Search results

Several governments in Canada have made commitments to adopting evidence-based policy development. Several obstacles to the adoption of this approach have been identified in the policy literature. However, this literature has lacked an economic perspective. This is unfortunate, since economics has produced the most fully developed normative theory of government policy in the social sciences and humanities. The main elements of this theory are the theory of market failure and the theory of non-market failure, and the integration of those two elements in what Charles Wolf called implementation analysis. The Austrian economics tradition also offers the implications of what is often called Hayek’s knowledge problem and the lessons learned from the economic calculation debate as contributions to the understanding of the challenges facing the application of evidence-based policy. The authors propose adding four economic elements to the current model of evidence-based policy development: (1) providing sufficient and convincing evidence that a market failure has occurred; (2) providing sufficient and convincing evidence that a non-market failure is unlikely to occur or if it does occur the damages from the non-market failure will be less serious than the harm resulting from the market failure; (3) an appreciation of the distributed and conflicted character of social knowledge; and (4) the technical challenges involved in constructing a social preference order. The authors illustrate the application of the economic approach to evidence-based policy with an example from rural land use policy in Ontario.

A translation framework and associated processes and activities for bridging the research-to-practice gap in early childhood intervention are described. Translational processes and activities include methods and procedures for identifying evidence-based practices, translating findings from research evidence into early childhood intervention procedures, and promoting practitioners’ and parents’ routine use of the practices. The framework includes four interrelated processes and activities. Type 1 translation uses research findings to develop evidence-based practices. Type 2 translation involves the use of evidence-based professional development (implementation) practices to promote practitioners’ and parents’ use of evidence-based early childhood intervention practices. Type 3 translation includes activities to evaluate whether the use of evidence-based practices as part of routine early intervention have expected benefits and outcomes. Type 4 translation includes activities for the dissemination, diffusion, and promotion of broad-based adoption and use of evidence-based practices. Examples of each type of translation are described as are implications for practice.

This chapter examines evidence-based practice in the Australian education system, with particular reference to special education. Initially a brief overview of the Australian education system will be provided, followed by consideration of the incorporation of the concept of evidence-based practice into Australian educational policy at both national and state level. Subsequently, Australian teacher registration and teacher education program accreditation standards will be examined with regard to the adoption of evidence-based practice. We then describe the use of evidence-based practices in teacher education programs, particularly in the area of classroom and behavior management and in special education/inclusion subjects. We will overview several research studies to illustrate the degree of penetration of the concept of evidence-based practice into educational systems and teaching practice. Although we found little evidence of a commitment to evidence-based practice in Australian education systems beyond rhetoric, we are cautiously optimistic that increasing emphasis will be given to the use of empirical evidence in the future.

The relatively recent attention that evidence-based decision making has received in health care management has been at least in part due to the profound influence of evidence-based medicine. The result has been several comparisons in the literature between the use of evidence in health care management decisions and the use of evidence in medical decision making. Direct comparison, however, may be problematic, given the differences between medicine and management as they relate to (1) the nature of evidence that is brought to bear on decision making; (2) the maturity of empirical research in each field (in particular, studies that have substantiated whether or not and how evidence-based decision making is enacted); and (3) the context within which evidence-based decisions are made. By simultaneously reviewing evidence-based medicine and management, this chapter aims to inform future theorizing and empirical research on evidence-based decision making in health care settings.

This article critically analyses the concept of evidence in evidence‐based policy, arguing that there is a key problem: there is no existing practicable theory of evidence, one which is philosophically‐grounded and yet applicable for evidence‐based policy. The article critically considers both philosophical accounts of evidence and practical treatments of evidence in evidence‐based policy. It argues that both fail in different ways to provide a theory of evidence that is adequate for evidence‐based policy. The article contributes to the debate about how evidence can and should be used to reduce contingency in science and in policy based on science.

Ambiguities in the term ‘evidence‐based practice’ (EBP) are often used to hide some of the tensions within the idea itself. This article seeks to clarify what EBP means and how evidence and knowledge can contribute to the development of children's services. It acknowledges the ‘implementation gap’ between evidence‐based practice and evidence‐based practitioners, and discusses two contrasting perspectives on the problem and its solution. For ‘disseminators’ the primary issue is better translation of findings into practice, illustrated here by the work of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). ‘Revisionists’ look beyond obstacles and drivers to implementation and instead advocate looking again at the relationship between research and practice and propose a number of radical proposals for how this relationship can be re‐envisioned.

The purpose of this paper is to integrate existing body of knowledge on evidence‐based management, develop a theory of evidence, and propose a model of evidence‐based decision making.

Following a literature review, the paper takes a conceptual approach toward developing a theory of evidence and a process model of decision making. Formal research propositions amplify both theory and model.

The paper suggests that decision making is at the heart of management practice. It underscores the importance of both research and experiential evidence for making professionally sound managerial decisions. It argues that the strength of evidence is a function of its rigor and relevance manifested by methodological fit, relevance to the context, transparency of its findings, replicability of the evidence, and the degree of consensus within the decision community. A multi‐stage mixed level model of evidence‐based decision making is proposed with suggestions for future research.

An explicit, formal, and systematic collaboration at the global level among the producers of evidence and its users akin to the Cochrane Collaboration will ensure sound evidence, contribute to decision quality, and enable professionalization of management practice.

The unique value contribution of this paper comes from a critical review of the evidence‐based management literature, the articulation of a formal theory of evidence, and the development of a model for decision making driven by the theory of evidence.

The demand for evidence‐based health practices has created a cultural challenge for Indigenous people around the world. This paper reports on the history and evolution of evidence‐based care into its mainstream status within the behavioural health field. Through the leadership of an Alaska Native tribal organisation, an international forum was convened to address the challenges of evidence‐based practice for Indigenous people. Forum participants developed a model for gathering evidence that integrates rigorous research with Indigenous knowledge and values. The model facilitates development of practices and programmes that are culturally congruent for Indigenous people, accepted and validated by the research community, and deemed supportable by private and governmental sponsors.

The rise of evidence‐based medicine and more recently evidence‐based policy reflect the increasing importance of evidence as a basis for the organisation and delivery of health care. Evidence‐based practice is central to the “modernisation” of health care in current UK policy. The latest manifestation of this process is the emergence of evidence‐based management in health care. This paper examines the development of evidence‐based approaches in health care and questions the appropriateness of such an approach to management. The problems inherent in applying the principles of EBP to management are explored and alternative apporoach based on the notion of craft is suggesteed as more practical and realistic.

The purpose of this article is to explore the understanding and interpretation of evidence‐based practice among Sure Start centre managers.

Semi‐structured interviews were carried out with Children's Centre managers from one London borough.

The interviews highlighted the varied and, for some limited, view of evidence‐based practice. For many managers their understanding was confined to evidence generated locally rather than perceiving a role for externally‐generated evidence to support effective practice. Managers also highlighted the constraints they face in taking what some perceive to be an evidence‐based approach.

Although Sure Start Children's Centres are one of the main sites for delivering evidence‐based interventions to improve outcomes for young children and families in the UK, and despite Government announcements promoting the use of evidence‐based practice in these settings, little is known about the knowledge and interpretation of managers on this issue or the difficulties of translating ideas into practice on the ground. Thus, there is a danger that some of the potential benefits of evidence‐based practice may be lost if this disconnect between policy and practice is not addressed.