Ero sivun ”Keskustelu:Tiedolla johtamisen menetelmät ja työkalut” versioiden välillä

Versio 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45

Tiivistelmä

Tähän kootaan lyhyt 1-2 A4 pituinen tietokide

Nykytilanne

Päätösten läpinäkyvyys ja tietopohjaisuus ovat nousseet yhdeksi pääteemaksi niin hallinnon kuin tutkimuksenkin kentällä. Nykyiset tiedonjalostamisen käytännöt ovat hyviä ja lukuisiin muihin maihin verrattuna Suomessa jopa erinomaisia. Kun päätöstä aletaan valmistella, sovitaan tavoitteet, vastuut ja aikataulut ja työtä tekemään valitaan virkamiehet tai toimikunnat, jotka tuntevat asian hyvin. Tietoa työn tekemiseen on yleensä runsaasti. Tiedon runsaus ei kuitenkaan takaa päätösten perustuvan saatavilla olevaan tietoon.

Tutkimuslaitosten ja yliopistojen tuottaman tutkimustiedon rooli päätöksenteossa on merkittävä. Nykyiset toimintatavat eivät kuitenkaan tue saatavilla olevan tiedon hyödyntämistä. Prosessit perustuvat pitkälti toimijoiden omalla koneella tekemään työhön, suljettuihin toimikuntiin ja pieneen, helposti saatavilla olevaan osaan tiedosta.

Tietopohjaiseen päätöksentekoon ongelma ei siis tällä hetkellä ole tutkimustiedon puute. Ongelma on päätöksentekoprosessien avoimuuden ja osallistamisen puute sekä tiedon hajanaisuus.

Ehdotettu toimintapa

Edellä esitetyn ongelman ratkaisuna on pyrkiä päätösten valmistelussa jaettuun ymmärrykseen. Jaettu ymmärrys tarkoittaa tilannetta, jossa eri osapuolten näkemykset on kuvattu niin kattavasti, että on tiedossa, mistä päätökseen liittyvistä faktoista ja arvoista ollaan samaa mieltä, mistä eri mieltä ja miksi.

Jaetun ymmärryksen syntyminen edellyttää erityisesti avoimuutta, kohteellisuutta ja kritiikkiä. Näiden puute näyttää useimmiten liittyvän epäonnistumisiin jaetun ymmärryksen syntymisessä.

Avoimuuden, kohteellisuuden ja kritiikin laajamittainen onnistuminen vaatii verkkotyötila, johon kaikki asiaankuuluva tieto voidaan laittaa kaikkien nähtäville. Verkkotyötilan on myös sallittava avoin osallistuminen niin, että tieto ei hajoa tai vääristy. Verkkotyötilan lisäksi tarvitaan sopivat tietorakenteet ja toimintamallit, joiden avulla tieto pidetään järjestyksessä.

Tärkein menetelmä pitää tieto järjestyksessä on tunnistaa täsmällisiä kysymyksiä, joihin vastauksen löytäminen on tietotyön keskeisin tehtävä. Kysymysten on a) palveltava päätöksenteon tarpeita ja b) oltava tutkimuskysymyksiä eli sellaisia, joihin voidaan vastata tieteellisen tiedon avulla ja joiden vastausyrityksiä voi kritisoida tieteellisin perustein.

Tietokiteeksi kutsutaan sellaista tutkimuskysymyksen ympärille rakennettua tietojen kokonaisuutta, joka noudattaa avoimuuden, kohteellisuuden ja kritiikin periaatteita ja pyrkii jaettuun ymmärrykseen vastauksesta käyttäen havaintoaineistoja perusteluna. Tietokide onkin tässä työssä tunnistettu tärkeimmäksi tiedon jäsentämisen työkaluksi tai tieto-olioksi, joka ohjaa päätösvalmistelutyön etenemistä.

Perustelut jaetun ymmärryksen käyttöönotolle päätösvalmistelussa

Tarkastelun kohteena on tutkimustiedon käyttö yhteiskunnallisen päätöksenten tukena. Erityisesti pohditaan valtioneuvoston päätöksentekoa (miniteriöiden lakivalmistelu, hallituksen toiminta, hallitusohjelman ja muiden strategioiden toteuttaminen). Aiemmissa tarkasteluissa on valikoitunut periaatteita, joiden soveltamista pidetään hyvänä tiedon käytön edistämisessä. Tässä keskustelussa käydään kriittisesti läpi näiden periaatteiden hyödyllisyyttä tutkimustiedon ja kokemusperäisen tiedon valossa. Periaatteiden tarkoituksena on tuottaa osallistujien kesken jaettu ymmärrys.

Periaatteet ovat

avoimuus
kohteellisuus
kritiikki
ryhmäytyminen
yhteenvetämisen taito
tavoitteellisuus
syysuhteet
arvostus
uusiokäyttö
seuranta ja ohjaus

Miten keskusteluja luetaan ja käydään

Faktakeskustelu: .

Aloitusväite: Avoimuus on tärkeää edistämään tiedonkulkua tutkijoiden ja päättäjien välillä (sekä henkilöiden että instituutioiden). Siksi avoimuus tulee nostaa päätösvalmistelun tärkeäksi periaatteeksi.

Lopetusväite: Avoimuus on tärkeä periaate, mutta sen laajentamisessa on joitakin haasteita. Avoimuus muuttaa valtatasapainoa ja on varauduttava välistävetoyrityksiin sekä perustelemaan ja puolustamaan näkemyksiä uskottavasti julkisuudessa.

(Kunhan keskustelu ratkeaa, lopetusväite pitäisi päivittää tähän keskusteluun viittaaville sivuille.)

Väittely:

⇤--1: . Avoimuus vie valtaa nykyisiltä vallanpitäjiltä ja siten aiheuttaa epävakautta. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--2: . Avoimuus vie valtaa niiltä, jotka eivät kykene perustalemaan kantojaan uskottavasti. Siksi yllä oleva argumentti 1 ei vastusta vaan puolustaa väitettä. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--3: . Lukuisat esimerkit osoittavat, että avoimuus ei tuo asioihin lisää harkintaa vaan kohkaamista epäolennaisista asioista. Siksi yllä oleva argumentti 2 ei pidä paikkaansa käytännössä. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Jaettu ymmärrys ei ole saavutettavissa, ellei avoimesti esitellä eri osapuolten näkemyksiä ja argumentteja asiasta. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Tietotarpeet selviävät aikaisemmin, joten niihin on paremmin aikaa vastata. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Kokonaisuuden julkisuus auttaa näkemään, mitkä asiat on unohdettu tai jätettu huomiotta. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Avoimuus auttaa yhteiskunnan toimijoita ennakoimaan päätöksiä. Tämä mm. vähentää virheratkaisuja. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Avoimuus edistää ihmisten mahdollisuuksia toimia omaksi ja muiden eduksi. Tämä näkyy esimerkiksi avoimuuden talouskasvua lisäävänä vaikutuksena. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . Tähän tutkimusnäyttöä. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . Yhteiset tietokäytännöt tutkimuksen ja päätösvalmistelun puolella edistävät tiedon käyttöä. Siksi molempia on avattava yhtä aikaa. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . Tähän tarvitaan viitteitä todisteeksi. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . Päätösvalmistelu hyötyy tutkimustiedon avoimuuden lisäämisestä, vaikka valmistelua itsessään ei avata. Näin vältetään siihen liittyvät haitat. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Totta, mutta tämä ei todista etteikö lisäarvoa syntyisi päätösvalmistelun avaamisesta senkin jälkeen kun tutkimustietoa on avattu. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Avoimuus lisää mahdollisuuksia päätösvalmisteluprosessin kampittamiseen. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Tutkimustieto osoittaa, että hyödyt ovat suuremmat. ONKO TÄTÄ NÄYTTÖÄ LÖYDETTÄVISSÄ? --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Avoimuus tuo keskustelun julkisuuteen ja someen, jossa voi menestyä heikommilla argumenteilla kuin suljetussa asiantuntijavetoisessa valmistelussa. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Vaikka päätösvalmistelu olisi avointa, ei valtaa agendan määrittelystä ja sisällöstä tarvitse antaa pois julkisuuden paineessa. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Tiedonkeruu ei voi perustua joukkoistamiseen vaan pitää olla nimetty työryhmä jonka vastuulla on tiedon kerääminen tarpeellisessa laajuudessa. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Avoimuus karkottaa näkökulmia jotka ovat tärkeitä mutta pohjautuvat arkoihin tai salaisiin tietoihin. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Ulkopuoliset pyrkivät sotkemaan asioita ja tämä estää laittamasta keskeneräisiä asioita julkisesti nähtäville. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Miten keskusteluja luetaan ja käydään

Faktakeskustelu: .

Aloitusväite: Kohteellisuus (eli asioiden sijoittaminen aiheen mukaisesti omiin paikkoihinsa ja työstämään niitä siellä) on tärkeä periaate tietotyössä, koska se helpottaa asioiden löytämistä ja ajan tasalla pitämistä.

Lopetusväite: Kohteellisuutta voidaan rajallisesti lisätä, mutta on huomioitava tietoturvakysymykst, joiden takia tietoa pitää sijoittaa ensisijaisesti avoimuusluokituksen mukaisesti.

(Kunhan keskustelu ratkeaa, lopetusväite pitäisi päivittää tähän keskusteluun viittaaville sivuille.)

Väittely:

←--#: . Kohteellisuus auttaa rakentamaan yhden yhtenäisen tietovaraston. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 11.00 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Tiedot löytyvät helpommin asian kuin kirjoittajan, kirjoitusajan tai muun teknisen syyn mukaisesti. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 11.00 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Tiedot ovat helpommin käytettävissä, kun ne on jäsennetty asioiden mukaisesti. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 11.00 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Tietojen uusiokäyttö on helpompaa. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 11.00 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Tutkijoiden ja päättäjien tiedonvaihto on tehokkaampaa kun he jakavat yhteisen tietovaraston. --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 11.00 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--#: . Prosessien seuraaminen vaikeutuu --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Ei ole luonnollista tapaa kuvata kaikkia asioita koska niitä on liikaa ja ne ovat kontekstisidonnaisia. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Eriävät mielipiteet eivät tule kunnolla käsitellyiksi jos pyritään yhteen kuvaukseen. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Miten keskusteluja luetaan ja käydään

Faktakeskustelu: .

Aloitusväite: Kritiikki on tärkeä periaate tietotyössä.

Lopetusväite: Ratkaisua ei ole vielä löytynyt eikä keskustelu ole loppunut.

(Kunhan keskustelu ratkeaa, lopetusväite pitäisi päivittää tähän keskusteluun viittaaville sivuille.)

Väittely:

←--#: . Hyvät suunnitelmat kestävät paremmin kritiikkiä kuin huonot ja tämän on hyvä paljastua nopeasti. Kritiikki nostaa esiin myös korjausehdotuksia ongelmakohtiin. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Kritiikin mahdollisuus innostaa osallistamaan ja ihmiset tuovat enemmän hyviä näkemyksiä. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--#: . Itseen kohdistuvan kritiikin mahdollisuus pelottaa ihmisiä, ja eivät siten uskalla tuoda esiin omia mielipiteitään lyttäämisen pelossa. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Valtaapitävien arvostelu on demokraattisen järjestelmän keskeisiä oikeuksia. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Kritiikki pakottaa perustelemaan toimivat näkemykset ja vaihtoehdot paremmin, jolloin niiden toimivuudesta voidaan olla varmempia. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Miten keskusteluja luetaan ja käydään

Faktakeskustelu: .

Aloitusväite: Ryhmäytyminen

Lopetusväite: Ratkaisua ei ole vielä löytynyt eikä keskustelu ole loppunut.

(Kunhan keskustelu ratkeaa, lopetusväite pitäisi päivittää tähän keskusteluun viittaaville sivuille.)

Väittely:

←--#: . Ryhmään kuuluminen on ihmiselle luontainen tarve ja yksi tärkeimpiä motivaattoreita. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Ryhmätyönä on helppo jakaa tehtäviä niille joilla on osaamista ja mahdollisuuksia tehdä asioita. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Koska jaetun ymmärryksen tuottaminen on avointa, on ymmärrettävä mikä motivoi ihmisiä koska se parantaa osallistumista ja laatua. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Ryhmässä yksilöt tukevat ja parantavat toistensa suorituksia. --Heta (keskustelu) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Miten keskusteluja luetaan ja käydään

Faktakeskustelu: .

Aloitusväite: Yhteenvetämisen taito

Lopetusväite: Ratkaisua ei ole vielä löytynyt eikä keskustelu ole loppunut.

(Kunhan keskustelu ratkeaa, lopetusväite pitäisi päivittää tähän keskusteluun viittaaville sivuille.)

Väittely:

Miten keskusteluja luetaan ja käydään

Faktakeskustelu: .

Aloitusväite: Tavoitteellisuus

Lopetusväite: Ratkaisua ei ole vielä löytynyt eikä keskustelu ole loppunut.

(Kunhan keskustelu ratkeaa, lopetusväite pitäisi päivittää tähän keskusteluun viittaaville sivuille.)

Väittely:

Miten keskusteluja luetaan ja käydään

Faktakeskustelu: .

Aloitusväite: Syysuhteet

Lopetusväite: Ratkaisua ei ole vielä löytynyt eikä keskustelu ole loppunut.

(Kunhan keskustelu ratkeaa, lopetusväite pitäisi päivittää tähän keskusteluun viittaaville sivuille.)

Väittely:

Miten keskusteluja luetaan ja käydään

Faktakeskustelu: .

Aloitusväite: Arvostus

Lopetusväite: Ratkaisua ei ole vielä löytynyt eikä keskustelu ole loppunut.

(Kunhan keskustelu ratkeaa, lopetusväite pitäisi päivittää tähän keskusteluun viittaaville sivuille.)

Väittely:

Miten keskusteluja luetaan ja käydään

Faktakeskustelu: .

Aloitusväite: Uusiokäyttö

Lopetusväite: Ratkaisua ei ole vielä löytynyt eikä keskustelu ole loppunut.

(Kunhan keskustelu ratkeaa, lopetusväite pitäisi päivittää tähän keskusteluun viittaaville sivuille.)

Väittely:

Miten keskusteluja luetaan ja käydään

Faktakeskustelu: .

Aloitusväite: Seuranta ja ohjaus

Lopetusväite: Ratkaisua ei ole vielä löytynyt eikä keskustelu ole loppunut.

