scholarly journals Estimating cardiovascular hospitalizations and associated expenses attributable to ambient carbon monoxide in Lanzhou, China: Scientific evidence for policy making

2019 ◽  
Vol 682 ◽  
pp. 514-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian Cheng ◽  
Zhiwei Xu ◽  
Xiaoru Zhang ◽  
Hui Zhao ◽  
Wenbiao Hu
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Monoxide ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Evidence For Policy

scholarly journals Can Indicators Bridge the Gap between Science and Policy? An Exploration into the (Non)Use and (Non)Influence of Indicators in EU and UK Policy Making

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 316-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léa Sébastien ◽  
Tom Bauler ◽  
Markku Lehtonen
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Development Indicators ◽  
Energy Indicators ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Evidence For Policy ◽  
The Eu

This article examines the various roles that indicators, as boundary objects, can play as a science-based evidence for policy processes. It presents two case studies from the EU-funded POINT project that analyzed the use and influence of two highly different types of indicators: composite indicators of sustainable development at the EU level and energy indicators in the UK. In both cases indicators failed as direct input to policy making, yet they generated various types of conceptual and political use and influence. The composite sustainable development indicators served as “framework indicators”, helping to advocate a specific vision of sustainable development, whereas the energy indicators produced various types of indirect influence, including through the process of indicator elaboration. Our case studies demonstrate the relatively limited importance of the characteristics and quality of indicators in determining the role of indicators, as compared with the crucial importance of “user factors” (characteristics of policy actors) and “policy factors” (policy context).

(Not) Proving the Public Good: Scientific Evidence and the Margin of Appreciation

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-262
Author(s):  
Ciarán Burke ◽  
Alexandra Molitorisová
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Legal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Policy Measures ◽  
National Governments

Abstract The article offers a critical look at the complex relationship between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and policy-supportive (scientific) evidence. In particular, due to now commonplace, evidence-based policy-making of national governments, the Court is effectively supplemented with various statistics and studies and tasked with reviewing policy measures aiming to improve the public good. This article investigates the ECtHR’s use and interpretation of policy-supportive evidence in the proportionality analysis, and how this affects the margin of appreciation. The recent case of Dubská and Krejzová concerning the ban on home births, which the article explores in detail, is illustrative in this regard. Although the Court appears to review scientific evidence substantively, an increased proliferation of statistics and studies may bring about controversy in relation to legal cases, without having a conclusive impact upon the outcome of a dispute.

Impact of a course in evidence-informed policy-making on the acquisition of methodological knowledge: Findings from before-and-after studies conducted on three consecutive cohorts of master students

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-311
Author(s):  
Luc Lapointe
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
Master's Students ◽  
Simple Task ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Impact

The practice of evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) consists of systematically searching, analyzing, synthesizing and disseminating the best available research evidence to inform decision-makers about policy problems, policy tools, implementation options, and/or policy evaluation results. Identifying the best available scientific evidence is not a simple task. The vast majority of research evidence contains risks of bias that hinder the reliability of their conclusions. In order to select the soundest available research evidence, policy analysts need to know how to critically appraise research evidence and identify different risks of bias. Formal theories on expertise acquisition in public bureaucracies suggest that these skills and knowledge should be acquired within academia rather than within governmental agencies. We thus created a 45-hour course in EIPM, POL-7061, that was first offered in 2012 to students enrolled in the Master’s Program in Public Affairs at Université Laval (Québec, Canada). The course mainly teaches techniques for searching and appraising different types of empirical studies. In 2013, we conducted a before-and-after study to assess the impact of the course on the methodological knowledge of the students. We repeated the exercise on two consecutive cohorts in 2014 and 2015. Mean percent of pre-post improvement on the knowledge test was 37% for the 2013 cohort, 51% for the 2014 cohort and 31% for the cohort of 2015. Teaching techniques in EIPM to Master’s students in public affairs is thus feasible and can have a positive impact on their basic methodological knowledge.

scholarly journals Evidence for Policy Making: Health Services Access and Regional Disparities in Kerman

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 35-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mina Anjomshoa ◽  
Seyyed Meysam Mousavi ◽  
Hesam Seyedin ◽  
Aidin Ariankhesal ◽  
Jamil Sadeghifar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Services ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Regional Disparities ◽  
Health Services Access ◽  
Evidence For Policy

Evidence, Inference and Enquiry

2011 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Health History ◽  
University College London ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Evidence For Policy ◽  
Based Medicine

Evidence — its nature and interpretation — is the key to many topical debates and concerns such as global warming, evolution, the search for weapons of mass destruction, DNA profiling, and evidence-based medicine. In 2004, University College London launched a cross-disciplinary research programme ‘Evidence, Inference and Enquiry’ to explore the question: ‘Can there be an integrated multidisciplinary science of evidence?’ While this question was hotly contested and no clear final consensus emerged, much was learned on the journey. This book, based on the closing conference of the programme held at the British Academy in December 2007, illustrates the complexity of the subject, with seventeen chapters written from a diversity of perspectives including Archaeology, Computer Science, Economics, Education, Health, History, Law, Psychology, Philosophy, and Statistics. General issues covered include principles and systems for handling complex evidence, evidence for policy-making, and human evidence-processing, as well as the very possibility of systematising the study of evidence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document