Evidence-based policy making: determining what is evidence
In the era of evidence-based policy, framing and assessing the core evidence is fundamental to our ability to use research in support of public policy. In a world of almost exponentially expanding scholarly publication, it is becoming harder to define what is known. This article reviews the basic th...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Elsevier
2020-07-01
|
Series: | Heliyon |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844020313633 |
id |
doaj-a1fcc116bb594a59965b1fc414ed61e1 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-a1fcc116bb594a59965b1fc414ed61e12020-11-25T04:09:08ZengElsevierHeliyon2405-84402020-07-0167e04519Evidence-based policy making: determining what is evidencePeter W.B. Phillips0David Castle1Stuart J. Smyth2Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, 101 Diefenbaker Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 5B5, CanadaUniversity of Victoria, PO Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, CanadaDepartment Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 5A8, Canada; Corresponding author.In the era of evidence-based policy, framing and assessing the core evidence is fundamental to our ability to use research in support of public policy. In a world of almost exponentially expanding scholarly publication, it is becoming harder to define what is known. This article reviews the basic theories of knowledge, the context for sorting through and summarizing that knowledge and a number of options available, and used, to assemble the knowledge base for research and policy work. The authors undertook a summative process in the domain of biotechnology, agriculture and development and offer insights into the comparative methods and their impacts on the outcome. A population sample of 421 articles was gathered. Four methods—expert Delphi, citation analysis, social network analysis and peer evaluation—were used to select the 51 pieces for inclusion and analysis in the core literature. That analysis shows that each process delivered a different set of evidence. The potential for bias in knowledge assessment can challenge policy makers in their process of reviewing evidence that rationalizes policy.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844020313633BibliometricsDelphiEvidence-based policyLiterature analysisSocial network analysisSurvey articles |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Peter W.B. Phillips David Castle Stuart J. Smyth |
spellingShingle |
Peter W.B. Phillips David Castle Stuart J. Smyth Evidence-based policy making: determining what is evidence Heliyon Bibliometrics Delphi Evidence-based policy Literature analysis Social network analysis Survey articles |
author_facet |
Peter W.B. Phillips David Castle Stuart J. Smyth |
author_sort |
Peter W.B. Phillips |
title |
Evidence-based policy making: determining what is evidence |
title_short |
Evidence-based policy making: determining what is evidence |
title_full |
Evidence-based policy making: determining what is evidence |
title_fullStr |
Evidence-based policy making: determining what is evidence |
title_full_unstemmed |
Evidence-based policy making: determining what is evidence |
title_sort |
evidence-based policy making: determining what is evidence |
publisher |
Elsevier |
series |
Heliyon |
issn |
2405-8440 |
publishDate |
2020-07-01 |
description |
In the era of evidence-based policy, framing and assessing the core evidence is fundamental to our ability to use research in support of public policy. In a world of almost exponentially expanding scholarly publication, it is becoming harder to define what is known. This article reviews the basic theories of knowledge, the context for sorting through and summarizing that knowledge and a number of options available, and used, to assemble the knowledge base for research and policy work. The authors undertook a summative process in the domain of biotechnology, agriculture and development and offer insights into the comparative methods and their impacts on the outcome. A population sample of 421 articles was gathered. Four methods—expert Delphi, citation analysis, social network analysis and peer evaluation—were used to select the 51 pieces for inclusion and analysis in the core literature. That analysis shows that each process delivered a different set of evidence. The potential for bias in knowledge assessment can challenge policy makers in their process of reviewing evidence that rationalizes policy. |
topic |
Bibliometrics Delphi Evidence-based policy Literature analysis Social network analysis Survey articles |
url |
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844020313633 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT peterwbphillips evidencebasedpolicymakingdeterminingwhatisevidence AT davidcastle evidencebasedpolicymakingdeterminingwhatisevidence AT stuartjsmyth evidencebasedpolicymakingdeterminingwhatisevidence |
_version_ |
1724423194166689792 |