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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Peter W.B. Phillips, David Castle, Stuart J. Smyth
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