(Kunhan keskustelu ratkeaa, lopetusväite pitäisi päivittää tähän keskusteluun viittaaville sivuille.)

Väittely:

Ohjeita työhön

Avoin päätöksentekokäytäntö nykymuodossaan toimii työn pohjana.
Sisältää myös aiempia katsauksiamme päätöstukikirjallisuuteen.
Kirjallisuuskatsaus syksyllä 2015 (Arja A)
Vierailu The GovLabiin marraskuussa (Jouni)
Raimo mukaan keskusteluihin, jotta saadaan yhteiskuntatieteellinen näkökulma ja osaaminen.
Lyhyt ilmaisu ja kansantajuinen esitys. Esimerkkinä Design for Government. Joka työpaketista tuotetaan konkreettinen deliverable, joka on sisäänheittotuote ja markkinointiväline. Yksityiskohtaisempi työversio on Opasnetissä, ja tästä synteesistä pidetään kansantajuista meteliä ihmiskasvoin.
Myös teoreettisempaa keskustelua kaivataan: MIKSI TEHDÄÄN? Tämä johdannoksi.
Deliverable: “Miten tietoa pitäisi jäsentää jotta se tukisi päätöksentekoa?
Katsauksen tehtävänä on vastata näihin kysymyksiin:
- mitä asiaa tarkastellaan ja mistä sen kuvaus löytyy (viite ja linkki)?
- onko kyseessä teoreettinen viitekehys, toimintamalli vai tekninen työkalu? ----#: . Onko järkevä luokittelu? --Jouni Tuomisto (keskustelu) 22. syyskuuta 2015 kello 08.19 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- lyhyt kuvaus asiasta
- miten tätä asiaa voisi hyödyntää valtioneuvoston tiedolla johtamisen kannalta ja mitä hyötyä siitä olisi
- haasteita, ongelmia, mahdollisuuksia asian hyödyntämisessä
- konkreettinen ehdotus miten asia sisällytetään sisäänajosuunnitelmaan jos mitenkään ja miksi. Vaihtoehtoja: otetaan käyttöön, otetaan muokattuna käyttöön, pidetään mielessä mutta ei hyödynnetä toistaiseksi, ei hyödynnetä. Tarvittaessa asia pilkotaan pienempiin osiin jotta saadaan seulottua käyttöön vain kaikkein parhaat ideat johdonmukaisesti.

Hakuja Web of Sciencesta

Decision making and knowledge production

Results: 65, 10 articles selected by hand

(from Web of Science Core Collection) You searched for: (TS=(decision making) OR TS=(policy)) AND TS=(knowledge production) Refined by: WEB OF SCIENCE CATEGORIES: ( ECONOMICS OR MANAGEMENT OR PLANNING DEVELOPMENT OR OPERATIONS RESEARCH MANAGEMENT SCIENCE OR SOCIOLOGY OR COMPUTER SCIENCE THEORY METHODS OR COMMUNICATION OR SOCIAL SCIENCES INTERDISCIPLINARY OR HISTORY PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE OR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION OR MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES ) AND DOCUMENT TYPES: ( REVIEW OR EDITORIAL MATERIAL OR BOOK CHAPTER ) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI.

FN Thomson Reuters Web of Science™ VR 1.0

Näytä yksityiskohdat

PT J
AU Fudge, N
Sadler, E
Fisher, HR
Maher, J
Wolfe, CDA
McKevitt, C
AF Fudge, Nina
Sadler, Euan
Fisher, Helen R.
Maher, John
Wolfe, Charles D. A.
McKevitt, Christopher
TI Optimising Translational Research Opportunities: A Systematic Review and
Narrative Synthesis of Basic and Clinician Scientists' Perspectives of
Factors Which Enable or Hinder Translational Research
SO PLOS ONE
ID STEM-CELL RESEARCH; SCIENCE; HEALTH; BEDSIDE; BENCH; GOVERNANCE;
EFFICIENCY; MEDICINE; BARRIERS
AB Introduction
Translational research is central to international health policy, research and funding initiatives. Despite increasing use of the term, the translation of basic science discoveries into clinical practice is not straightforward. This systematic search and narrative synthesis aimed to examine factors enabling or hindering translational research from the perspective of basic and clinician scientists, a key stakeholder group in translational research, and to draw policy-relevant implications for organisations seeking to optimise translational research opportunities.
Methods and Results
We searched SCOPUS and Web of Science from inception until April 2015 for papers reporting scientists' views of the factors they perceive as enabling or hindering the conduct of translational research. We screened 8,295 papers from electronic database searches and 20 papers from hand searches and citation tracking, identifying 26 studies of qualitative, quantitative or mixed method designs. We used a narrative synthesis approach and identified the following themes: 1) differing concepts of translational research 2) research processes as a barrier to translational research; 3) perceived cultural divide between research and clinical care; 4) interdisciplinary collaboration as enabling translation research, but dependent on the quality of prior and current social relationships; 5) translational research as entrepreneurial science. Across all five themes, factors enabling or hindering translational research were largely shaped by wider social, organisational, and structural factors.
Conclusion
To optimise translational research, policy could consider refining translational research models to better reflect scientists' experiences, fostering greater collaboration and buy in from all types of scientists. Organisations could foster cultural change, ensuring that organisational practices and systems keep pace with the change in knowledge production brought about by the translational research agenda.
TC 0
Z9 0
U1 0
U2 0
SN 1932-6203
PD AUG 4
PY 2016
VL 11
IS 8
AR e0160475
DI 10.1371/journal.pone.0160475
UT WOS:000381368900063
PM 27490373
ER

PT J
AU Lawrence, RJ
AF Lawrence, Roderick J.
TI Advances in in transdisciplinarity: Epistemologies, methodologies and
processes
SO FUTURES
DE Conceptual frameworks; Epistemologies; Methodologies; Outcomes;
Transdisciplinary processes
ID RESEARCH AGENDA
AB There has been a proliferation of contributions about transdisciplinarity during the last decade. Today transdisciplinarity is known and referenced in the natural and social sciences, and the humanities, as well as numerous professions. Hence it is appropriate to take stock of what has been achieved in both education and research during the last 10 years. These achievements include development of conceptual and analytical frameworks, a diversification of methods and approaches in precise localities, specific cases showing the creative, reflexive and transformative capacity of transdisciplinary inquiry, and concerns about the asymmetries of power and control of participants during processes of the co-production of knowledge. However, conceptual and institutional barriers for transdisciplinary inquiry are still common whereas incentives remain rare. This is not only due to the scepticism of decision makers in academic institutions, in conventional funding agencies and in policy decision making but also to the formal education and personal motives of scientific researchers in academic institutions. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
TC 5
Z9 5
U1 3
U2 22
SN 0016-3287
EI 1873-6378
PD JAN
PY 2015
VL 65
SI SI
BP 1
EP 9
DI 10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.007
UT WOS:000350940000001
ER

PT J
AU Homsy, GC
Warner, ME
AF Homsy, George C.
Warner, Mildred E.
TI Climate Change and the Co-Production of Knowledge and Policy in Rural
USA Communities
SO SOCIOLOGIA RURALIS
ID GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; LOCAL-GOVERNMENT; CITIES; GOVERNANCE;
INCLUSION; MIGRATION
AB Climate change requires action at multiple levels of government. We focus on the potential for climate change policy creation among small rural governments in the USA. We argue that co-production of scientific knowledge and policy is a communicative approach that encompasses local knowledge flowing up from rural governments as well as expertise and power (to coordinate and ensure compliance) flowing down from higher level authority. Using environmental examples related to land use policy, natural gas hydro-fracturing, and watershed protection, we demonstrate the importance of knowledge flows, power, and coordination in policy creation. Co-production of knowledge and policy requires respect for local knowledge and a broader framing of issues to include both environmental and economic perspectives. While we see potential for local action, we caution that polycentric approaches lead to externality problems that require multi-level governance to ensure coordination and compliance.
TC 6
Z9 6
U1 3
U2 25
SN 0038-0199
PD JUL
PY 2013
VL 53
IS 3
BP 291
EP 310
DI 10.1111/soru.12013
UT WOS:000321517400003
ER

PT J
AU Delvaux, B
Schoenaers, F
AF Delvaux, Bernard
Schoenaers, Frederic
TI Knowledge, local actors and public action
SO POLICY AND SOCIETY
ID PARTICIPATION; GOVERNANCE; SCIENCE; POLICY; SCIENTISTS; MANAGEMENT;
ORGANIZATIONS; FARMERS; INQUIRY; SPACE
AB What is the status and role in public action of the knowledge possessed by 'simple' citizens, users and professionals? That is the question broached in both this article and the entire special issue for which it serves as the introduction. To this end, we explore the abundant scientific literature pertaining to the topic and try to situate our own position within the broader setting. After discussing the gradual questioning of the social representations that have made scientific knowledge the ideal and standard by which we measure all knowledge, we argue that many authors with an essentialist approach to knowledge have stressed the differences between scientific knowledge and non-scientific knowledge, often leaving us at an impasse. We argue therefore that it is preferable to advance an approach in which knowledge is as at once relational and in a constant process of hybridization. Having opted for and justified this position, we then focus on the - hybrid - knowledge possessed by citizens, users and professionals, by first probing the reasons for the growing involvement of these actors in the production of knowledge and policies. We then ponder the nature and foundations of the complaints and criticisms frequently levelled at participatory mechanisms as to the actual role played in these areas by the knowledge held by 'local' actors. In the end, we identify proposals defended by certain authors to make the interactions of actors from different social worlds more symmetrical. (C) 2012 Policy and Society Associates (APSS). Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
TC 4
Z9 4
U1 2
U2 11
SN 1449-4035
PD JUN
PY 2012
VL 31
IS 2
BP 105
EP 117
DI 10.1016/j.polsoc.2012.04.001
UT WOS:000320209100001
ER

PT J
AU Huang, KG
Murray, FE
AF Huang, Kenneth G.
Murray, Fiona E.
TI DOES PATENT STRATEGY SHAPE THE LONG-RUN SUPPLY OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE?
EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN GENETICS
SO ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL
ID INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY-RIGHTS; ABSORPTIVE-CAPACITY; NATIONAL-SURVEY;
SCIENCE; INNOVATION; TECHNOLOGY; ORGANIZATIONS; BIOTECHNOLOGY; NETWORKS;
MARKET
AB Knowledge-based firms seeking competitive advantage often draw on the public knowledge stream (ideas embedded in public commons institutions) as the foundation for private knowledge (ideas firms protect through private intellectual property [IP] institutions). However, understanding of the converse relationship-the impact of private knowledge strategies on public knowledge production-is limited. We examine this question in human genetics, where policy makers debate expanding IP ownership over the human genome. Our difference-in-differences estimates show that gene patents decrease public genetic knowledge, with broader patent scope, private sector ownership, patent thickets, fragmented patent ownership, and a gene's commercial relevance exacerbating their effect.
RI HUANG, Kenneth Guang-Lih/D-2205-2010
TC 36
Z9 37
U1 6
U2 42
SN 0001-4273
PD DEC
PY 2009
VL 52
IS 6
SI SI
BP 1193
EP 1221
UT WOS:000273758300006
ER

PT J
AU Chaminade, C
Vang, J
AF Chaminade, Cristina
Vang, Jan
TI Globalisation of knowledge production and regional innovation policy:
Supporting specialized hubs in the Bangalore software industry
SO RESEARCH POLICY
DE Regional innovation systems; Evolution; Globalization of innovation;
Software industry; Bangalore
ID FACE-TO-FACE; ACADEMIC RESEARCH; SMALL FIRMS; COMMUNITIES; CLUSTERS;
TECHNOLOGIES; PROXIMITY; SERVICES; SYSTEMS; BASES
AB This paper is concerned with the changing role of regional innovation systems and regional policies in supporting the transition of indigenous firms in developing countries from competing on low costs towards becoming knowledge providers in global value chains. Special attention is paid to policies supporting the emergence and development of the regional innovation system in this transition process. Regional innovation systems in developing countries have very recently started to be conceptualised as specialized hubs in global innovation and production networks (Asheim, B., Coenen, L, Vang-Lauridsen, J., 2007. Face-to-face, buzz and knowledge bases: socio-spatial implications for learning, innovation and innovation policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 25 (5), 655-670; Chaminade, C., Vang, J., 2006a. Innovation policy for small and medium size SMEs in Asia: an innovation systems perspective. In: Yeung, H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Asian Business. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham; Maggi, C., 2007. The salmon farming and processing cluster in Southern Chile. In: Pietrobello, C., Rabellotti, R. (Eds.), Upgrading and Governance in Clusters and Value Chains in Latin America. Harvard University Press). A specialized hub refers to a node in a global value chain that mainly undertakes one or a few of the activities required for the production and development of a given good or service or serves a particular segment of the global market. In global value chains, firms in developing countries have traditionally been responsible for the lowest added-value activities. However, a few emerging regional innovation systems in developing countries are beginning to challenge this scenario by rapidly upgrading in the value chain. There is, however, still only a poorly developed understanding of how the system of innovation emerges and evolves to support this transition process and what the role of regional innovation policy is in building the regional conditions that support indigenous small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) in this transition process. This paper aims at reducing this omission by analyzing the co-evolution of the strategies of indigenous SMEs and the regional innovation system of Bangalore (India). (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
TC 45
Z9 50
U1 10
U2 76
SN 0048-7333
PD DEC
PY 2008
VL 37
IS 10
BP 1684
EP 1696
DI 10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.014
UT WOS:000261658700004
ER

PT J
AU Williams, C
Mooney, G
AF Williams, Charlotte
Mooney, Gerry
TI Decentring social policy? Devolution and the discipline of social
policy: A commentary
SO JOURNAL OF SOCIAL POLICY
AB Constitutional change offers the opportunity for a major departure in the nature and direction of policy, practices and governance in social policy. This article explores some of the impacts devolution has for the discipline of social policy, suggesting that devolution matters for social policy as a field of research and study, and for the analysis and understanding of developments in UK social policy. It argues that devolution has a number of implications in terms of comparative and transnational social policy, new sites of analysis, the language of social policy, the production of knowledge and the development of new policy communities within the UK. It also signals new perspectives based on evolving welfare subjectivities and around questions of territorial justice. Drawing on discussions about the nature of social policy in the 1970s in particular, suggestions are made as to how new and emerging perspectives within and across the nations of the UK serve to 'decentre' the social policy tradition. In essence, this article seeks to open up a debate for 'theorising' the discipline of social policy through a focus on devolution.
TC 9
Z9 9
U1 0
U2 0
SN 0047-2794
EI 1469-7823
PD JUL
PY 2008
VL 37
BP 489
EP 507
DI 10.1017/S0047279408002018
PN 3
UT WOS:000257925800008
ER

