contributed to an improving back pain education project in line with national guidance.Aim: The aim was to use creative co-design to produce prototype evidence-based back pain educational resources that were sensitive to context.Objectives:Assemble a group of relevant stakeholders for a series of workshops.Use creative activities that encourage divergent and convergent thinking to iteratively understand the problem and develop prototype solutions.Thematically analyse outputs of each workshop to determine content of subsequent workshops.Present a final prototype ready for implementation.Key conclusions:This approach produced an innovative system of thematically linked back pain educational resources that were contextually sensitive, evidence-based and ready for implementation.Research knowledge was successfully blended with stakeholder experiential knowledge.The creative methods helped diverse stakeholders develop trusting relationships and ensured everyone’s experiences and ideas were included.The process of co-creation and the objects created had vital roles in surfacing and understanding stakeholder knowledge, promoting innovation and facilitating implementation.The design process facilitated an evolving understanding of a complex problem alongside prototype development.It is recommended that these methods be considered by other project teams.Key messagesTo bring about meaningful change, evidence-based guidelines need to be implemented in ways that are sensitive to context and the complexity of healthcare.Co-production has the potential to produce better solutions but has its own challenges.Creative co-design can be an effective approach for overcoming these challenges.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82162978","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}

{"title":"What is co-production? Conceptualising and understanding co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical perspectives","authors":"J. Bandola-Gill, Megan Arthur, R. Leng","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16420955772641","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16420955772641","url":null,"abstract":"Background: ‘Co-production’ is one of the key concepts in evidence-informed policy and practice – in terms of both its theoretical importance and its practical applications - being consistently discussed as the most effective strategy for mobilising evidence in policy and practice contexts. The concept of co-production was developed (almost) independently across multiple disciplines and has been employed in various policy and practice fields including environment, sustainability, and health.Aims and objectives: This paper surveys the literature to identify different meanings of co-production across different disciplinary bodies of knowledge. Such exploration is aimed at identifying the key points of convergence and divergence across different disciplinary and theoretical traditions.Methods: We performed a systematic search of Web of Science via a query designed to capture literature likely focusing on co-production, and then manually examined each document for relevance. Citation network analysis was then used to ‘map’ this literature by grouping papers into clusters based on the density of citation links between papers. The top-cited papers within each cluster were thematically analysed.Findings: This research identified five meanings of co-production, understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.Discussion and conclusions: Even though different clusters of scholarship exploring co-production are closely connected, this concept is mobilised to capture phenomena at different levels of abstraction – from post-structuralist theories of knowledge and power to specific strategies to be employed by researchers and policymakers.Key messagesThe paper identifies five meanings of co-production: understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.Co-production is a multi-level phenomenon occurring at the level of socio-political systems, the level of institutions, and the level of situated practices.The paper identifies a need for definitional transparency and cross-disciplinary learning about co-production.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287758","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}

{"title":"How are evidence and policy conceptualised, and how do they connect? A qualitative systematic review of public policy literature","authors":"S. Blum, V. Pattyn","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16397411532296","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16397411532296","url":null,"abstract":"Background: While current public policy scholarship can take advantage of a decades-long accumulated knowledge base on the relationship between evidence and policy, it is hard to keep the overview across different literatures. Over time, the ever more differentiated branches of public policy research have developed their own perspectives, languages, and conceptualisations of ‘evidence’ and ‘policy’, as well as their connections.Aims and objectives: Existing reviews have stressed that studies often do not provide clear definitions of ‘policy’ or ‘evidence’, and have outlined the importance of investigating underlying conceptualisations in the literature. Against this backdrop, this article investigates how present-day public policy scholarship approaches the concepts of ‘evidence’, ‘policy’, and their connections.Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review following the PRISMA method. Using a keyword search, we identified relevant articles (n=85) in eleven Q1 and Q2 policy journals included in Web of Science in the period 2015 to 2019.Findings: The synthesis confirms that ‘evidence’ and ‘policy’ are often not clearly defined, yet different trends regarding understandings can be identified. There are two approaches taken on the evidence and policy connection: a ‘use of evidence’ or a ‘use for policy’ perspective.Discussion and conclusions: Research on evidence and policy would benefit from more explicit conceptual discussions. This review may provide a heuristic for explicating conceptual choices when working with the notions of ‘evidence’, ‘policy’, and their connections. It also suggests several avenues that are worth exploring in future research.Key messagesReview studies of evidence and policy research have stressed the need of investigating underlying conceptualisations.This article presents the results of a qualitative systematic PRISMA review.The synthesis reveals significant differences in the conceptualisations of evidence and policy.Their connections are approached either from a ‘use of evidence’ or a ‘use for policy’ perspective.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66287243","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}