Evidence & Policy最新文献

{"title":"Evidence-based practice and management-by-knowledge of disability care: rigid constraint or fluid support?","authors":"Isabella Pistone, Allan Lidström, Ingemar Bohlin, Thomas Schneider, T. Zuiderent-Jerak, M. Sager","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16390538025881","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16390538025881","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although increasingly accepted in some corners of social work, critics have claimed that evidence-based practice (EBP) methodologies run contrary to local care practices and result in an EBP straitjacket and epistemic injustice. These are serious concerns, especially in relation to already marginalised clients.Aims and objectives: Against the backdrop of criticism against EBP, this study explores the ramifications of the Swedish state-governed knowledge infrastructure, ‘management-by-knowledge’, for social care practices at two care units for persons with intellectual disabilities.Methods: Data generated from ethnographic observations and interviews were analysed by applying a conceptual framework of epistemic injustice; also analysed were national, regional and local knowledge products within management-by-knowledge related to two daily activity (DA) units at a social care provider in Sweden.Findings: In this particular case of disability care, no obvious risks of epistemic injustice were discovered in key knowledge practices of management-by-knowledge. Central methodologies of national agencies did include perspectives from social workers and clients, as did regional infrastructures. Locally, there were structures in place that focused on creating a dynamic interplay between knowledge coming from various forms of evidence, including social workers’ and clients’ own knowledge and experience.Discussion and conclusions: Far from being a straitjacket, in the case studied management-by-knowledge may be understood as offering fluid support. Efforts which aim at improving care for people with disabilities might benefit from organisational support structures that enable dynamic interactions between external knowledge and local practices.Key messagesExamining one case of disability care in Sweden, both social workers’ and clients’ experiences were included in EBP infrastructures.In this study, Swedish EBP infrastructures functioned more like fluid support than a straitjacket.Organisational structures that combine different knowledge sources at service providers can minimise the risk of epistemic injustice within social care.","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":"66287397","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":"Co-producing evidence-informed criminal legal re-entry policy with the community: an application of policy codesign","authors":"M. Owens, Sally Ngo, Sue Grinnell, Dana Pearlman, B. Bekemeier, Sarah Cusworth Walker","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16445109542161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16445109542161","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Not attending to local political climate negatively impacts the implementation and sustainability of evidence-informed models of health service. Policy codesign aims to align policy, systems, and community from the ‘ground up’, with structured information gathering, synthesis and creative design methods that incorporate relevant scientific evidence.Aims and objectives: This paper provides an example of policy codesign to develop a jail-based re-entry programme for adults with opioid use disorder in a rural county in the US.Methods: The design process adapted Theory U, a systems planning framework to include a rapid evidence review. The process included five sessions from July-September 2020. Mixed methods were used to collect data from the design team (n=5), community at large (n=10), and potential consumers (n=14). Qualitative and descriptive analyses assessed satisfaction with the design process, and the acceptability and perceived feasibility of programme implementation.Findings: Satisfaction with the design process was high among design team members. Acceptability and perceived feasibility of the designed programme were ‘very high’ across all respondents. The community implemented the designed programme, which aligned with the extant evidence base, although design team members did not explicitly acknowledge research as a source of design. This suggests that the process achieved creative control, and qualitative findings support the teams’ sense of shared ownership.Discussion and conclusions: Policy codesign is a promising strategy for integrating the evidence base with community creativity in policy and systems-level planning. Further research is needed to understand which elements optimised design members’ absorption of the evidence base, shared sense making, and creative control.Key messagesPolicy codesign aims to align policy, systems, and community from the ‘ground up’.Policy codesign was used to develop a jail-based programme for people with substance use disorder.The designed jail-based re-entry programme was rated as highly acceptable and feasible.The programme was consistent with evidence-based approaches and was successfully implemented.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"328 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76366776","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":"Creative and collaborative reflective thinking to support policy deliberation and decision making","authors":"Anne Spaa, N. Spencer, Abigail C. Durrant, John Vines","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16474564583952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16474564583952","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Co-creation in policymaking is of increasing interest to national governments, and designers play a significant role in its introduction.Aims and objectives: We discuss instances from our fieldwork that demonstrated how UK Policy Lab used design methods to gain insight into the design-oriented methods introduced to policymakers’ practices, and how these may influence conventional policy design processes.Methods: This paper reports on the learnings from a two-month participant observation at UK Policy Lab conducted in early 2019.Findings: We found that, beyond human-centred and future-oriented practices, the designers working at this unit appropriate design as a reflective practice for the context of policymaking. We discuss how the use of visual and creative methods of design are utilised by policy designers to facilitate co-creative reflective practices, and how these make a valuable contribution to policymaking practices in UK Government.Discussion and conclusions: As deliberation and decision making is influenced both by what is thought about as well as who is doing the thinking, reflective practices allow notions and assumptions to be unpicked. Moreover, when done as a group activity, reflection leads to a co-production of a deepened understanding of policy challenges.Consequently, we argue, the reflective practices introduced by Policy Lab are an essential contribution to developing a co-creation tradition in evidence-informed policymaking processes.Key messagesBeyond human-centred and future-oriented methods, UK Policy Lab appropriates design as a reflective practice, to contribute to policymaking by supporting deliberation and decision making.Creative and visual methods from design enable collaborative policymaking processes, as they externalise thinking and surface overlaps and differences among policymakers’ perspectives.We argue that design can support the reflective practice of policymakers, highlighting explicit and implicit frames structuring decision making.