PT J
AU Smart, P
Bessant, J
Gupta, A
AF Smart, Palie
Bessant, John
Gupta, Abhlshek
TI Towards technological rules for designing innovation networks: a dynamic
capabilities view
SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS & PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT
DE networking; innovation; pharmaceutical technology; design and
development
ID RESOURCE-BASED THEORY; COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE; PHARMACEUTICAL-INDUSTRY;
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT; KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT;
SOCIAL-STRUCTURE; LIFE SCIENCES; BIOTECHNOLOGY; FIRMS
AB Purpose - Inter-organizational innovation networks provide opportunities to exploit complementary resources that reside beyond the boundary of the firm. The shifting locus of innovation and value creation away from the "sole firm as innovator" poses important questions about the nature of these resources and the capabilities needed to leverage them for competitive advantage. The purpose of this paper is to describe research into producing design-oriented knowledge, for configuring inter-organizational networks as a means of accessing such resources for innovation.
Design/methodology/approach - This exploratory investigation conflates emerging constructs and themes analytically induced from a systematic survey of 142 scholarly and practitioner articles and 45 expert interviews with senior professionals operating in the biopharmaceuticals industry.
Findings - The findings identify seven theoretically and empirically grounded technological rules associated with effective inter-organizational networking for innovation. They embody evidence ex post of networking theory and practice. Based on van Aken's seminal work, they comprise design-oriented knowledge to provide a solution architecture of viable action options for managers, a priori, to purposefully design innovation networks. Collectively these rules represent a tentative taxonomy, a means of classifying design principles, to assist managers in navigating their decision-making processes.
Originality/value - This study demonstrates the need for explicit design-oriented knowledge for configuring inter-organizational networks. Finally, the implications of the findings for strategic management theory are discussed from a dynamic capabilities view. The significance of a dynamic capability which addresses the renewal of network-specific resources is highlighted.
TC 18
Z9 18
U1 2
U2 34
SN 0144-3577
PY 2007
VL 27
IS 9-10
BP 1069
EP 1092
DI 10.1108/01443570710820639
UT WOS:000250092200008
ER

PT J
AU Bell, S
AF Bell, S
TI 'Appropriate' policy knowledge, and institutional and governance
implications
SO AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
AB The papers in this special section of AJPA are the product of a symposium held in Brisbane in February 2003, which was jointly sponsored by the School of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Queensland and the Queensland Department of Premier and Cabinet. Three papers were delivered. David Adams, from the Victorian Public Service, delivered a paper entitled 'Usable knowledge and public policy'. Wayne Parsons, from the University of London, gave a paper 'Not just steering but weaving: Relevant knowledge and the craft of building policy capacity'. Randal Stewart, a policy consultant based in Sydney, gave a paper entitled 'Public sector reform knowledge production'. The purposes of this paper are to highlight salient points from the papers and to assess briefly the institutional and governance implications of taking at last some steps beyond the currently prevailing rationalist approaches to policy and governance.
TC 14
Z9 14
U1 1
U2 3
SN 0313-6647
PD MAR
PY 2004
VL 63
IS 1
BP 22
EP 28
DI 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2004.00356.x
UT WOS:000220783500003
ER

PT J
AU SZELKE, E
KERR, RM
AF SZELKE, E
KERR, RM
TI KNOWLEDGE-BASED REACTIVE SCHEDULING
SO PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
DE KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS; REACTIVE SCHEDULING; HANDLING UNCERTAINTIES;
SHOP FLOOR CONTROL; REAL-TIME DECISION-MAKING
ID SYSTEMS
AB Reactive scheduling has emerged as a new concept in production planning and control over the past few years. It is attracting the increased interest of both academic and industrial researchers in developing available knowledge-based techniques in real-time shop floor control applications and providing advanced tools for subsequent industrial applications. In this paper, we provide an overview of research results in the domain of knowledge-based reactive scheduling and some related industrial applications. Since reactive scheduling is a new and not well-defined paradigm, we start by examining some definitions of the problem given by different practitioners in the field. We then examine alternative knowledge-representation technologies and reasoning approaches which, because of their flexibility and reactive capability, are often applied in real-time decision-making environments. This is followed by a review of some reported industrial applications, and a summary on major areas for further research, which gives a picture of the width of the gap between the results of current research and their application in practice. Finally, some major trends apparent in the domain are outlined.
TC 45
Z9 49
U1 0
U2 12
SN 0953-7287
PD MAR-APR
PY 1994
VL 5
IS 2
BP 124
EP 145
DI 10.1080/09537289408919480
UT WOS:A1994NM33400002
ER

EF

Evidence-based policy

Results: 91, hand-picked 26

(from Web of Science Core Collection) You searched for: TS=("evidence-based policy") Refined by: DOCUMENT TYPES: ( REVIEW ) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI.

FN Thomson Reuters Web of Science™ VR 1.0

Näytä yksityiskohdat

PT J
AU Pawson, R
   Greenhalgh, J
   Brennan, C
   Glidewell, E
AF Pawson, Ray
   Greenhalgh, Joanne
   Brennan, Cathy
   Glidewell, Elizabeth
TI Do reviews of healthcare interventions teach us how to improve
   healthcare systems?
SO SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
DE United Kingdom; Demand management; Health systems; Realist synthesis;
   Organisational change; Complexity
ID COMPLEX INTERVENTIONS; SERVICE
AB Planners, managers and policy makers in modern health services are not without ingenuity they will always try, try and try again. They face deep-seated or 'wicked' problems, which have complex roots in the labyrinthine structures though which healthcare is delivered. Accordingly, the interventions devised to deal with such stubborn problems usually come in the plural. Many different reforms are devised to deal with a particular stumbling block, which may be implemented sequentially, simultaneously or whenever policy fashion or funding dictates. This paper examines this predicament from the perspective of evidence based policy. How might researchers go about reviewing the evidence when they are faced with multiple or indeed competing interventions addressing the same problem? In the face of this plight a rather unheralded form of research synthesis has emerged, namely the 'typological review'. We critically review the fortunes of this strategy. Separating the putative reforms into series of subtypes and producing a scorecard of their outcomes has the unintended effect of divorcing them all from an understanding of how organisations change. A more fruitful approach may lie in a 'theory-driven review' underpinned by an understanding of dynamics of social change in complex organisations. We test this thesis by examining the primary and secondary research on the many interventions designed to tackle a particularly wicked problem, namely the inexorable rise in demand for healthcare. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
RI Glidewell, Liz/G-7338-2011
OI Glidewell, Liz/0000-0003-2519-2654
TC 8
Z9 8
U1 1
U2 23
SN 0277-9536
PD AUG
PY 2014
VL 114
BP 129
EP 137
DI 10.1016/j.socsimed.2014.05.032
UT WOS:000339131500016
PM 24929647
ER

PT J
AU Oliver, K
   Lorenc, T
   Innvaer, S
AF Oliver, Kathryn
   Lorenc, Theo
   Innvaer, Simon
TI New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of
   the literature
SO HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS
DE Critical analysis; Evidence-based policy; Knowledge utilization; Science
   and technology studies
ID HEALTH-SERVICES RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; PUBLIC-HEALTH;
   DECISION-MAKING; KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION; HIV PREVENTION; MAKERS; IMPACT;
   CARE; EXCHANGE
AB Despite 40 years of research into evidence-based policy (EBP) and a continued drive from both policymakers and researchers to increase research uptake in policy, barriers to the use of evidence are persistently identified in the literature. However, it is not clear what explains this persistence - whether they represent real factors, or if they are artefacts of approaches used to study EBP. Based on an updated review, this paper analyses this literature to explain persistent barriers and facilitators. We critically describe the literature in terms of its theoretical underpinnings, definitions of 'evidence', methods, and underlying assumptions of research in the field, and aim to illuminate the EBP discourse by comparison with approaches from other fields. Much of the research in this area is theoretically naive, focusing primarily on the uptake of research evidence as opposed to evidence defined more broadly, and privileging academics' research priorities over those of policymakers. Little empirical data analysing the processes or impact of evidence use in policy is available to inform researchers or decision-makers. EBP research often assumes that policymakers do not use evidence and that more evidence - meaning research evidence - use would benefit policymakers and populations. We argue that these assumptions are unsupported, biasing much of EBP research. The agenda of 'getting evidence into policy' has side-lined the empirical description and analysis of how research and policy actually interact in vivo. Rather than asking how research evidence can be made more influential, academics should aim to understand what influences and constitutes policy, and produce more critically and theoretically informed studies of decision-making. We question the main assumptions made by EBP researchers, explore the implications of doing so, and propose new directions for EBP research, and health policy.
OI Oliver, Kathryn/0000-0002-4326-5258
TC 19
Z9 19
U1 6
U2 54
SN 1478-4505
PD JUL 14
PY 2014
VL 12
AR 34
DI 10.1186/1478-4505-12-34
UT WOS:000339355600001
PM 25023520
ER

PT J
AU Daigneault, PM
   Jacob, S
   Ouimet, M
AF Daigneault, Pierre-Marc
   Jacob, Steve
   Ouimet, Mathieu
TI Using systematic review methods within a Ph.D. dissertation in political
   science: challenges and lessons learned from practice
SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
DE systematic literature review; scoping study; systematic map; research
   synthesis; social science practice; evaluation use; reflective narrative
ID EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT; EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY; PARTICIPATORY
   EVALUATION
AB Systematic review and synthesis methods have gained wide acceptance within the social sciences and, as a result, many postgraduate students now consider using them for their thesis or dissertation research. However, students are rarely aware of all the concrete implications that their decision entails. This reflective narrative reports the experience of a political science student who began to conduct a systematic review as part of his Ph.D. dissertation but who did not complete it. The aim of this article is to identify challenges and lessons learned from this experience and to formulate recommendations for postgraduate students who wish to make an informed choice with respect to the use of these methods.
TC 0
Z9 0
U1 5
U2 13
SN 1364-5579
EI 1464-5300
PY 2014
VL 17
IS 3
BP 267
EP 283
DI 10.1080/13645579.2012.730704
UT WOS:000337631000006
ER

PT J
AU Al-Obaidi, T
   Fletcher, S
AF Al-Obaidi, Tamara A.
   Fletcher, Stephanie M.
TI Management of clandestine drug laboratories: need for evidence-based
   environmental health policies
SO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
DE Clandestine drug laboratories; Australia; Environmental health practice;
   Research; Evidence-based policy
ID LAW-ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL; METHAMPHETAMINE; EXPOSURE; SUPPORT
AB Clandestine drug laboratories (CDLs) have been emerging and increasing as a public health problem in Australia, with methamphetamine being the dominant illegally manufactured drug. However, management and remediation of contaminated properties are still limited in terms of regulation and direction, especially in relation to public and environmental health practice. Therefore, this review provides an update on the hazards and health effects associated with CDLs, with a specific look at the management of these labs from an Australian perspective. Particularly, the paper attempts to describe the policy landscape for management of CDLs, and identifies current gaps and how further research may be utilised to advance understanding and management of CDLs and inform public health policies. The paper highlights a significant lack of evidence-based policies and guidelines to guide regulatory authority including environmental health officers in Australia. Only recently, the national Clandestine Drug Laboratory Guidelines were developed to assist relevant authority and specialists manage and carry out investigations and remediation of contaminated sites. However, only three states have developed state-based guidelines, some of which are inadequate to meet environmental health requirements. The review recommends well-needed inter-sectoral collaborations and further research to provide an evidence base for the development of robust policies and standard operating procedures for safe and effective environmental health management and remediation of CDLs.
TC 1
Z9 1
U1 1
U2 8
SN 1342-078X
EI 1347-4715
PD JAN
PY 2014
VL 19
IS 1
BP 1
EP 11
DI 10.1007/s12199-013-0360-8
UT WOS:000330208400001
PM 24002745
ER

PT J
AU Slowther, A
   Watkins, NA
   Kelly, D
AF Slowther, Anne
   Watkins, Nicholas A.
   Kelly, Deirdre
TI Evidence-Based Policy and Practice Leads to Changes in the Criteria for
   MSM to Donate Blood
SO TRANSFUSION MEDICINE AND HEMOTHERAPY
DE MSM; Blood donation; Compliance; Risk; Policy
ID MEN; SEX
AB On November 7, 2011, the permanent deferral from blood donation of men who have sex with men (MSM) changed in England, Scotland and Wales, to a 12-month deferral since last relevant sexual contact. This change was made following an evidence-based policy review by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO). The review concluded that the available evidence supported the introduction of a 12-month fixed period deferral and that the risks associated with a 12-month deferral of MSM were equivalent to a permanent deferral. The permanent deferral for MSM was introduced in 1985 in response to the spread of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) caused by HIV. The change was supported by new data on the level of compliance with the permanent deferral, advances in the testing and processing of donated blood, changes in the epidemiology of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and improved scientific knowledge. This review discusses how the decision to change the deferral period was reached and highlights some of the remaining issues relating to this contentious matter.
TC 3
Z9 3
U1 0
U2 2
SN 1660-3796
PY 2013
VL 40
IS 3
BP 155
EP 158
DI 10.1159/000351770
UT WOS:000319854300002
PM 23922540
ER

PT J
AU Lane, CH
   Carter, MI
AF Lane, Ch'uyasonqo H.
   Carter, Marina I.
TI The role of evidence-based media advocacy in the promotion of tobacco
   control policies
SO SALUD PUBLICA DE MEXICO
DE Media advocacy; mass media campaign; research; evidence-based policy;
   tobacco tax; Mexico
AB This article discusses the role of evidence-based media advocacy in the promotion of tobacco control policies. Evidence is a driving force for campaigns seeking to implement a tobacco control policy. An effective campaign is based in evidence that demonstrates why a policy should be implemented, and what the potential benefits are. Media advocacy is the process of disseminating information through the communications media where the aim is to effect: action, such as a change of policy, or to alter the public's view of an issue. Discussion focuses on: 1) the importance of, and methods for, collecting and communicating evidence and information to make it clear and usable for legislators, the media, and the public; and 2) the role of earned and paid media in advancing tobacco control issues. The discussion is made within the context of a specific advocacy example; in this case the 2010 campaign to increase the tobacco tax in Mexico.
TC 2
Z9 2
U1 1
U2 4
SN 0036-3634
PD MAY-JUN
PY 2012
VL 54
IS 3
BP 281
EP 288
UT WOS:000304781900010
PM 22689166
ER

