scholarly journals Parliamentary Evidence Use in Representation

2021 ◽  
pp. 183-208
Author(s):  
Abraham Ibn Zackaria ◽  
Jacqueline Thomas ◽  
Ressida Begg ◽  
Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Simon Turner ◽  
Danielle D´Lima ◽  
Jessica Sheringham ◽  
Nick Swart ◽  
Emma Hudson ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 1043-1055
Author(s):  
Gaby Umbach

This article1 offers reflections on the use of data as evidence in 21st century policy-making. It discusses the concept of evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) as well as the governance and knowledge effects of data as evidence. With this focus, it interlinks the analysis of statistics and politics. The paper first introduces the concept of EIPM and the impact of evidence use. Here it focusses on science and knowledge as resources in policy-making, on the institutionalisation of science advice and on the translation of information and knowledge into evidence. The second part of the article reflects on data as evidence. This part concentrates on abstract and concrete functions of data as governance tools in policy-making, on data as a robust form of evidence and on the effects of data on knowledge and governance. The third part highlights challenges for data as evidence in policy-making, among them, politicisation, transparency, and diversity as well as objectivity and contestation. Finally, the last part draws conclusions on the production and use of data as evidence in EIPM. Throughout the second part of the reflections, reference is made to Walter Radermacher’s 2019 matrix of actors and activities related to data, facts, and policy published in this journal.


2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 469-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Brown ◽  
Dell Zhang

Purpose – Whilst beneficial, the use of evidence to improve teaching and learning in schools is proving difficult to achieve in practice. The purpose of this paper is to shed new light on this issue by examining the applicability of a model of rational behaviour as relates to the notion of evidence-informed practice (EIP). Specifically, exploring the question: “if EIP is rational behavior, why are not all teachers engaged in it?”, the authors examine whether the beliefs and perspectives of teachers in relation to EIP, align with their evidence-use behaviours. The authors then assess what factors prevent teachers/schools from engaging in EIP. Design/methodology/approach – To examine beliefs, instances of, and barriers to evidence use, the authors employ a Gradient Boosted Tree predictive model to analyse data from a survey of 696 practitioners in 79 schools. Findings – The findings suggest that, should they wish to increase EIP within their schools, school leaders need to: first, promote the vision for evidence-use (i.e. actively encourage its use); second, illustrate how research and evidence can be effectively employed to enhance aspects of teaching and learning; and third, establish effective learning environments, in which learning conversations around the use of evidence, can flourish. Originality/value – Using a new, innovative model of rationality, the authors conclude that despite the focus on EIP in many school systems world-wide, evidence use will never be meaningfully realized unless school leaders prioritize EIP as a school commitment. Simultaneously, given the high-stakes accountability environments facing many school systems it is unlikely that prioritization of EIP will occur until EIP forms part of any education system’s accountability regime.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Elisa Aiassa ◽  
Laura Martino ◽  
Fulvio Barizzone ◽  
Laura Ciccolallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Bev J. Holmes

Many articles over the last two decades have enumerated barriers to and facilitators for evidence use in health systems. Bowen et al’s article "Response to Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering with University-Based Researchers: A Call to ‘Re-imagine Research’" furthers the debate by focusing on an under-explored research area (health system design and health service organization) with an under-studied stakeholder group (health system leaders), by undertaking a broad program of research on partnerships, and, based on participant responses, by calling for re-imagining of research itself. In response to the claim that the research community is not providing expertise to this pressing issue in the health system, I provide four high level reasons: partnerships mean different things to different people, our language does not reflect the reality we want, our health systems have yet to fully embrace evidence use, and complexity is easier to talk about than act within. Bowen et al’s study, and their broader program of research, is well-placed to explore these issues further, helping identify appropriate researcher-health system leader partnership models for various health system change projects. Given the positive shifts identified in this study, and the knowledge that participants demonstrate about what needs to change, the time is right for bold action, re-imagining not only research, but healthcare, such that the production and use of evidence for better health is embraced and supported.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Odlum ◽  
Rosemary James ◽  
Audrey Mahieu ◽  
Karl Blanchet ◽  
Chiara Altare ◽  
...  

Abstract Background For humanitarian organisations to respond effectively to complex crises, they require access to up-to-date evidence-based guidance. The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of updating global guidance to context-specific and evolving needs in humanitarian settings. Our study aimed to understand the use of evidence-based guidance in humanitarian responses during COVID-19. Primary data collected during the rapidly evolving pandemic sheds new light on evidence-use processes in humanitarian response. Methods We collected and analysed COVID-19 guidance documents, and conducted semi-structured interviews remotely with a variety of humanitarian organisations responding and adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic. We used the COVID-19 Humanitarian platform, a website established by three universities in March 2020, to solicit, collate and document these experiences and knowledge. Results We analysed 131 guidance documents and conducted 80 interviews with humanitarian organisations, generating 61 published field experiences. Although COVID-19 guidance was quickly developed and disseminated in the initial phases of the crisis (from January to May 2020), updates or ongoing revision of the guidance has been limited. Interviews conducted between April and September 2020 showed that humanitarian organisations have responded to COVID-19 in innovative and context-specific ways, but have often had to adapt existing guidance to inform their operations in complex humanitarian settings. Conclusions Experiences from the field indicate that humanitarian organisations consulted guidance to respond and adapt to COVID-19, but whether referring to available guidance indicates evidence use depends on its accessibility, coherence, contextual relevance and trustworthiness. Feedback loops through online platforms like the COVID-19 Humanitarian platform that relay details of these evidence-use processes to global guidance setters could improve future humanitarian response.


2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jed Duff ◽  
Margaret Butler ◽  
Menna Davies ◽  
Robyn Williams ◽  
Jannelle Carlile

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document