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85279605","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":"Knowledge brokering organisations: a new way of governing evidence","authors":"E. MacKillop, James Downe","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16445093010411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16445093010411","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Government-funded knowledge brokering organisations (KBOs) are an increasingly prevalent yet under-researched area. Working in the space between knowledge and policy, yet framing themselves as different from think tanks and academic research centres, these organisations broker evidence into policy.Aims and objectives: This article examines how three organisations on different continents develop similar narratives and strategies to attempt to inform policymaking and build legitimacy.Methods: Using documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews, it shows how the organisations construct their credibility and legitimacy, and make sense of their emergence, activities and relationships with policymakers.Findings: The study responds to the lack of political focus on many existing studies, examining how KBOs make sense of their origins and roles, articulating notions of evidence, and mobilising different types of legitimacies to do so. The research also addresses an empirical gap surrounding the emergence and activities of KBOs (not individuals), analysing organisations on three different continents.Discussion and conclusions: KBOs developed similar narratives of origins and functions, despite emerging in different contexts. Furthermore, they build their legitimacy/ies in similar ways. Our research improves our understanding of how a new ‘tool’ in the evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) arsenal – KBOs – is being mobilised by different governments in similar ways.Key messagesGovernment-funded KBOs are an increasingly prevalent yet under-researched area. KBOs mobilise similar emergence narratives in different contexts. Credibility is built by KBOs in changing ways, tapping into legitimacies, hinging on their origins, contexts, tools and staff. KBOs are a new EIPM tool that seems to be mobilised in similar ways by different governments.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86779403","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":"Understanding Brokers, Intermediaries, and Boundary Spanners: A Multi-Sectoral Review of Strategies, Skills, and Outcomes","authors":"J. Neal, Stephen M. Posner, Brian Brutzman","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/bn7ya","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bn7ya","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners (BIBS) bridge research and policy or practice, and can elevate the role of evidence in decision-making. However, there is limited integration of the literature across different sectors to understand the strategies that BIBS use, the skills needed to carry out these strategies, and the expected outcomes of these strategies. Aims and Objectives: In this review, we characterize the strategies, skills, and outcomes of BIBS across the literature in education, environmental, health and other relevant sectors. Methods: We included 185 conceptual and review papers written in English that included descriptions or conceptualizations of BIBS in the context of knowledge transfer or research use in the education, environmental, health, or other relevant sectors (e.g., social services, international development). For each included paper, we extracted and coded information on sector, BIBS strategies, skills, and outcomes. Findings: Our review revealed five strategies used by BIBS that were emphasized in the literature. Specifically, 79.5% of papers mentioned facilitating relationships, 75.7% mentioned disseminating evidence, 56.8% mentioned finding alignment, 48.6% mentioned capacity building, and 37.3% mentioned advising decisions as strategies used by BIBS. Additionally, papers described skills and expected outcomes that were common across these strategies as well as those that were unique to specific strategies. Discussion and Conclusions: We discuss implications of these findings for understanding how BIBS interface with knowledge users and producers as well as directions for future research on BIBS and the professionalization of BIBS roles.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45990100","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":"Evidence, objectivity and welfare reform: a qualitative study of disability benefit assessments","authors":"T. Porter, C. Pearson, N. Watson","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16146990181049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16146990181049","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Anti-welfare narratives depict welfare systems as overly-permissive, open to fraud, and fundamentally unfair. Countering these supposed ills have been political appeals to evidence and reforms made to disability benefit assessments under the banner of objectivity.\u0000 But objectivity is a complex construct, which entails philosophical and political choices that tend to oppress, exclude and symbolically disqualify alternative perspectives.Aims and objectives: To examine reforms made to UK disability benefits assessments in the name of objectivity.Methods:\u0000 Thematic analysis of 50 in-depth qualitative interviews with UK disability benefit claimants.Findings: Reforms made in pursuit of procedural objectivity reproduce existing social order, meaning claimants without personal, social and economic resources are less likely to succeed.