PT J
AU Waddington, H
   White, H
   Snilstveit, B
   Hombrados, JG
   Vojtkova, M
   Davies, P
   Bhavsar, A
   Eyers, J
   Koehlmoos, TP
   Petticrew, M
   Valentine, JC
   Tugwell, P
AF Waddington, Hugh
   White, Howard
   Snilstveit, Birte
   Hombrados, Jorge Garcia
   Vojtkova, Martina
   Davies, Philip
   Bhavsar, Ami
   Eyers, John
   Koehlmoos, Tracey Perez
   Petticrew, Mark
   Valentine, Jeffrey C.
   Tugwell, Peter
TI How to do a good systematic review of effects in international
   development: a tool kit
SO JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS
DE systematic review; meta-analysis; impact evaluation; randomised control
   trial; evidence-based policy
ID HYGIENE INTERVENTIONS; METAANALYSIS; PROGRAMS; HEALTH; IMPACT; BIAS;
   SANITATION; COUNTRIES; DIARRHEA; QUALITY
AB We provide a 'how to' guide to undertake systematic reviews of effects in international development, by which we mean, synthesis of literature relating to the effectiveness of particular development interventions. Our remit includes determining the review's questions and scope, literature search, critical appraisal, methods of synthesis including meta-analysis, and assessing the extent to which generalisable conclusions can be drawn using a theory-based approach. Our work draws on the experiences of the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation's (3ie's) systematic reviews programme.
OI Vojtkova, Martina/0000-0002-5524-3590
TC 24
Z9 26
U1 3
U2 22
SN 1943-9342
EI 1943-9407
PY 2012
VL 4
IS 3
SI SI
BP 359
EP 387
DI 10.1080/19439342.2012.711765
UT WOS:000308985000002
ER

PT J
AU Snilstveit, B
AF Snilstveit, Birte
TI Systematic reviews: from 'bare bones' reviews to policy relevance
SO JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS
DE systematic review; development effectiveness; evidence-based policy
ID QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; INTERVENTIONS; IMPLEMENTATION; HEALTH; CHALLENGES;
   MEDICINES; STANDARDS; TRIALS; AUDIT
AB Theory-based systematic reviews, which summarise evidence on what works, when and why, strive for greater policy relevance. Reviews that answer these questions adopt a mixed methods approach and draw on a range of study types. Answering the 'what works' and 'what doesn't' questions means drawing on effectiveness studies, conducted to standards of high-quality impact evaluation. But in formulating answers to the 'when' and 'why' questions requires a broader range of evidence from both quantitative and qualitative research. Based on a review of the methodological literature in this field and the experience of 3ie's systematic reviews program, this article provides an outline of how a theory-based approach to systematic reviews, including appropriate quantitative and qualitative evidence, can be operationalised. We propose an approach based on three principles: (1) develop a program theory for the intervention; (2) adopt a mixed methods approach and include a broader range of evidence; and (3) maintain the rigour and transparency that characterise systematic reviews. The approach translates into two broad options. Effectiveness plus reviews focus on providing a detailed causal chain analysis by drawing on a program theory and additional data collection on context and intervention implementation. And effectiveness plus with a parallel review component, which is designed to answer specific research questions related to effectiveness, adopts separate inclusion criteria, reflecting the type of studies appropriate for answering those questions.
TC 12
Z9 12
U1 0
U2 5
SN 1943-9342
PY 2012
VL 4
IS 3
SI SI
BP 388
EP 408
DI 10.1080/19439342.2012.709875
UT WOS:000308985000003
ER

PT J
AU Snilstveit, B
   Oliver, S
   Vojtkova, M
AF Snilstveit, Birte
   Oliver, Sandy
   Vojtkova, Martina
TI Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for
   international development policy and practice
SO JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS
DE systematic review; qualitative synthesis; evidence-based policy;
   narrative synthesis; development effectiveness
ID QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; CARE
AB Thus far, most systematic reviews commissioned to inform international development policy have focused on questions of 'what works', drawing on experimental and quasi-experimental studies of the effects of interventions. This article argues that systematic review methods can be applied to answer a range of different questions for international development and pays particular attention to methods of synthesising qualitative evidence that apply the key principles of systematic reviewing of being comprehensive, systematic and transparent. The article introduces readers to the types of questions for which reviews of qualitative evidence might be appropriate, the types of evidence such reviews might include and the range of methods available for their synthesis.
OI Vojtkova, Martina/0000-0002-5524-3590
TC 19
Z9 19
U1 2
U2 7
SN 1943-9342
PY 2012
VL 4
IS 3
SI SI
BP 409
EP 429
DI 10.1080/19439342.2012.710641
UT WOS:000308985000004
ER

PT J
AU Williams, HE
AF Williams, Howard E.
TI The Braidwood Commission reports on TASER use in Canada: an
   evidence-based policy review
SO POLICING-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POLICE STRATEGIES & MANAGEMENT
DE Braidwood Commission; Evidence-based public policy; Non-lethal weapons;
   TASER; Public policy; Canada
ID CONCEALED ARRHYTHMOGENIC SYNDROMES; SUDDEN CARDIAC-ARREST;
   VENTRICULAR-FIBRILLATION; STUN GUNS; X26 DISCHARGES; EXPOSURE; DEVICES;
   SAFETY; WEAPON; ADULTS
AB Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to review the Braidwood Commission's two reports on the use of TASER conducted energy weapons in Canada and the death of Robert Dziekanski to determine whether the Commission's conclusions' and subsequent recommendations constitute sound evidence-based public policy.
   Design/methodology/approach - This study analyzes Commissioner Braidwood's eight findings from the first report regarding the medical implications of the use of TASER devices by comparing those findings to the body of scientific, medical, and technical literature on the physiological effects of TASER technology. Additionally, this study reviews the potential ramifications of the Commissioner's recommendations regarding the use of TASER devices in both reports.
   Findings - Evidence from the existing literature does not support the Commission's findings regarding the medical risks of the use of TASER technology. Recommendations to restrict the use of TASER devices are unlikely to reduce arrest-related deaths, but they are likely to result in increased injuries to officers and suspects. Other recommendations, including training standards, testing requirements, reporting requirements, medical assistance, and research and review, are consistent with other reviews on the use of TASER technology and are necessary and appropriate to restore public confidence in police use-of-force.
   Originality/value - The Braidwood Commission recommendations have had an immediate impact on the policies of several police agencies in Canada, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but this study is the first critically to review whether those recommendations constitute formulation of sound evidence-based public policy.
TC 2
Z9 2
U1 2
U2 16
SN 1363-951X
PY 2012
VL 35
IS 2
BP 356
EP 381
DI 10.1108/13639511211230101
UT WOS:000305874900010
ER

PT J
AU Adelle, C
   Jordan, A
   Turnpenny, J
AF Adelle, Camilla
   Jordan, Andrew
   Turnpenny, John
TI Proceeding in parallel or drifting apart? A systematic review of policy
   appraisal research and practices
SO ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C-GOVERNMENT AND POLICY
DE policy appraisal; evidence-based policy making; impact assessment;
   environmental policy; policy learning
ID REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL
   ASSESSMENT; INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT; UK; REFLECTIONS; MANAGEMENT;
   GOVERNMENT; DIFFUSION; FRAMEWORK
AB Policy appraisal has spread rapidly throughout the OECD and beyond, as has the associated academic literature. In this paper we present the findings of a systematic review of this literature. We assess the extent to which developments in academic research and in everyday appraisal practices have informed to one another. While there are signs that policy appraisal research is moving away from the 'technical - rational model' of appraisal, both research and practice remain heavily informed by it. The review reveals that research and practice are interacting in subtle ways, but these fall well short of what is sought by advocates of more reflexive approaches. We systematically examine the exact pattern of research - practice interaction depicted in the literature and explore how this may change in the future.
TC 15
Z9 15
U1 3
U2 19
SN 0263-774X
PY 2012
VL 30
IS 3
BP 401
EP 415
DI 10.1068/c11104
UT WOS:000305476300002
ER

PT J
AU Konnerup, M
   Kongsted, HC
AF Konnerup, Merete
   Kongsted, Hans Christian
TI Do Cochrane reviews provide a good model for social science? The role of
   observational studies in systematic reviews
SO EVIDENCE & POLICY
DE research synthesis; inclusion criteria; randomisation; observational
   study
ID DESIGN AFFECTS OUTCOMES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; OPENING STATEMENT;
   CONTROLLED-TRIALS; POLICY RESEARCH; HISTORICAL CONTROLS; RANDOM
   ASSIGNMENT; CLINICAL-TRIALS; REGRESSION; THERAPY
AB Formalised research synthesis to underpin evidence-based policy and practice has become increasingly important in areas of public policy. In this paper we discuss whether the Cochrane standard for systematic reviews of healthcare interventions is appropriate for social research. We examine the formal criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration for including particular study designs and search the Cochrane Library to provide quantitative evidence on the de facto standard of actual Cochrane reviews. By identifying the sample of Cochrane reviews that consider observational designs, we are able to conclude that the majority of reviews appears limited to considering randomised controlled trials only. Because recent studies have delineated conditions for observational studies in social research to produce valid evidence, we argue that an inclusive approach is essential for truly evidence-based policy and practice in regard to social interventions.
RI Kongsted, Hans/D-5226-2013
TC 3
Z9 3
U1 1
U2 8
SN 1744-2648
PD JAN
PY 2012
VL 8
IS 1
BP 79
EP 96
DI 10.1332/174426412X620146
UT WOS:000300597000006
ER

PT J
AU Pfaff, H
   Abholz, H
   Glaeske, G
   Icks, A
   Klinkhammer-Schalke, M
   Nellessen-Martens, G
   Neugebauer, EAM
   Ohmann, C
   Schrappe, M
   Selbmann, HK
   Stemmer, R
AF Pfaff, H.
   Abholz, H.
   Glaeske, G.
   Icks, A.
   Klinkhammer-Schalke, M.
   Nellessen-Martens, G.
   Neugebauer, E. A. M.
   Ohmann, C.
   Schrappe, M.
   Selbmann, H. -K.
   Stemmer, R.
CA Vorstand Des Deutschen Netzwerkes
TI Health services research: essential for allocation decisions - joint
   statement
SO DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT
DE health services research; allocation decisions; AMNOG; evidence-based
   medicine; evidence-based health care
ID MEMORANDUM III METHODS; EVIDENCE BASED POLICY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH;
   SYSTEM; CARE
RI Pfaff, Holger/D-2630-2009
OI Pfaff, Holger/0000-0001-9154-6575
TC 9
Z9 9
U1 2
U2 6
SN 0012-0472
PD DEC
PY 2011
VL 136
IS 48
BP 2496
EP 2500
DI 10.1055/s-0031-1272579
UT WOS:000298008300013
PM 21993809
ER

PT J
AU Bunn, F
   Sworn, K
AF Bunn, Frances
   Sworn, Katie
TI Strategies to promote the impact of systematic reviews on healthcare
   policy: a systematic review of the literature
SO EVIDENCE & POLICY
DE systematic review; evidence-based policy; research impact; knowledge
   transfer
ID PUBLIC-HEALTH; KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER; CLINICAL-PRACTICE; EXCHANGE;
   DISSEMINATION; TRANSLATION; PERCEPTIONS; PREVENTION; UNIVERSITY;
   MEDICINE
AB The last few decades have seen a growing emphasis on evidence-based decision making in healthcare. Systematic reviews synthesising research have been a key component of this movement. However, there is concern that such syntheses do not have the expected impact on policy with more work needed to enable us to maximise their potential. The aim of this review was to identify and evaluate potential strategies for increasing the impact of systematic reviews on policy. Such strategies may include incorporating active strategies for dissemination and knowledge transfer but more work is needed to evaluate their benefits.
RI Bunn, Frances/I-8108-2015
OI Bunn, Frances/0000-0002-5885-918X
TC 8
Z9 8
U1 0
U2 7
SN 1744-2648
PD NOV
PY 2011
VL 7
IS 4
BP 403
EP 428
DI 10.1332/17442641IX603434
UT WOS:000298439700002
ER

PT J
AU Moore, G
   Redman, S
   Haines, M
   Todd, A
AF Moore, Gabriel
   Redman, Sally
   Haines, Mary
   Todd, Angela
TI What works to increase the use of research in population health policy
   and programmes: a review
SO EVIDENCE & POLICY
DE evidence-based policy; research utilisation; health decision making;
   research receptivity
ID PUBLIC-HEALTH; KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; EXCHANGE;
   INFORMATION; STRATEGIES; CARE; PROFESSIONALS; FACILITATORS; OUTPUTS
AB Policy agencies are implementing strategies to increase the use of research in policy decisions. This paper examines the evidence about the effectiveness of these strategies. We conducted an extensive search focused on population health policy and programmes. We classified 106 papers meeting study criteria into research type (conceptual, descriptive and intervention). We examined the descriptive studies to identify commonly nominated potential intervention strategies. We examined the intervention studies to evaluate the impact of the tested strategies in increasing the use of research in policy decisions. There is little evidence about which strategies increase the use of evidence in population health policy and programmes.
TC 23
Z9 23
U1 0
U2 13
SN 1744-2648
PD AUG
PY 2011
VL 7
IS 3
BP 277
EP 305
DI 10.1332/174426411X579199
UT WOS:000295659300003
ER

PT J
AU Orton, L
   Lloyd-Williams, F
   Taylor-Robinson, D
   O'Flaherty, M
   Capewell, S
AF Orton, Lois
   Lloyd-Williams, Ffion
   Taylor-Robinson, David
   O'Flaherty, Martin
   Capewell, Simon
TI The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes:
   Systematic Review
SO PLOS ONE
ID EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; MAKERS; INEQUALITIES;
   PROMOTION; CARE; INTERVENTIONS; KNOWLEDGE; DISEASE; ONTARIO
AB Background: The use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.
   Methods: To locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.
   Findings: 18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.
   Conclusions: To more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.
OI O'Flaherty, Martin/0000-0001-8944-4131
TC 70
Z9 71
U1 1
U2 25
SN 1932-6203
PD JUL 26
PY 2011
VL 6
IS 7
AR e21704
DI 10.1371/journal.pone.0021704
UT WOS:000293175100005
PM 21818262
ER

