What Works: Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services

2001 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 504-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Godfrey
2002 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Packwood

The drive in the late 1990s for an evidence-based approach to both policy and practice throughout public services has been encoded in a range of articles, operationalised in funded organisations, and implemented through government policy. This paper intends to review some of those articles, organizations and education policies to give an overview of the way in which the approach has been constructed and to make problematic some of the underlying assumptions.


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalind Edwards ◽  
Val Gillies ◽  
Nicola Horsley

In this article, we highlight some critical matters in the way that an issue is framed as a problem in policymaking and the consequent means of taming that problem, in focussing on the use and implications of neuroscientific discourse of brain claims in early intervention policy and practice. We draw on three sets of analyses: of the contradictory set of motifs framing the state of ‘evidence’ of what works in intervention in the early years; of the (mis)use of neuroscientific discourse to frame deficient parenting as causing inequalities and support particular policy directions; and of the way that early years practitioners adopt brain claims to tame the problem of deficient parenting. We argue that using expedient brain claims as a framing and taming justification is entrenching gendered and classed understandings and inequalities.


2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M. Walker ◽  
Emma L. Jeanes ◽  
Robert O. Rowlands

<i>Managing Public Services Innovation</i> provides an in-depth exploration of innovation and its management in the housing association sector. Drawing on longitudinal case studies and data sets, it explores techniques to develop evidence-based policy in the housing association sector, and makes recommendations for best practice.


Author(s):  
Peter Raynor

Social scientists have often had difficulty evaluating the impact of probation services, partly because expectations and political circumstances change and partly because appropriate methodologies have been slow to develop. This chapter outlines the history of evaluative research on probation. It describes the limitations of early probation research which led to erroneous conclusions that ‘nothing works’, and goes on to show how more recent research has been based on a fuller understanding of practitioner inputs through research on programmes, skills and implementation. This is starting to lead to a better understanding of which practices are effective (‘What Works’). The chapter advocates a mixed qualitative and quantitative methodology for evaluative research which combines understanding, measurement and comparison. Finally, it points to some risks to evidence-based policy which arise from current populism and post-truth politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document