\u0000 Data reveal an increasingly detached and impersonal assessment process, set against a broader welfare landscape in which advocacy and support have been retrenched. In this context, attaining a valid and reliable assessment was, for many, contingent upon personal, social and economic resources.Discussion\u0000 and conclusions: Political appeals to evidence helped establish an impetus and a legitimising logic for welfare reform. Procedural objectivity offers superficially plausible, but ultimately specious, remedies to longstanding anti-welfare tropes. Despite connotations of methodological neutrality,\u0000 procedural objectivity is not a politically neutral epistemological standpoint. To know disability in a genuinely valid and reliable way, knowledge-making practices must respect dignity and proactively counter exclusory social order. These latter principles promise outcomes that are more trustworthy\u0000 by virtue of their being more just.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46396273","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":"Co-designing behavioural public policy: lessons from the field about how to ‘nudge plus’","authors":"L. Richardson, P. John","doi":"10.1332/174426420X16000979778231","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420X16000979778231","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Behavioural public policies, known as nudges, suffer from lack of citizen consent and involvement, which has led to an argument for more reflective nudges, known as ‘nudge plus’.Aims and objectives: How can more citizen reflection be introduced\u0000 in a way that is not itself top-down and paternalist in spite of good intentions? How might these ‘nudge pluses’ develop on the ground?Methods: This paper reports a mixed-methods case study.Findings: In the case study, there was an intervention that started\u0000 off as a top-down nudge, using a randomised controlled trial. The nudge then evolved into a bottom-up initiative with citizen input aided by a design lab approach.Discussion and conclusion: One way to address tensions between top-down and bottom-up approaches is to let in the messiness\u0000 and loss of direct control implied in a design lab, whereby nudge pluses might evolve naturally and without expert direction. The success of the eventual initiative points the way to more design-based nudge plus interventions. Nudge pluses may emerge naturally as a result of the evolutionary\u0000 co-design process. There is potential for replication, with cross-fertilisation between different traditions by introducing behaviour change policies with a design-based approach.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43705032","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":"New evidence and policy research, well-established themes","authors":"P. Cairney, Katherine E. Smith","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16100429646451","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16100429646451","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"17 1","pages":"3-8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48481128","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":"‘Maybe we can turn the tide’: an explanatory mixed-methods study to understand how knowledge brokers mobilise health evidence in low- and middle-income countries","authors":"T. Norton, D. Rodriguez, C. Howell, C. Reynolds, S. Willems","doi":"10.1332/174426419x15679622689515","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419x15679622689515","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Little is known about how knowledge brokers (KBs) operate in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to translate evidence for health policy and practice. These intermediaries facilitate relationships between evidence producers and users to address public health\u0000 issues.Aims and objectives: To increase understanding, a mixed-methods study collected data from KBs who had acted on evidence from the 2015 Global Maternal Newborn Health Conference in Mexico.Methods: Of the 1000 in-person participants, 252 plus 72 online participants\u0000 (n=324) from 56 countries completed an online survey, and 20 participants from 15 countries were interviewed. Thematic analysis and application of knowledge translation (KT) theory explored factors influencing KB actions leading to evidence uptake. Descriptive statistics of respondent characteristics\u0000 were used for cross-case comparison.Findings: Results suggest factors supporting the KB role in evidence uptake, which include active relationships with evidence users through embedded KB roles, targeted and tailored evidence communication to fit the context, user receptiveness\u0000 to evidence from a similar country setting, adaptability in the KB role, and action orientation of KBs.Discussion and conclusions: Initiatives to increase evidence uptake in LMICs should work to establish supportive structures for embedded KT, identify processes for ongoing cross-country\u0000 learning, and strengthen KBs already showing effectiveness in their roles.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42754769","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":"Effective strategies that enhance the social impact of social sciences and humanities research","authors":"Emilia Aiello, C. Donovan, Elena Duque, Serena Fabrizio, R. Flecha, Poul Holm, Silvia Molina, E. Oliver, E. Reale","doi":"10.1332/174426420X15834126054137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420X15834126054137","url":null,"abstract":"Background: We are witnessing increasing demand from governments and society for all sciences to have relevant social impact and to show the returns they provide to society.Aims and objectives: This paper reports strategies that promote social impact by Social Sciences\u0000 and Humanities (SSH) research projects.Methods: An in-depth analysis of six Social Sciences and Humanities research projects that achieved social impact was carried out to identify those strategies. For each case study, project documents were analysed and qualitative fieldwork was\u0000 conducted with diverse agents, including researchers, stakeholders and end-users, with a communicative orientation.Findings: The strategies that were identified as contributing to achieving social impact include a clear focus of the project on social impact and the definition of\u0000 an active strategy for achieving it; a meaningful involvement of stakeholders and end-users throughout the project lifespan, including local organisations, underprivileged end-users, and policy makers who not only are recipients of knowledge generated by the research projects but participate\u0000 in the co-creation of knowledge; coordination between projects’ and stakeholders’ activities; and dissemination activities that show useful evidence and are oriented toward creating space for public deliberation with a diverse public.Discussion and conclusions: The strategies\u0000 identified can enhance the social impact of Social Sciences and Humanities research. Furthermore, gathering related data, such as collaboration with stakeholders, use of projects’ findings and the effects of their implementation, could allow researchers to track the social impact of\u0000 the projects and enhance the evaluation of research impact.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47576668","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}