New development: What works now? Continuity and change in the use of evidence to improve public policy and service delivery

Nutley, Sandra; Boaz, Annette; Davies, H. T. O.; Fraser, Alec

doi:10.1080/09540962.2019.1598202

Cited by 37 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5 Certainly, science-policy interfaces are needed which facilitate the exchange between the two societal spheres and the uptake of EGPP findings. And yetto return to the initial quote preceding this articlethe EGPP community first needs to 'deliver' lest research results will continue to be disregarded by decision-makers in policy, planning and public administration, or used selectively for instrumental political reasons only (Nutley et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There appears to be a growing unease among scholars of environmental governance, policy and planning that their research is hardly informing policy-making, despite a generally continued interest in the use of evidence by policy-makers (Nutley et al, 2019). Arguably, this is at least partly due to the limited ability of environmental social science to provide robust knowledge on the mechanisms through which policy and planning work towards environmental sustainability: We still do not know how and under what conditions governance interventions work towards effectively addressing urgent issues of environmental sustainability (Lange et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cumulating evidence in environmental governance, policy and planning research: towards a research reform agenda

Newig

Rose

2020

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper suggests that the field of environmental governance, policy and planning (EGPP) may be seen as an (emerging) scientific field, which can be characterised as 'fragmented adhocracy', explaining the widespread failure to produce robust and cumulative knowledge. We argue that in order to produce reliable knowledge and to become credible in the realm of policy and planning praxis, EGPP research needs a major reform impetus. To this end, we propose three areas for reform, which cover (1) an agreed canon of definitions shared within the community, while being open to reinterpretations and novel concepts; (2) the stronger use of metaanalytical methods such as the case survey methodology, or systematic reviews, to cumulate published case-based evidence; (3) a systematic recognition of the institutional, political and social context of governance interventions, which becomes increasingly important to the extent that meta-analyses reveal general patterns and trends which nonetheless vary with context. For each agenda item, we briefly formulate the motivating problem and an ideal-typical vision to strive for, and sketch out the pragmatic, epistemological and normative limits to its realisation. We close with overall reflections on our research reform agenda and suggest pathways for implementation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cumulating evidence in environmental governance, policy and planning research: towards a research reform agenda

Newig

Rose

2020

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It also integrates theories, ideas and views from multiple sources so is usually transdisciplinary and collaborative [ 24 , 62 , 71 ]. For example, the emphasis on ‘What works?’ is shifting to take account of much broader questions exploring social impact, causality and equity [ 167 ], and how best to include the voices of people whom this knowledge is intended to benefit [ 124 ]. Systems thinking (in common with some other approaches, e.g.…”

Section: How Can Systems Thinking Advance Knowledge Mobilisation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This expands and changes what we focus on, how we conduct the research, how it is integrated with values and other forms of knowledge, how we try to implement it, and who is involved. Ultimately, it reconceptualises what we mean by knowledge and by “good evidence ”[ 167 ].…”

Section: How Can Systems Thinking Advance Knowledge Mobilisation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples at the micro level that illustrate how different perspectives (knowledge) can be brought to the table include paying for first class disability train tickets so that stakeholders with disabilities can participate in workshops [ 195 ], using empowerment techniques to support young homeless people to generate service design proposals [ 50 ], and linking community members with researchers in a buddy system [ 54 ]. At the meso levels, strategies may involve modifying roles or procedures within an organisation [ 198 ], establishing advisory bodies comprising members of disenfranchised communities [ 45 ], or using citizen juries, deliberative polls or boundary organisations and objects [ 167 ]. Beyond this, participatory action research methods are designed to retain the voice and control of those typically marginalised [ 199 ].…”

Section: What Does Systems-informed Knowledge Mobilisation Look LImentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applying systems thinking to knowledge mobilisation in public health

Haynes

Rychetnik

Finegood

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Knowledge mobilisation (KM) is a vital strategy in efforts to improve public health policy and practice. Linear models describing knowledge transfer and translation have moved towards multi-directional and complexity-attuned approaches where knowledge is produced and becomes meaningful through social processes. There are calls for systems approaches to KM but little guidance on how this can be operationalised. This paper describes the contribution that systems thinking can make to KM and provides guidance about how to put it into action. Methods We apply a model of systems thinking (which focuses on leveraging change in complex systems) to eight KM practices empirically identified by others. We describe how these models interact and draw out some key learnings for applying systems thinking practically to KM in public health policy and practice. Examples of empirical studies, tools and targeted strategies are provided. Findings Systems thinking can enhance and fundamentally transform KM. It upholds a pluralistic view of knowledge as informed by multiple parts of the system and reconstituted through use. Mobilisation is conceived as a situated, non-prescriptive and potentially destabilising practice, no longer conceptualised as a discrete piece of work within wider efforts to strengthen public health but as integral to and in continual dialogue with those efforts. A systems approach to KM relies on contextual understanding, collaborative practices, addressing power imbalances and adaptive learning that responds to changing interactions between mobilisation activities and context. Conclusion Systems thinking offers valuable perspectives, tools and strategies to better understand complex problems in their settings and for strengthening KM practice. We make four suggestions for further developing empirical evidence and debate about how systems thinking can enhance our capacity to mobilise knowledge for solving complex problems – (1) be specific about what is meant by ‘systems thinking’, (2) describe counterfactual KM scenarios so the added value of systems thinking is clearer, (3) widen conceptualisations of impact when evaluating KM, and (4) use methods that can track how and where knowledge is mobilised in complex systems.

show abstract

Judging the relative trustworthiness of research results: How to do it and why it matters

Gorard

2024

Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes, and lays out an argument for, the use of a procedure to help groups of reviewers to judge the quality of prior research reports. It argues why such a procedure is needed, and how other existing approaches are only relevant to some kinds of research, meaning that a review or synthesis cannot successfully combine quality judgements of different types of research. The proposed procedure is based on four main factors: the fit between the research question(s) for any study and its design(s); the size of the smallest group of cases used in the headline analyses; the amount and skewness of missing data; and the quality of the data collected. This simple procedure is now relatively widely used, and has been found to lead to widespread agreement between reviewers. It can fundamentally change the findings of a review of evidence, compared to the conclusions that would emerge from a more traditional review that did not include genuine quality rating of prior evidence. And powerfully, because it is not technical, it permits users to help judge research findings. This is important as there is a growing demand for evidence‐led approaches in areas of social science such as education, wherein summaries of evidence must be as trustworthy as possible.

show abstract

New development: What works now? Continuity and change in the use of evidence to improve public policy and service delivery

Cited by 37 publications

References 12 publications

Cumulating evidence in environmental governance, policy and planning research: towards a research reform agenda

Cumulating evidence in environmental governance, policy and planning research: towards a research reform agenda

Applying systems thinking to knowledge mobilisation in public health

Judging the relative trustworthiness of research results: How to do it and why it matters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About