Evidence-Based Decision-Making

Banasiewicz, Andrew D.

doi:10.4324/9781351050074

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They grouped these 14 biases into 4 conceptual categories, demonstrating how a workplace environment that provided meaning could address all these biases. A comprehensive process model for evidenced-based decisionmaking primarily for corporate organisations was based, in part, on thinking about three types of human cognitive biases, grouped as those based on external influences, those based on the internal effects (states of mind), and those based on the perceptions of external events [55]. We argue that a similar process needs to be applied to ascertain a common set of biases and the potential mitigation strategies for public health administration domains.…”

Section: The Way Forward: Research-informed Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…We argue that a similar process needs to be applied to ascertain a common set of biases and the potential mitigation strategies for public health administration domains. For instance, there may be common biases in different thematic policy domains, such as social policy contexts, infrastructure, taxation policy development, and other areas, or a common model that could address many cognitive biases peculiar to a policy-making environment, akin to Parkhurt's [37] model or Banaseiwicz's [55] evidence-based decision-making model for organisations. From this research base, specific decision-making rules and processes could be developed for certain topic areas.…”

Section: The Way Forward: Research-informed Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Can Public Health Administration Learn from the Decision-Making Processes during COVID-19?

Joyce,

Risely,

Green

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human decision-making is prone to biases and the use of heuristics that can result in making logical errors and erroneous causal connections, which were evident during COVID-19 policy developments and potentially contributed to the inadequate and costly responses to COVID-19. There are decision-making frameworks and tools that can improve organisational decision-making. It is currently unknown as to what extent public health administrations have been using these structured organisational-level decision-making processes to counter decision-making biases. Current reviews of COVID-19 policies could examine not just the content of policy decisions but also how decisions were made. We recommend that understanding whether these decision-making processes have been used in public health administration is key to policy reform and learning from the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a research and practice gap that has significant implications for a wide range of public health policy areas and potentially could have made a profound difference in COVID-19-related policy responses.

show abstract

Section: The Way Forward: Research-informed Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Way Forward: Research-informed Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

What Can Public Health Administration Learn from the Decision-Making Processes during COVID-19?

Joyce,

Risely,

Green

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many observers have made similar observations and criticisms, both as pertains to evidence-based management and to evidence-based medicine (Edwards, 2018; Morrell and Learmonth, 2015; Morrell et al , 2015). There is value in looking at quantifiable supportable data-based evidence (Banasiewicz, 2019). There is also a danger that one may become so enamored with facts that one may forget that not all quantifiable information is important and that not everything that is quantifiable is important.…”

Section: Does Evidence-based Management Underutilize System 1?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s not to like about evidence-based management: a hyper-rational fad?

Hulpke¹,

Fronmueller

2021

IJOA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose A topic currently receiving significant academic and practitioner attention is called evidence-based management. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that this approach is sometimes over-sold and may be a fad. Additionally, evidence-based management fails to fully recognize the importance of tacit knowledge, what Kahneman calls system 1. Evidence-based management does provide tools to better use what Kahneman calls system 2, rationality. Decision-makers need to take advantage of both rational and beyond rational processes. Design/methodology/approach This is an essay, it is not a report of a study. At this point in time, this paper needs thinking, reflection, pondering, more than a data-based study. Findings Advocates promote evidence-based management in part to help avoid fads, yet evidence-based management itself has many of the characteristics of a fad. Evidence-based management is based on an objective rational view of the world and suggests highly rational methods of decision-making. However, a rational fact-based might not give sufficient credit to instinct and feelings. Decision-makers should take into account facts, evidence, when making decisions, but not ignore intuition, hunches and feelings. This study is learning that decisions use a galaxy of approaches, with both cognitive and affective flexibility. Research limitations/implications As with any opinion-based paper, this lacks empirical support. Proponents ask us to believe in evidence-based management. Neither we, the authors of this paper, nor the proponents of evidence-based management can empirically support the ideas offered. An additional limitation is that the paper is written in one language, English. Translation into another language might yield different meanings. Practical implications There are advantages for scholars and practitioners to look at the best available evidence. There can be disadvantages in overlooking non-quantifiable factors. Social implications Those who use evidence-based management should also take into account feelings, ethics, aesthetics, creativity, for the betterment of society. To solve wicked problems one needs more than facts and rational analysis. Originality/value The overwhelming majority of those writing about evidence-based management are supporters. This study offers a different view. This paper brings new ideas and new thinking to both the extensive fad literature and the huge evidence-based management literature. Evidence-based management is discussed widely. Google Scholar lists more than two million papers in 2019, 2020 and 2021 on evidence-based management. Readers of this journal should critically evaluate this popular set of ideas.

show abstract

Out with the Old – In with the New

Banasiewicz

2021

Organizational Learning in the Age of Data

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-Based Decision-Making

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

What Can Public Health Administration Learn from the Decision-Making Processes during COVID-19?

What Can Public Health Administration Learn from the Decision-Making Processes during COVID-19?

What’s not to like about evidence-based management: a hyper-rational fad?

Out with the Old – In with the New

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About