When Experiments Need Models

2021 ◽  
pp. 004839312110085
Author(s):  
Donal Khosrowi
Keyword(s):  
General Framework ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Causal Effects ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Important Type ◽  
Evidence Based Policy

This paper argues that an important type of experiment-target inference, extrapolating causal effects, requires models to be successful. Focusing on extrapolation in Evidence-Based Policy, it is argued that extrapolation should be understood not as an inference from an experiment to a target directly, but as a hybrid inference that involves experiments and models. A general framework, METI, is proposed to capture this role of models, and several benefits are outlined: (1) METI highlights epistemically significant interactions between experiments and models, (2) reconciles some differences among existing accounts of experiment-target relationships, and (3) facilitates critical appraisal of inferential practices from experiments.

scholarly journals El uso de la información en los procesos de políticas: Tensiones epistemológicas y del contexto decisional en la Política Nacional de Evaluación de la Educación en México

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liliana Valladares
Keyword(s):  
National Policy ◽  
Educational Evaluation ◽  
Educational Policies ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy Cycle ◽  
Evidence Based Policy

One of the objectives of the National Policy for Educational Evaluation in Mexico (PNEE) is to support the design of educational policies based on the information provided by the evaluation results. This paper argues that the use of information in policy processes is undergoing a strong debate about the role of knowledge in public decisions. This debate is addressed through the description of five tensions that are presented in the epistemological and decisional dimensions associated with the policy cycle. It is proposed that the analysis and reflection around these tensions can enrich the understanding of the evidence-based policy approach and contribute, with new theoretical elements, to the design of the actions and measures proposed by 

scholarly journals Engineering advice in policy making: a new domain of inquiry in evidence and policy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam C.G. Cooper ◽  
Lorenzo Marvulli ◽  
Katie Black ◽  
John Holmes ◽  
Harshal Mehta
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
The Public ◽  
Policy Practice ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
Engineering Team ◽  
Related Science ◽  
Engineering Practices

Most, if not all empirical research on evidence-based policy has three features: firstly, it typically focuses on the application of science and scientific expertise on policy; secondly, it is executed by ‘outsider’ researchers who are not part of the public administration or policy-making process but observers of it (for example, Stevens, 2010); and thirdly, the major topical focus is in social policy areas such as health, education and crime (Oliver et al, 2014). This study advances the perspectives on evidence-based policy making by exploring the role of engineering expertise in policy making. We first make the case that, although related, science and engineering represent different epistemic communities in relation to policy practice. This difference, we argue, can give rise to particular styles of interaction that can make the governance of engineering expertise in policy making different to that for science or scientists. We then report on the findings of a study of the relationship between a new engineering team in a UK ministry with a technical portfolio and the policy colleagues they worked with across a range of programme areas. Through 18 interviews with policy officials, we identify a range of interactions that imply a need to consider styles of management and approaches to internal deployment of experts within policy organisations, as well as the implications for policy making and engineering expertise, given the way policy and engineering practices overlap.<br /><br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Engineering advice has never been properly identified and studied in the academic social science literature to date.</li><br /><li>Engineering advice is an important and potent source of evidence in policy making in topical areas like energy policy.</li><br /><li>In contrast to science advice, engineering advice as a practice significantly overlaps with policy practice meaning important conflict or complementarity is possible, dependent on how the advice is deployed.</li></ul>

Opportunistic evidence: evidence-based policy in the setting of the Australian Government's chlamydia screening pilot

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
Simon R. Crouch
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Good Health ◽  
Chlamydia Screening ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Evidence Based Policy

Objective. Chlamydia prevention and control form a significant part of the Australian Government’s sexual health policy. This paper examines the evidence for policy development and in particular the role of systematic reviews in evidence-based policy. Methods. The author undertook a review of the literature on evidence-based policy. The major theories for evidence-based policy were then linked to the Australian Government’s main chlamydia policy. Results. A systematic review on chlamydia screening has been influential in policy development, but like all systematic reviews its validity must be assessed. It has been suggested that methodological appropriateness and the question being asked are perhaps more important than study design per se. Partnerships between researchers and policymakers are important but it should be noted that experts have their own particular biases. Policymaking can also be determined by political ideologies. Conclusions and implications. The publication of a systematic review has provided a good summative evaluation of chlamydia screening that has been built upon through partnerships with researchers. The resulting chlamydia screening pilot will provide further evidence for future policy; however, a variety of sources are required to develop robust policy directions. What is known about the topic? Systematic reviews are often considered to be the best evidence on which to base policy decisions. In practice it is not always the case that best evidence is used to form policy. As well as systematic reviews, which are not always infallible, there are many other factors that affect the development of national health policy. What does the paper add? This paper provides a consideration of the role of systematic reviews in policy-making, as well as some of the pitfalls to this approach. As an example, it provides the Australian Government’s policy on chlamydia control and looks at other factors that may have contributed to the development of this policy. What are the implications for practitioners? All practitioners involved in policy decisions should consider the evidence-base from which their policies are derived. They should understand the sound basis of the systematic review while accepting that other pressures may affect the processes leading up to the formation of good health policy.

The privileged role of researchers in “evidence-based” policy: implications and engagement of other voices

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 181-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Ritter
Keyword(s):  
Drug Policy ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Research Translation ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Research Knowledge ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
Ordinary Citizens

Purpose – This paper starts from the familiar premise of evidence-based policy, and examines the active role that researchers play in policy development processes. The interactive nature of much research translation immediately suggests the need to consider the dynamic way in which problems come to be understood, which is explored in this paper. Furthermore, the integration of research knowledge with the knowledges of “ordinary” citizens is a key challenge. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – This paper represents a synthesis of recent studies conducted by the author and her colleagues along with other drug policy literature. Findings – The interactive and dialogic processes that researchers engage with, whether as knowledge brokers or participants in elite policy development forums, have implications for how policy problems (and solutions) come to be constituted. Four perspectives and theoretical approaches are briefly outlined: research design; policy processes; problematization; and critical social sciences analyses. These offer different ways of seeing, understanding and analyzing the relationship between problems, policy solutions and the policy processes. Yet all have lessons for the ways in which research evidence and researchers constitute policy. This needs to sit alongside the role of other drug policy stakeholders – notably the “ordinary” citizen. It is argued that the elite role of research can be tempered with engagement of ordinary citizens. While it can be challenging to reconcile general public views about drugs with the evidence-base, deliberative democracy approaches may hold some promise. Originality/value – This paper draws together a number of central themes for drug policy processes research: where the evidence-based policy paradigm intersects with participatory democracy; how problems are constituted; and the privileged role of research and researchers.

scholarly journals Role of Evidence-Based Reviews in Surgery in teaching critical appraisal skills and in journal clubs

2013 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. E98-E102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Negar Ahmadi ◽  
Luc Dubois ◽  
Marg McKenzie ◽  
Carl Brown ◽  
Anthony MacLean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Journal Clubs ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills

scholarly journals The role of epidemiology in evidence-based policy making: a case study of tobacco use in youth

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 360-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda C. Aldrich ◽  
Bertha Hidalgo ◽  
Rachel Widome ◽  
Peter Briss ◽  
Ross C. Brownson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tobacco Use ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Policy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document