PT J
AU Campbell, D
   Donald, B
   Moore, G
   Frew, D
AF Campbell, Danielle
   Donald, Braedon
   Moore, Gabriel
   Frew, Deborah
TI Evidence Check: knowledge brokering to commission research reviews for
   policy
SO EVIDENCE & POLICY
DE synthesis; knowledge brokering; research utilisation; evidence-based
   policy
ID SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; QUALITY; TIME
AB Evidence Check, a programme managed by the Sax Institute in Sydney, Australia, assists Australian policy makers to commission quality reviews of research to inform health policy decision making. The programme involves an iterative knowledge brokering process to formulate and refine the scope of and questions for the review. The knowledge brokering process is particularly important to overcome barriers that have traditionally impeded the use of evidence in policy decision making by facilitating the creation of linkages and exchange between policy and researchers. Feedback from policy makers and researchers indicates that the use of knowledge brokers has enhanced the value of reviews commissioned through Evidence Check
TC 18
Z9 18
U1 0
U2 7
SN 1744-2648
EI 1744-2656
PD JAN
PY 2011
VL 7
IS 1
BP 97
EP 107
DI 10.1332/174426411X553034
UT WOS:000289224400007
ER

PT J
AU Strydom, WF
   Funke, N
   Nienaber, S
   Nortje, K
   Steyn, M
AF Strydom, Wilma F.
   Funke, Nikki
   Nienaber, Shanna
   Nortje, Karen
   Steyn, Maronel
TI EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING: A REVIEW
SO SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE
DE evidence-based policy; evidence uptake; policymaking; political
   decision-making; rational policymaking; science-policy interface
ID SCIENCE; KNOWLEDGE; TRANSLATION; RESOURCES; INTERFACE; WORK
AB The process of facilitating the uptake of evidence, for example, scientific research findings, into the policymaking process is multifaceted and thus complex. It is therefore important for scientists to understand this process in order to influence it more effectively. Similarly, policymakers need to understand the complexities of the scientific process to improve their interaction with the scientific sphere. This literature review addresses those factors that influence the uptake of scientific evidence into policymaking, the barriers to using science in policymaking, as well as recommendations for improved science policymaking interaction. A visual diagram of the gears of a car is used to convey the message of the complexities around the engagement between science and policymaking. It is concluded that the issue of evidence-based policymaking remains unresolved and questions for future research on the science policy interface are raised.
TC 0
Z9 0
U1 2
U2 15
SN 0038-2353
PD MAY-JUN
PY 2010
VL 106
IS 5-6
BP 16
EP 23
DI 10.4102/sajs.v106i5/6.249
UT WOS:000281421400007
ER

PT J
AU Houde, SC
AF Houde, Susan Crocker
TI The Systematic Review of the Literature A Tool for Evidence-Based Policy
SO JOURNAL OF GERONTOLOGICAL NURSING
AB The systematic review of the literature is a valuable tool for gerontological nurses to influence policy decisions. There are several organizations that provide helpful guidelines for the conduct of systematic reviews of the literature, including the Cochrane Collaboration, the Joanna Briggs Institute, and the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information Co-Ordinating Centre at the Institute of Education, University of London. Gerontological nurses who have a strong foundation in research methodology and the skills to synthesize scientific evidence for the purpose of promoting evidence-based policy have the potential to positively influence health care outcomes for older adults. For nurses to assume a leadership role in synthesizing scientific evidence for evidence-based policy development and refinement, nursing education will need to assume a more active role in teaching systematic review methodology. This article presents an overview of resources for conducting systematic reviews of the literature and discusses the use of the systematic review as a tool for evidence-based policy.
TC 5
Z9 5
U1 3
U2 12
SN 0098-9134
PD SEP
PY 2009
VL 35
IS 9
BP 9
EP 12
DI 10.3928/00989134-20090731-05
UT WOS:000270282700003
PM 19715255
ER

PT J
AU Juntti, M
   Russel, D
   Turnpenny, J
AF Juntti, Meri
   Russel, Duncan
   Turnpenny, John
TI Evidence, politics and power in public policy for the environment
SO ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY
DE Evidence-based policy; Science studies; Environmental governance
ID EUROPEAN-UNION; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; GOVERNANCE; NETWORKS; SCIENCE;
   IMPLEMENTATION; GOVERNMENT; KNOWLEDGE; SCHEME; AGE
AB Despite a recent emphasis on 'evidence based policy' accompanied by an abundance of 'green' policy instruments, experience from the European Union and OECD countries shows that decisions which truly aim to balance environmental considerations with social and economic ones remain thin on the ground. Moreover, many policies seem to fall short of, or directly contradict what the available 'evidence' suggests is required. This is a synthesis paper bringing together literature from the fields of political science, geography, sociology and science and technology studies to outline some of the obscurities relating to the use of scientific evidence in environmental decision-making. In this paper, we suggest that an exploration of three key inter-related issues is necessary to develop a richer understanding of why evidence and policy interact as they do. These are the nature of evidence itself; the normative, moral or ethical 'politics' of policy-making; and the operation of power in the policy process. Our primary goal is to bring various literatures together to better conceptualise the evidence-policy relationship. In so doing, we outline specific challenges for knowledge producers who set research priorities, and design and direct research projects. We also highlight significant implications for policy decision-making processes (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
TC 57
Z9 59
U1 6
U2 39
SN 1462-9011
EI 1873-6416
PD MAY
PY 2009
VL 12
IS 3
BP 207
EP 215
DI 10.1016/j.envsci.2008.12.007
UT WOS:000266196700001
ER

PT J
AU Tantivess, S
   Teerawattananon, Y
   Mills, A
AF Tantivess, Sripen
   Teerawattananon, Yot
   Mills, Anne
TI Strengthening Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Thailand through the
   Establishment of the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment
   Program
SO PHARMACOECONOMICS
ID ECONOMIC-EVALUATION; POLICY; SYSTEMS
AB Capacity is limited in the developing world to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of health interventions. In Thailand, there have been concerted efforts to promote evidence-based policy making, including the introduction of economic, appraisals within health technology assessment (HTA). This paper reviews the experience of this lower middle-income country, with an emphasis on the creation of the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), including its mission, management structures and activities.
   Over the past 3 decades, several HTA programmes were implemented in Thailand but not sustained or developed further into a national institute. As a response to increasing demands for HTA evidence including CEA information, the HITAP was created in 2007 as an affiliate unit of a semi-autonomous research arm of the Ministry Of Public Health. An advantage of this HTA programme over previous initiatives was that it was hosted by a research institute with long-term experience in conducting health systems and policy research and capacity building of its research staff, and excellent research and policy networks. To deal with existing impediments to conducting health economics research, the main strategies of the HITAP were carefully devised to include not only capacity strengthening of its researchers and administrative staff, but also the development of essential elements for the country's health economic evaluation methodology. These included, for example, methodological guidelines, standard protocols and benchmarks for resource allocation, many of which have been adopted by national policy-making bodies including the three major public health insurance plans. Networks and collaborations with domestic and foreign institutes have been sought as a means of resource mobilization and exchange. Although the HITAP is well financed by a number of government agencies and international organizations, the programme is vulnerable to shortages of qualified research staff, as most staff work on a part-time or temporary basis.
   To enhance the utilization of its research findings by policy makers, practitioners and consumers, the HITAP has adopted the principles of technical excellence, policy relevance, transparency, effective communication and participation of key stakeholders. These principles have been translated into good practice at every step of HTA management. In 2007 and 2008, the HITAP carried out assessments of a wide range of health products, medical procedures and public health initiatives. Although CEA and other economic evaluation approaches were employed in these studies, the tools and underlying efficiency goal were considered inadequate to provide complete information for prioritization. As suggested by official stakeholders, some of the projects investigated broader issues of management, feasibility, performance and socio-political implications of interventions. As yet, it is unclear what role HITAP research and associated recommendations have played in policy decisions.
   It is hoped that the lessons drawn on the creation of the HITAP and its experience during the first 2 years, as well as information on its main strategies and management structures, may be helpful for other resource-constrained countries when considering how best to strengthen their capacity to conduct economic appraisals of health technologies and interventions.
OI Mills, Anne/0000-0001-9863-9950
TC 19
Z9 19
U1 0
U2 10
SN 1170-7690
PY 2009
VL 27
IS 11
BP 931
EP 945
UT WOS:000273272300005
PM 19888793
ER

PT J
AU Byrne, D
   Ozga, J
AF Byrne, Delma
   Ozga, Jenny
TI BERA review 2006: education research and policy
SO RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION
DE research and policy; evidence-based policy; research quality; policy
   science and policy scholarship
AB The review examines the relationship between educational research and policy, from the post-war period to the present, throughout the United Kingdom. Its purpose is to (a) illuminate the changing relationship between education research and policy, and (b) to clarify the different ways in which that relationship is understood. Its overarching purpose is to enable the education research community to locate current debates about research and policy within historical and theoretical frames of reference, and to enable researchers to locate themselves and their work in this contested area.
   The review is structured in three main sections. The first explores the shifting meanings of research and policy, with attention to the ways in which particular definitions of research produce consequences for the ways in which policy is understood, and vice versa. From these discussions, which include differences between applied, basic and strategic research, and between 'policy science' and 'policy scholarship', the authors offer a typology of education research-policy relations. The second section explores the meanings of research and policy in historical context, and examines the growth of research in education from the post-war years to the 1960s and 1970s. Some of the key themes in the relationship are introduced, and the historical origins of some current controversies are traced and explored. The third section looks at the research-policy relationship in the current context, with attention to the growth of evidence-informed policy-making, and to major disputes and controversies about research quality and methodologies. Throughout the review the focus is largely on education research in England, but comparative points, drawn from the history and contemporary experience of the Centre for Educational Sociology (CES), are made about research-policy relations in Scotland, as are wider points about international developments.
TC 1
Z9 1
U1 0
U2 7
SN 0267-1522
PY 2008
VL 23
IS 4
BP 377
EP 405
DI 10.1080/02671520701755457
UT WOS:000207737100001
ER

PT J
AU Seckinelgin, H
AF Seckinelgin, Hakan
TI Evidence-based policy for HIV/AIDS interventions: Questions of external
   validity, or relevance for use
SO DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE
TC 4
Z9 4
U1 0
U2 0
SN 0012-155X
EI 1467-7660
PD NOV
PY 2007
VL 38
IS 6
BP 1219
EP 1234
DI 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00454.x
UT WOS:000250939900016
ER

PT J
AU MacMillan, HL
   Jamieson, E
   Wathen, CN
   Boyle, MH
   Walsh, CA
   Omura, J
   Walker, JM
   Lodenquai, G
AF MacMillan, Harriet L.
   Jamieson, Ellen
   Wathen, C. Nadine
   Boyle, Michael H.
   Walsh, Christine A.
   Omura, John
   Walker, Jason M.
   Lodenquai, Gregory
TI Development of a policy-relevant child maltreatment research strategy
SO MILBANK QUARTERLY
DE child maltreatment; research framework; health policy
ID SEXUALLY-ABUSED-CHILDREN; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; NURSE HOME
   VISITATION; POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS SYMPTOMS; COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL THERAPY;
   PRESCHOOL-CHILDREN; PHYSICAL ABUSE; FOLLOW-UP; NEGLECTED CHILDREN;
   PRIMARY PREVENTION
AB Child maltreatment is associated with a huge burden of suffering, yet there are serious gaps in knowledge about its epidemiology and approaches to intervention. This article describes the development of a proposed national research framework in child maltreatment, as requested by the Department of Justice, Canada, based on (1) a review of the literature, (2) consultation with experts, and (3) application of evaluation criteria for considering research priorities. The article identifies gaps in knowledge about child maltreatment in Canada and proposes a research agenda to make evidence-based policy decisions more likely. Although this work was driven by gaps in Canada's knowledge about child maltreatment, the international scope of the review and consultation process could make the findings useful to broader research and policy audiences.
TC 15
Z9 15
U1 2
U2 8
SN 0887-378X
PD JUN
PY 2007
VL 85
IS 2
BP 337
EP 374
DI 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00490.x
UT WOS:000246623700009
PM 17517119
ER

PT J
AU Black, N
AF Black, N
TI Evidence based policy: proceed with care
SO BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
TC 256
Z9 259
U1 0
U2 19
SN 0959-535X
PD AUG 4
PY 2001
VL 323
IS 7307
BP 275
EP 278
DI 10.1136/bmj.323.7307.275
UT WOS:000170394300024
PM 11485961
ER

PT J
AU Walker, D
   Fox-Rushby, JA
AF Walker, D
   Fox-Rushby, JA
TI Economic evaluation of communicable disease interventions in developing
   countries: A critical review of the published literature
SO HEALTH ECONOMICS
DE communicable disease; cost; economic evaluation; review; developing
   countries
ID COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA; TUBERCULOSIS TREATMENT
   PROGRAMS; RURAL SOUTH-AFRICA; BENEFIT-ANALYSIS; URINARY SCHISTOSOMIASIS;
   EXPANDED PROGRAM; MALARIA CONTROL; HEALTH-CARE; ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
AB Limited health care budgets have emphasized the need for providers to use resources efficiently. Accordingly, there has been a rapid increase in the number of economic evaluations of communicable disease health programmes in developing countries, as there is a need to implement evidence-based policy decisions. However, given the prohibitive cost of many economic evaluations in low-income countries, interest has also been generated in pooling data and results of previously published studies. Yet, our review demonstrated that very few published economic evaluations have been performed during 1984-1997 (n = 107). Certain diseases and geographical areas have also been neglected. Of those studies published, appropriate analytic techniques have been inconsistently applied. In particular, there are four immediate concerns: the narrow perspective taken-dominance of the health care provider viewpoint and reliance on intermediate outcomes measures; bias-some costs were excluded from estimates; the lack of transparency-sources of data not identified; and the absence of a critical examination of findings-many papers failed to perform a sensitivity analysis. The usefulness of previously published economic evaluations to help make resource allocation choices on an individual basis and, therefore, for the purpose of international comparisons, pooling or meta-analysis, has to be questioned in light of the results from this study. Copyright (C) 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TC 41
Z9 43
U1 0
U2 6
SN 1057-9230
PD DEC
PY 2000
VL 9
IS 8
BP 681
EP 698
DI 10.1002/1099-1050(200012)9:8<681::AID-HEC545>3.0.CO;2-X
UT WOS:000166314800003
PM 11137950
ER

EF

Evidence-informed policy making

Results: 49, 24 articles selected by hand (from Web of Science Core Collection) You searched for: TOPIC: ("evidence-informed policy making")

FN Thomson Reuters Web of Science™ VR 1.0

Näytä yksityiskohdat


++++++++ ENNEN Publication Type -riviä kommentti relevanssista
PT J
AU Bedard, PO
   Ouimet, M
AF Bedard, Pierre-Olivier
   Ouimet, Mathieu
TI Persistent misunderstandings about evidence-based (sorry: informed!)
   policy-making
SO ARCHIVES OF PUBLIC HEALTH
AB Background: The field of research on knowledge mobilization and evidence-informed policy-making has seen enduring debates related to various fundamental assumptions such as the definition of 'evidence', the relative validity of various research methods, the actual role of evidence to inform policy-making, etc. In many cases, these discussions serve a useful purpose, but they also stem from serious disagreement on methodological and epistemological issues.
   Discussion: This essay reviews the rationale for evidence-informed policy-making by examining some of the common claims made about the aims and practices of this perspective on public policy. Supplementing the existing justifications for evidence-based policy making, we argue in favor of a greater inclusion of research evidence in the policy process but in a structured fashion, based on methodological considerations. In this respect, we present an overview of the intricate relation between policy questions and appropriate research designs.
   Summary: By closely examining the relation between research questions and research designs, we claim that the usual points of disagreement are mitigated. For instance, when focusing on the variety of research designs that can answer a range of policy questions, the common critical claim about 'RCT-based policy-making' seems to lose some, if not all of its grip.
TC 0
Z9 0
SN 0778-7367
EI 2049-3258
PD JUL 20
PY 2016
VL 74
AR 31
DI 10.1186/s13690-016-0142-z
UT WOS:000380325300001
PM 27441090
ER

PT J
AU VanLandingham, G
   Silloway, T
AF VanLandingham, Gary
   Silloway, Torey
TI Bridging the Gap between Evidence and Policy Makers: A Case Study of the
   Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative
SO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
AB Developing ways to bridge the long-recognized gap between researchers and policy makers is increasingly important in this age of constrained public resources. As noted by recent scholarship, progress toward evidence-informed policy making requires both improving the supply of research that is reliable, timely, and relevant to the policy process and promoting demand and support for this information among decision makers. This article presents a case study of the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative, which is working in a growing number of state and local governments to build systems that bring rigorous evidence on "what works" into their budget processes and to support its use in resource allocation decisions. The initiative's experience to date is promising, although creating lasting and dynamic evidence-based policy-making systems requires a long-term commitment by both researchers and policy makers.
TC 0
Z9 0
SN 0033-3352
EI 1540-6210
PD JUL-AUG
PY 2016
VL 76
IS 4
BP 542
EP 546
DI 10.1111/puar.12603
UT WOS:000379761300007
ER

PT J
AU Head, BW
AF Head, Brian W.
TI Toward More "Evidence-Informed" Policy Making?
SO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
AB The quality of public decision making depends significantly on the quality of analysis and advice provided through public organizations. Champions of "evidence-informed" policy making claim that rigorous evaluation practices can significantly improve attainment of cost-effective outcomes. After decades of experience, performance information is more sophisticated, but evaluation practices and capabilities vary enormously. Public agencies gather and process vast amounts of information, but there has been little analysis of how this information is actually utilized for policy and program improvement. This article examines how government agencies use evidence about policy and program effectiveness, with attention to four themes: ( 1) the prospects for improving "evidence-informed" policy making, ( 2) the diversity of practices concerning evidence utilization and evaluation across types of public agencies and policy arenas, ( 3) recent attempts to "institutionalize" evaluation as a core feature of policy development and budget approval, and ( 4) the relationships between public agencies and nongovernmental sources of expertise.
TC 0
Z9 0
SN 0033-3352
EI 1540-6210
PD MAY-JUN
PY 2016
VL 76
IS 3
BP 472
EP U22
DI 10.1111/puar.12475
UT WOS:000379760100018
ER

PT J
AU Alexandrou, A
AF Alexandrou, Alex
TI Making Evidence Matter: A New Perspective for Evidence-Informed Policy
   Making in Education
SO EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION & LEADERSHIP
TC 0
Z9 0
SN 1741-1432
EI 1741-1440
PD MAY
PY 2016
VL 44
IS 3
BP 532
EP 533
DI 10.1177/1741143214539083
UT WOS:000375716400011
ER

PT J
AU Hawkes, S
   Aulakh, BK
   Jadeja, N
   Jimenez, M
   Buse, K
   Anwar, I
   Barge, S
   Odubanjo, MO
   Shukla, A
   Ghaffar, A
   Whitworth, J
AF Hawkes, Sarah
   Aulakh, Bhupinder K.
   Jadeja, Nidhee
   Jimenez, Michelle
   Buse, Kent
   Anwar, Iqbal
   Barge, Sandhya
   Odubanjo, M. Oladoyin
   Shukla, Abhay
   Ghaffar, Abdul
   Whitworth, Jimmy
TI Strengthening capacity to apply health research evidence in policy
   making: experience from four countries
SO HEALTH POLICY AND PLANNING
AB Increasing the use of evidence in policy making means strengthening capacity on both the supply and demand sides of evidence production. However, little experience of strengthening the capacity of policy makers in low- and middle- income countries has been published to date. We describe the experiences of five projects (in Bangladesh, Gambia, India and Nigeria), where collaborative teams of researchers and policy makers/policy influencers worked to strengthen policy maker capacity to increase the use of evidence in policy. Activities were focused on three (interlinked) levels of capacity building: individual, organizational and, occasionally, institutional. Interventions included increasing access to research/data, promoting frequent interactions between researchers and members of the policy communities, and increasing the receptivity towards research/data in policy making or policy-implementing organizations. Teams were successful in building the capacity of individuals to access, understand and use evidence/data. Strengthening organizational capacity generally involved support to infrastructure (e.g. through information technology resources) and was also deemed to be successful. There was less appetite to address the need to strengthen institutional capacity-although this was acknowledged to be fundamental to promoting sustainable use of evidence, it was also recognized as requiring resources, legitimacy and regulatory support from policy makers. Evaluation across the three spheres of capacity building was made more challenging by the lack of agreed upon evaluation frameworks. In this article, we propose a new framework for assessing the impact of capacity strengthening activities to promote the use of evidence/data in policy making. Our evaluation concluded that strengthening the capacity of individuals and organizations is an important but likely insufficient step in ensuring the use of evidence/data in policy-cycles. Sustainability of evidence-informed policy making requires strengthening institutional capacity, as well as understanding and addressing the political environment, and particularly the incentives facing policy makers that supports the use of evidence in policy cycles.
OI Hawkes, Sarah/0000-0003-1062-3538
TC 1
Z9 1
SN 0268-1080
EI 1460-2237
PD MAR
PY 2016
VL 31
IS 2
BP 161
EP 170
DI 10.1093/heapol/czv032
UT WOS:000374226000003
PM 25900967
ER

PT J
AU Choi, BCK
   Li, LP
   Lu, YG
   Zhang, LR
   Zhu, Y
   Pak, AWP
   Chen, Y
   Little, J
AF Choi, Bernard C. K.
   Li, Liping
   Lu, Yaogui
   Zhang, Li R.
   Zhu, Yao
   Pak, Anita W. P.
   Chen, Yue
   Little, Julian
TI Bridging the gap between science and policy: an international survey of
   scientists and policy makers in China and Canada
SO IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE
AB Background: Bridging the gap between science and policy is an important task in evidence-informed policy making. The objective of this study is to prioritize ways to bridge the gap.
   Methods: The study was based on an online survey of high-ranking scientists and policy makers who have a senior position in universities and governments in the health sector in China and Canada. The sampling frame comprised of universities with schools of public health and medicine and various levels of government in health and public health. Participants included university presidents and professors, and government deputy ministers, directors general and directors working in the health field. Fourteen strategies were presented to the participants for ranking as current ways and ideal ways in the future to bridge the gap between science and policy.
   Results: Over a 3-month survey period, there were 121 participants in China and 86 in Canada with response rates of 30.0 and 15.9 %, respectively. The top strategies selected by respondents included focus on policy (conducting research that focuses on policy questions), science-policy forums, and policy briefs, both as current ways and ideal ways to bridge the gap between science and policy. Conferences were considered a priority strategy as a current way, but not an ideal way in the future. Canadian participants were more in favor of using information technology (web-based portals and email updates) than their Chinese counterparts. Among Canadian participants, two strategies that were ranked low as current ways (collaboration in study design and collaboration in analysis) became a priority as ideal ways. This could signal a change in thinking in shifting the focus from the "back end" or "downstream" (knowledge dissemination) of the knowledge transfer process to the "front end" or "upstream" (knowledge generation).
   Conclusions: Our international study has confirmed a number of previously reported priority strategies to bridge the gap between science and policy. More importantly, our study has contributed to the future work on evidence-based policy making by comparing the responses from China and Canada and the current and ideal way for the future. Our study shows that the concept and strategies of bridging the gap between science and policy are not static but varying in space and evolving over time.
TC 1
Z9 1
SN 1748-5908
PD FEB 6
PY 2016
VL 11
AR 16
DI 10.1186/s13012-016-0377-7
UT WOS:000369909000001
PM 26852131
ER

PT J
AU Shroff, Z
   Aulakh, B
   Gilson, L
   Agyepong, IA
   El-Jardali, F
   Ghaffar, A
AF Shroff, Zubin
   Aulakh, Bhupinder
   Gilson, Lucy
   Agyepong, Irene A.
   El-Jardali, Fadi
   Ghaffar, Abdul
TI Incorporating research evidence into decision-making processes:
   researcher and decision-maker perceptions from five low- and
   middle-income countries
SO HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS
AB Background: The 'Sponsoring National Processes for Evidence-Informed Policy Making in the Health Sector of Developing Countries' program was launched by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO, in July 2008. The program aimed to catalyse the use of evidence generated through health policy and systems research in policymaking processes through (1) promoting researchers and policy advocates to present their evidence in a manner that is easy for policymakers to understand and use, (2) creating mechanisms to spur the demand for and application of research evidence in policymaking, and (3) increased interaction between researchers, policy advocates, and policymakers. Grants ran for three years and five projects were supported in Argentina, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Nigeria and Zambia. This paper seeks to understand why projects in some settings were perceived by the key stakeholders involved to have made progress towards their goals, whereas others were perceived to have not done so well. Additionally, by comparing experiences across five countries, we seek to illustrate general learnings to inform future evidence-to-policy efforts in low-and middle-income countries.
   Methods: We adopted the theory of knowledge translation developed by Jacobson et al. (J Health Serv Res Policy 8(2):94-9, 2003) as a framing device to reflect on project experiences across the five cases. Using data from the projects' external evaluation reports, which included information from semi-structured interviews and quantitative evaluation surveys of those involved in projects, and supplemented by information from the projects' individual technical reports, we applied the theoretical framework with a partially grounded approach to analyse each of the cases and make comparisons.
   Results and conclusion: There was wide variation across projects in the type of activities carried out as well as their intensity. Based on our findings, we can conclude that projects perceived as having made progress towards their goals were characterized by the coming together of a number of domains identified by the theory. The domains of Jacobson's theoretical framework, initially developed for high-income settings, are of relevance to the low-and middle-income country context, but may need modification to be fully applicable to these settings. Specifically, the relative fragility of institutions and the concomitantly more significant role of individual leaders point to the need to look at leadership as an additional domain influencing the evidence-to-policy process.
TC 0
Z9 0
SN 1478-4505
PD NOV 30
PY 2015
VL 13
AR 70
DI 10.1186/s12961-015-0059-y
UT WOS:000365438400001
PM 26621364
ER

PT J
AU Lapointe, L
   Ouimet, M
   Charbonneau, M
   Beorofei, ET
AF Lapointe, Luc
   Ouimet, Mathieu
   Charbonneau, Marissa
   Beorofei, Emilie T.
TI Do Canadian university students in Political Science and Public
   Administration learn to perform critical appraisal?
SO CANADIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-ADMINISTRATION PUBLIQUE DU CANADA
AB The ability to critically appraise empirical studies of any type is a prerequisite to evidence-informed policy making. We scanned the syllabi of all Canadian university undergraduate and graduate programs in public affairs, public administration, public policy and political science. Our findings suggest that evidence-informed policy is not yet institutionalized in most public administration and political science training curricula. We conducted a systematic review of prospective experimental and quasi-experimental studies examining the effect of university courses aimed at training social sciences students in critical appraisal, but did not find such a study.
   Sommaire L'aptitude a evaluer de maniere critique les etudes empiriques en tous genres est une condition prealable a l'elaboration de politiques fondee sur des donnees probantes. Nous avons examine sommairement les programmes de cours du premier cycle et des cycles superieurs en affaires publiques, administration publique, politique publique et sciences politiques de toutes les universites canadiennes. Nos resultats laissent entendre que la politique fondee sur les donnees probantes n'est pas encore institutionnalisee dans la plupart des programmes de formation en administration publique et en sciences politiques. Nous avons mene un examen systematique d'etudes prospectives experimentales et quasi-experimentales en etudiant l'effet de cours universitaires visant a donner aux etudiants en sciences politiques une formation en evaluation critique, mais n'avons pas trouve une telle etude.
TC 0
Z9 0
SN 0008-4840
EI 1754-7121
PD SEP
PY 2015
VL 58
IS 3
BP 487
EP 503
DI 10.1111/capa.12124
UT WOS:000360805000008
ER

PT J
AU Ouimet, M
   Lapointe, L
   Leon, G
AF Ouimet, Mathieu
   Lapointe, Luc
   Leon, Gregory
TI Examining the feasibility and impact of a graduate public administration
   course in evidence-informed policy
SO EVIDENCE & POLICY
AB A pilot controlled before-and-after design was used to assess the impact of a new master-level course in evidence-informed policy making on students' basic knowledge in evidence-based practice. The primary outcome variable was the mean percentage of pre-post improvement on the knowledge test. In the treatment group, the mean percentage of pre-post improvement to the knowledge test was 36.9% (SD 27.5), compared to 11.3% (SD 19.1) in the control group composed of students exposed to the traditional graduate-level research methodology course in Political Science. However, the mean score on the post-test for the treatment group was only half of the maximum score.
TC 1
Z9 1
SN 1744-2648
EI 1744-2656
PD MAY
PY 2015
VL 11
IS 2
SI SI
BP 149
EP 168
DI 10.1332/174426414X14165770542276
UT WOS:000356466000002
ER

PT J
AU Valente, A
   Castellani, T
   Larsen, M
   Aro, AR
AF Valente, Adriana
   Castellani, Tommaso
   Larsen, Maja
   Aro, Arja R.
TI Models and visions of science-policy interaction: Remarks from a Delphi
   study in Italy
SO SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY
AB In recent decades, many disciplines have dealt with the relationship between scientific research and policy-making, and many different models for science-policy interactions have been proposed. This paper aims to investigate the models of science-policy interaction implicitly or explicitly adopted by stakeholders, by means of a Delphi study performed with Italian researchers, politicians, doctors and journalists. The study was developed within the framework of the European project on Research into Policy to Enhance Physical Activity, which aimed to improve evidence-informed policy-making using the field of physical activity as the case study. Our results show the persistence of the traditional linear model and how it coexists with subsequent models in the same individual visions.
TC 3
Z9 3
SN 0302-3427
EI 1471-5430
PD APR
PY 2015
VL 42
IS 2
BP 228
EP 241
DI 10.1093/scipol/scu039
UT WOS:000355224500007
ER

PT J
AU El-Jardali, F
   Fadlallah, R
AF El-Jardali, Fadi
   Fadlallah, Racha
TI A call for a backward design to knowledge translation
SO INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT-IJHPM
AB Despite several calls to support evidence-informed policy-making, variations in uptake of evidence into policy persist. This editorial brings together and builds on previous Knowledge Translation (KT) frameworks and theories to present a simple, yet, holistic approach for promoting evidence-informed policies. The proposed conceptual framework is characterized by its impact-oriented approach and its view of KT as a continuum from the evidence synthesis stage to uptake and evaluation, while highlighting capacity and resource requirement at every step. A practical example is given to guide readers through the different steps of the framework. With a growing interest in strengthening evidence-informed policy-making, there is a need to continuously develop theories to understand and improve the science of KT and its implementation within the field of policy-making.
TC 4
Z9 4
SN 2322-5939
PD JAN
PY 2015
VL 4
IS 1
BP 1
EP 5
DI 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.10
UT WOS:000378652500001
PM 25584357
ER

PT J
AU Brown, C
AF Brown, Chris
TI The policy agora: how power inequalities affect the interaction between
   researchers and policy makers
SO EVIDENCE & POLICY
AB This paper examines notions of power in relation to evidence-informed policy making and explores four key areas. First, I outline contemporary conceptualisations of how power operates in society; second,! spotlight the implications of power inequalities for how evidence is used by policy makers (and present the policy 'agora'; a discursively controlled paradigm of ideology and epistemology which serves to distinguish between the types of evidence that policy makers will and won't engage with); third, I then define what I consider as evidence 'misuse'; before finishing with an analysis of why evidence misuse materialises and how its enactment might be minimised.
TC 0
Z9 0
SN 1744-2648
EI 1744-2656
PD AUG
PY 2014
VL 10
IS 3
BP 421
EP 438
DI 10.1332/174426514X672353
UT WOS:000341064500007
ER

PT J
AU Weatherford, S
AF Weatherford, Stephen
TI Making evidence matter: a new perspective for evidence-informed policy
   making in education
SO EVIDENCE & POLICY
TC 0
Z9 0
SN 1744-2648
EI 1744-2656
PD AUG
PY 2014
VL 10
IS 3
BP 458
EP 462
UT WOS:000341064500009
ER

PT J
AU Dicks, LV
   Hodge, I
   Randall, NP
   Scharlemann, JPW
   Siriwardena, GM
   Smith, HG
   Smith, RK
   Sutherland, WJ
AF Dicks, Lynn V.
   Hodge, Ian
   Randall, Nicola P.
   Scharlemann, Joern P. W.
   Siriwardena, Gavin M.
   Smith, Henrik G.
   Smith, Rebecca K.
   Sutherland, William J.
TI A Transparent Process for "Evidence-Informed" Policy Making
SO CONSERVATION LETTERS
AB Political institutions are keen to use the best available scientific knowledge in decision-making. For environmental policy, relevant scientific evidence can be complex and extensive, so expert judgment is frequently relied upon, without clear links to the evidence itself. We propose a new transparent process for incorporating research evidence into policy decisions, involving independent synopsis of evidence relating to all possible policy options combined with expert evaluation of what the evidence means for specific policy questions. We illustrate the process using reforms of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy currently being negotiated. Under the reform proposals, 30% of direct payments to farmers will become conditional upon three "compulsory greening measures." Independently, we compiled and evaluated experimental evidence for the effects of 85 interventions to protect wildlife on northern European farmland, 12 of which correspond to aspects of the compulsory greening measures. Our evaluation clearly indicates evidence of consistent wildlife benefits for some, but not all, of the greening measures. The process of evidence synopsis with expert evaluation has three advantages over existing efforts to incorporate evidence into policy decisions: it provides a clear evidence audit trail, allows rapid response to new policy contexts, and clarifies sources of uncertainty.
RI Scharlemann, Jorn/A-4737-2008; 
OI Scharlemann, Jorn/0000-0002-2834-6367; Sutherland,
   William/0000-0002-6498-0437
TC 10
Z9 10
SN 1755-263X
PD MAR
PY 2014
VL 7
IS 2
BP 119
EP 125
DI 10.1111/conl.12046
UT WOS:000334164400006
ER

PT J
AU Liverani, M
   Hawkins, B
   Parkhurst, JO
AF Liverani, Marco
   Hawkins, Benjamin
   Parkhurst, Justin O.
TI Political and Institutional Influences on the Use of Evidence in Public
   Health Policy. A Systematic Review
SO PLOS ONE
AB Background: There is increasing recognition that the development of evidence-informed health policy is not only a technical problem of knowledge exchange or translation, but also a political challenge. Yet, while political scientists have long considered the nature of political systems, the role of institutional structures, and the political contestation of policy issues as central to understanding policy decisions, these issues remain largely unexplored by scholars of evidence-informed policy making.
   Methods: We conducted a systematic review of empirical studies that examined the influence of key features of political systems and institutional mechanisms on evidence use, and contextual factors that may contribute to the politicisation of health evidence. Eligible studies were identified through searches of seven health and social sciences databases, websites of relevant organisations, the British Library database, and manual searches of academic journals. Relevant findings were extracted using a uniform data extraction tool and synthesised by narrative review.
   Findings: 56 studies were selected for inclusion. Relevant political and institutional aspects affecting the use of health evidence included the level of state centralisation and democratisation, the influence of external donors and organisations, the organisation and function of bureaucracies, and the framing of evidence in relation to social norms and values. However, our understanding of such influences remains piecemeal given the limited number of empirical analyses on this subject, the paucity of comparative works, and the limited consideration of political and institutional theory in these studies.
   Conclusions: This review highlights the need for a more explicit engagement with the political and institutional factors affecting the use of health evidence in decision-making. A more nuanced understanding of evidence use in health policy making requires both additional empirical studies of evidence use, and an engagement with theories and approaches beyond the current remit of public health or knowledge utilisation studies.
TC 18
Z9 18
SN 1932-6203
PD OCT 30
PY 2013
VL 8
IS 10
AR e77404
DI 10.1371/journal.pone.0077404
UT WOS:000326334500026
PM 24204823
ER

PT J
AU Koon, AD
   Rao, KD
   Tran, NT
   Ghaffar, A
AF Koon, Adam D.
   Rao, Krishna D.
   Tran, Nhan T.
   Ghaffar, Abdul
TI Embedding health policy and systems research into decision-making
   processes in low- and middle-income countries
SO HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS
AB Attention is increasingly directed to bridging the gap between the production of knowledge and its use for health decision-making in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). An important and underdeveloped area of health policy and systems research (HPSR) is the organization of this process. Drawing from an interdisciplinary conception of embeddedness, a literature review was conducted to identify examples of embedded HPSR used to inform decision-making in LMICs. The results of the literature review were organized according to the World Health Organization's Building Blocks Framework. Next, a conceptual model was created to illustrate the arrangement of organizations that produce embedded HPSR and the characteristics that facilitate its uptake into the arena of decision-making. We found that multiple forces converge to create context-specific pathways through which evidence enters into decision-making. Depending on the decision under consideration, the literature indicates that decision-makers may call upon an intricate combination of actors for sourcing HPSR. While proximity to decision-making does have advantages, it is not the position of the organization within the network, but rather the qualities the organization possesses, that enable it to be embedded. Our findings suggest that four qualities influence embeddedness: reputation, capacity, quality of connections to decision-makers, and quantity of connections to decision-makers and others. In addition to this, the policy environment (e.g. the presence of legislation governing the use of HPSR, presence of strong civil society, etc.) strongly influences uptake. Through this conceptual model, we can understand which conditions are likely to enhance uptake of HPSR in LMIC health systems. This raises several important considerations for decision-makers and researchers about the arrangement and interaction of evidence-generating organizations in health systems.
TC 11
Z9 12
SN 1478-4505
PD AUG 8
PY 2013
VL 11
AR 30
DI 10.1186/1478-4505-11-30
UT WOS:000323009800001
PM 23924162
ER

PT J
AU Hameen-Anttila, K
   Luhtanen, S
   Airaksinen, M
   Pohjanoksa-Mantyla, M
AF Hameen-Anttila, Katri
   Luhtanen, Suvi
   Airaksinen, Marja
   Pohjanoksa-Mantyla, Marika
TI Developing a national medicines information strategy in Finland-A
   stakeholders' perspective on the strengths, challenges and opportunities
   in medicines information
SO HEALTH POLICY
AB Purpose and setting: The Finnish Medicines Agency was mandated to develop a national medicines information strategy. The objectives of this study were to assess stakeholders' views on strengths, challenges and opportunities in medicines information for the basis of the strategy.
   Methods: Interviews among stakeholder representatives (n = 28) from patient organizations, universities, pharmacies, and professional associations in medicine, pharmacy and nursing were conducted in 2011. Interview memos were thematically content-analysed. The draft strategy was finalized through two public hearings and a public consultation.
   Results: Stakeholders highlighted the need to increase cooperation and coordination in medicines information. The existence of numerous quality- and evidence-based medicines information sources was identified as a strength; although the stakeholders were concerned about the fragmented and unequal access to them. The strengthening of the role of health care professionals in communicating about medicines was seen as an opportunity, but its realization requires improvements in basic and continuing education. Furthermore, the stakeholders emphasized the importance of uniform medicines information regardless of source.
   Conclusions: Stakeholders identified multiple strengths, challenges and opportunities in medicines information that were fundamental to developing the national medicines information strategy. An inventory of stakeholder perspectives can be recommended as a tool to support decision-making in pharmaceutical policy. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
TC 2
Z9 2
SN 0168-8510
PD JUL
PY 2013
VL 111
IS 2
BP 200
EP 205
DI 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.04.005
UT WOS:000321938500012
PM 23683473
ER

PT J
AU Boyko, JA
   Lavis, JN
   Abelson, J
   Dobbins, M
   Carter, N
AF Boyko, Jennifer A.
   Lavis, John N.
   Abelson, Julia
   Dobbins, Maureen
   Carter, Nancy
TI Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and
   exchange in health systems decision-making
SO SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
AB Models that describe the key features and intended effects of specific knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) interventions are much less prominent than models that provide a more general understanding of KTE. Our aim was to develop a model in order to describe the key features and intended effects of deliberative dialogues used as a KTE strategy and to understand how deliberative dialogues can support evidence-informed policymaking. By using critical interpretive synthesis, we identified 17 papers representing four fields of enquiry and integrated our findings into a model. The key features described in the model are: 1) an appropriate (i.e., conducive to the particular dialogue) meeting environment; 2) an appropriate mix of participants; and, 3) an appropriate use of research evidence. These features combine to create three types of intended effects: 1) short-term individual-level; 3) medium-term community/organizational-level; and, 3) long-term system-level. The concept of capacity building helps to explain the relationship between features and effects. The model is a useful contribution to the KTE field because it is a practical tool that could be used to guide the development and evaluation of deliberative dialogues in order to understand more about achieving particular outcomes in relation to specific issues or contexts. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
RI Lavis, John/I-7555-2013
OI Lavis, John/0000-0001-7917-3657
TC 19
Z9 19
SN 0277-9536
PD DEC
PY 2012
VL 75
IS 11
BP 1938
EP 1945
DI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.016
UT WOS:000310385200004
PM 22938912
ER

PT J
AU Brown, C
AF Brown, Chris
TI The 'policy-preferences model': a new perspective on how researchers can
   facilitate the take-up of evidence by educational policy makers
SO EVIDENCE & POLICY
AB The phrase 'knowledge adoption refers to the often-complicated process by which policy makers 'take on board' evidence. While models have been put forward to explain this activity, this paper argues that such models are flawed and fail to fully address those complexities affecting the successful realisation of knowledge adoption efforts. Existing frameworks are examined, critiqued and an alternative, sociologically based approach presented. It is argued that this alternative conceptualisation provides a more effective account of the knowledge adoption process. The paper illustrates how this model has been tested and examines its implications for both research impact and evidence-informed policy making.
TC 4
Z9 4
SN 1744-2648
PD NOV
PY 2012
VL 8
IS 4
BP 455
EP 472
DI 10.1332/174426412X660106
UT WOS:000312415000004
ER

PT J
AU Bedard, PO
   Ouimet, M
AF Bedard, Pierre-Olivier
   Ouimet, Mathieu
TI Cognizance and Consultation of Randomized Controlled Trials among
   Ministerial Policy Analysts
SO REVIEW OF POLICY RESEARCH
AB Consultation of scientific evidence by policy actors has been the foci of attention of knowledge utilization scholars for decades. The present study questioned the extent to which randomized controlled trials (RCTs)generally seen as the gold standard of scientific researchare known and consulted by policy analysts in ministerial settings. Using cross-sectional data collected in 17 ministries in Quebec (Canada), our study showed that fairly high levels of policy analysts report never having heard of RCTs, thus possibly hindering effective communication of scientific results to relevant policy makers. Statistical analyses reveal the importance of cognitive factors in explaining both phenomena.
TC 7
Z9 7
SN 1541-132X
PD SEP
PY 2012
VL 29
IS 5
BP 625
EP 644
DI 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00581.x
UT WOS:000307338500003
ER

PT J
AU Panisset, U
   Koehlmoos, TP
   Alkhatib, AH
   Pantoja, T
   Singh, P
   Kengey-Kayondo, J
   McCutchen, B
   Block, MAG
AF Panisset, Ulysses
   Koehlmoos, Tracey Perez
   Alkhatib, Ahmad Hamdi
   Pantoja, Tomas
   Singh, Prabal
   Kengey-Kayondo, Jane
   McCutchen, Ben
   Gonzalez Block, Miguel Angel
TI Implementation research evidence uptake and use for policy-making
SO HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS
AB A major obstacle to the progress of the Millennium Development Goals has been the inability of health systems in many low- and middle-income countries to effectively implement evidence-informed interventions. This article discusses the relationships between implementation research and knowledge translation and identifies the role of implementation research in the design and execution of evidence-informed policy. After a discussion of the benefits and synergies needed to translate implementation research into action, the article discusses how implementation research can be used along the entire continuum of the use of evidence to inform policy. It provides specific examples of the use of implementation research in national level programmes by looking at the scale up of zinc for the treatment of childhood diarrhoea in Bangladesh and the scaling up of malaria treatment in Burkina Faso. A number of tested strategies to support the transfer of implementation research results into policy-making are provided to help meet the standards that are increasingly expected from evidence-informed policy-making practices.
TC 21
Z9 21
SN 1478-4505
PD JUL 2
PY 2012
VL 10
AR 20
DI 10.1186/1478-4505-10-20
UT WOS:000309213300001
PM 22748142
ER

PT J
AU Shine, KT
   Bartley, B
AF Shine, Kasey Treadwell
   Bartley, Brendan
TI Whose evidence base? The dynamic effects of ownership, receptivity and
   values on collaborative evidence-informed policy making
SO EVIDENCE & POLICY
AB This paper explores questions of ownership of and receptivity to research-based evidence and, in combination with often competing values, their effect on collaborative evidence-informed policy making (EIPM).We propose that these issues generate a 'dynamo' of push-pull factors for policy makers, researchers and research managers.Through the process of producing and managing new knowledge in collaborative EIPM efforts, these factors shape different 'realities'. We argue that these help to prevent, break, distort or facilitate the conceptual cycle of EIPM. The paper sets out ideas for mapping ownership, receptivity and values and their dynamic effects, drawn from actor network theory, complexity theory and the Competing Values Framework. In conclusion, it suggests that engagement with and development of policy making as a form of emergent ordering may provide ways for more effective EIPM.
TC 2
Z9 2
SN 1744-2648
PD NOV
PY 2011
VL 7
IS 4
BP 511
EP 530
DI 10.1332/17442641IX603489
UT WOS:000298439700007
ER

PT J
AU Sanderson, I
AF Sanderson, Ian
TI Intelligent Policy Making for a Complex World: Pragmatism, Evidence and
   Learning
SO POLITICAL STUDIES
AB The credentials of the evidence-based policy movement appear to be increasingly subject to challenge based on research that has highlighted the limits on the use of evidence in policy making. However, moves towards a more 'realistic' position of evidence-informed policy making risk conflating prescription with description and undermining a normative vision of better policy making. This article argues that we need to review the ideas that underpin our thinking about evidence-based policy making, and move beyond the territory of instrumental rationality to a position founded upon two intellectual pillars: our developing knowledge about complex adaptive systems; and ideas from a pragmatist philosophical position - especially those of John Dewey - about social scientific knowledge and its role in guiding action to address social problems. This leads us to a conception of 'intelligent policy making' in which the notion of policy learning is central.
TC 52
Z9 52
SN 0032-3217
PD DEC
PY 2009
VL 57
IS 4
BP 699
EP 719
DI 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00791.x
UT WOS:000271496600001
ER

PT J
AU Wallace, A
   Croucher, K
   Bevan, M
   Jackson, K
   O'Malley, L
   Quilgars, D
AF Wallace, A
   Croucher, K
   Bevan, M
   Jackson, K
   O'Malley, L
   Quilgars, D
TI Evidence for policy making: Some reflections on the application of
   systematic reviews to housing research
SO HOUSING STUDIES
AB The recent turn towards evidence-based or evidence-informed policy making has generated interest in systematic literature review techniques. Systematic reviewing is increasingly being adopted to address questions in complex social policy areas, but the methodological development lags behind. Drawing on the experience of undertaking three systematic reviews of housing related topics, as part of a project designed to empirically test the transfer of systematic review methods to social policy and social care, this paper reflects on the use of the systematic review methods in housing research and considers how our experience accords with recent methodological development of reviewing in other areas. The paper first examines wider methodological developments occurring during the course of the three-year project, before considering changing review practices in housing studies. It then goes on to examine the key methodological challenges that remain unresolved, in particular: searching for literature, quality appraising studies, interpreting old research against shifting contextual factors, and providing an actual synthesis of diverse material. It calls for a more thoughtful approach to the method and more careful consideration of when systematic reviews may be appropriate.
TC 6
Z9 6
SN 0267-3037
PD MAR
PY 2006
VL 21
IS 2
BP 297
EP 314
DI 10.1080/02673030500484935
UT WOS:000236579200009
ER

EF

Kirjallisuuskatsaus

Utility of openness in knowledge production 1-5

[1] Liittyy kaupan avoimuuteen eikä tiedon avoimuuteen.
[2] Abstraktin perusteella vaikuttaisi todnäk myös liittyvän kaupan avoimuuteen
[3] Pelkän abstractin perusteella ei osaa sanoa.
[4] Kokonaisesta kirjasta ei saa kunnolla irti mitään, koska se on liian paljon.
[5] Pelkän abstractin perusteella ei osaa sanoa.
[6] Johdannon perusteella tuottaa oman tavan järjestää tieteen tekeminen avoimemmaksi, mutta ei vaikuta siltä, että tuottaa tutkimustietoa tavan toimivuudesta.
[7] Although no single model can fulfill the multitude of goals of such assessments, it is in highly interactive models that the possibilities of higher levels of innovation and related social impact are most likely to occur. Tää vaikuttaa siltä, että sieltä löytyis jotain jos olis access koko artikkeliin.
[8] Abstraktin perusteella voi olla olennainen, mutta todennäköisemmin ehkä ei.
[9] Täällä vois ehkä olla jotain, jos sais koko artikkelin jostain.
[10] Abstraktin perusteella voi olla jotain, mutta todennäköisesti ei.
[11] Luultavasti ei olennainen, mutta pelkkä abstrakti.
[12] Teknologian potentiaalista opetuksessa, ei taida tas sisältää tutkimustietoa.
[13] Luultavasti ei olennainen, mutta pelkkä abstrakti.
http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJIL.2005.006663
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=354802

Openness and policy 1-2

Openness failure policy 1

Allintitle: openness failure 3/3

"Knowledge production" policy 1

@@ Rivi 60: / Rivi 60: @@
 : {{attack invalid|# |Avoimuus tuo keskustelun julkisuuteen ja someen, jossa voi menestyä heikommilla argumenteilla kuin suljetussa asiantuntijavetoisessa valmistelussa.|--[[Käyttäjä:Jouni|Jouni Tuomisto]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Jouni|keskustelu]]) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC)}}
 :: {{attack|# |Vaikka päätösvalmistelu olisi avointa, ei valtaa agendan määrittelystä ja sisällöstä tarvitse antaa pois julkisuuden paineessa.|--[[Käyttäjä:Jouni|Jouni Tuomisto]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Jouni|keskustelu]]) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 08.47 (UTC)}}
+: {{attack|# |Tiedonkeruu ei voi perustua joukkoistamiseen vaan pitää olla nimetty työryhmä jonka vastuulla on tiedon kerääminen tarpeellisessa laajuudessa.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+: {{attack|# |Avoimuus karkottaa näkökulmia jotka ovat tärkeitä mutta pohjautuvat arkoihin tai salaisiin tietoihin.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+: {{attack|# |Ulkopuoliset pyrkivät sotkemaan asioita ja tämä estää laittamasta keskeneräisiä asioita julkisesti nähtäville.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
 }}
@@ Rivi 71: / Rivi 74: @@
 : {{defend|# |Tietojen uusiokäyttö on helpompaa.|--[[Käyttäjä:Jouni|Jouni Tuomisto]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Jouni|keskustelu]]) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 11.00 (UTC)}}
 : {{defend|# |Tutkijoiden ja päättäjien tiedonvaihto on tehokkaampaa kun he jakavat yhteisen tietovaraston.|--[[Käyttäjä:Jouni|Jouni Tuomisto]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Jouni|keskustelu]]) 2. lokakuuta 2016 kello 11.00 (UTC)}}
+: {{attack|# |Prosessien seuraaminen vaikeutuu|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+: {{attack|# |Ei ole luonnollista tapaa kuvata kaikkia asioita koska niitä on liikaa ja ne ovat kontekstisidonnaisia.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+: {{attack|# |Eriävät mielipiteet eivät tule kunnolla käsitellyiksi jos pyritään yhteen kuvaukseen.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+}}
+{{keskustelu
+| Väittämät = Kritiikki on tärkeä periaate tietotyössä.
+| Ratkaisu =
+| Argumentaatio =
+: {{defend|# |Hyvät suunnitelmat kestävät paremmin kritiikkiä kuin huonot ja tämän on hyvä paljastua nopeasti. Kritiikki nostaa esiin myös korjausehdotuksia ongelmakohtiin.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+: {{defend|# |Kritiikin mahdollisuus innostaa osallistamaan ja ihmiset tuovat enemmän hyviä näkemyksiä.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+:: {{attack|# |Itseen kohdistuvan kritiikin mahdollisuus pelottaa ihmisiä, ja eivät siten uskalla tuoda esiin omia mielipiteitään lyttäämisen pelossa.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+: {{defend|# |Valtaapitävien arvostelu on demokraattisen järjestelmän keskeisiä oikeuksia.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+: {{defend|# |Kritiikki pakottaa perustelemaan toimivat näkemykset ja vaihtoehdot paremmin, jolloin niiden toimivuudesta voidaan olla varmempia.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+}}
+{{keskustelu
+| Väittämät = Ryhmäytyminen
+| Ratkaisu =
+| Argumentaatio =
+:{{defend|# |Ryhmään kuuluminen on ihmiselle luontainen tarve ja yksi tärkeimpiä motivaattoreita.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+:{{defend|# |Ryhmätyönä on helppo jakaa tehtäviä niille joilla on osaamista ja mahdollisuuksia tehdä asioita.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+:{{defend|# |Koska jaetun ymmärryksen tuottaminen on avointa, on ymmärrettävä mikä motivoi ihmisiä koska  se parantaa osallistumista ja laatua.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+:{{defend|# |Ryhmässä yksilöt tukevat ja parantavat toistensa suorituksia.|--[[Käyttäjä:Heta|Heta]] ([[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Heta|keskustelu]]) 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45 (UTC)}}
+}}
+{{keskustelu
+| Väittämät = Yhteenvetämisen taito
+| Ratkaisu =
+| Argumentaatio =
+}}
+{{keskustelu
+| Väittämät = Tavoitteellisuus
+| Ratkaisu =
+| Argumentaatio =
+}}
+{{keskustelu
+| Väittämät = Syysuhteet
+| Ratkaisu =
+| Argumentaatio =
+}}
+{{keskustelu
+| Väittämät = Arvostus
+| Ratkaisu =
+| Argumentaatio =
+}}
+{{keskustelu
+| Väittämät = Uusiokäyttö
+| Ratkaisu =
+| Argumentaatio =
+}}
+{{keskustelu
+| Väittämät = Seuranta ja ohjaus
+| Ratkaisu =
+| Argumentaatio =
 }}
@@ Rivi 1 866: / Rivi 1 929: @@
 == Kirjallisuuskatsaus ==
-'''Kohteellisuus
-:V. Prosessien seuraaminen vaikeutuu
-:V. Ei ole luonnollista tapaa kuvata kaikkia asioita koska niitä on liikaa ja ne ovat kontekstisidonnaisia.
-:V. Eriävät mielipiteet eivät tule kunnolla käsitellyiksi jos pyritään yhteen kuvaukseen.
-'''Avoimuus.
-:V. Tiedonkeruu ei voi perustua joukkoistamiseen vaan pitää olla nimetty työryhmä jonka vastuulla on tiedon kerääminen tarpeellisessa laajuudessa.
-:V. Avoimuus karkottaa näkökulmia jotka ovat tärkeitä mutta pohjautuvat arkoihin tai salaisiin tietoihin.
-:V. Ulkopuoliset pyrkivät sotkemaan asioita ja tämä estää laittamasta keskeneräisiä asioita julkisesti nähtäville.
-'''Kritiikki.
-:P. Hyvät suunnitelmat kestävät paremmin kritiikkiä kuin huonot ja tämän on hyvä paljastua nopeasti. Kritiikki nostaa esiin myös korjausehdotuksia ongelmakohtiin.
-:P. Kritiikin mahdollisuus innostaa osallistamaan ja ihmiset tuovat enemmän hyviä näkemyksiä.
-:P. Valtaapitävien arvostelu on demokraattisen järjestelmän keskeisiä oikeuksia.
-'''Ryhmäytyminen.
-:P. Ryhmään kuuluminen on ihmiselle luontainen tarve ja yksi tärkeimpiä motivaattoreita.
-:P. Ryhmätyönä on helppo jakaa tehtäviä niille joilla on osaamista ja mahdollisuuksia tehdä asioita.
-:P. Koska jaetun ymmärryksen tuottaminen on avointa, on ymmärrettävä mikä motivoi ihmisiä koska  se parantaa osallistumista ja laatua.
-:P. Ryhmässä yksilöt tukevat ja parantavat toistensa suorituksia.
 '''Utility of openness in knowledge production 1-5

Ero sivun ”Keskustelu:Tiedolla johtamisen menetelmät ja työkalut” versioiden välillä

Versio 6. lokakuuta 2016 kello 06.45

Sisällys

Tiivistelmä

Perustelut jaetun ymmärryksen käyttöönotolle päätösvalmistelussa

Ohjeita työhön

Hakuja Web of Sciencesta

Decision making and knowledge production

Evidence-based policy

Evidence-informed policy making

Kirjallisuuskatsaus

Navigointivalikko