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.

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.

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.

Ministers are always calling for more evidence‐based interventions. Do they apply the same criterion to their own work of making policy? Perhaps surprisingly, policy making is not an evidence‐free zone. However, it is important to understand the ways in which policy makers in different situations will use information differently, count different kinds of information as evidence, and so exercise different styles of judgment.

The purpose of this paper, using an evidence‐based management theoretical lens, is to examine research impact to provide guidance to supply chain management academics in evidencing and exploiting the outputs, outcomes and impact of their research.

Evidence‐based management theory is examined and applied to types of academic research impact. The distinction between academic and non‐academic impact is developed into a supply chain framework of research outputs, transfer, outcomes, impact and national/international benefits. Impact of supply chain management research is explored through a case study in the English National Health Service. Future opportunities and challenges for supply chain management researchers arising from increasing demand for and supply of evidence are discussed.

Author academic impact and citations are found to be increasingly important building blocks of evidence‐based evaluations of individual academics, journals, research quality assessments of groups and universities, and global rankings of universities. Supply chain management researchers can compare their impact with other areas of academia. Non‐academic impact of research has been assessed by funders of research projects and has spread to research quality assessments of universities.

Bibliometrics provide evidence of author and journal impact that can be used in human resource decisions, research quality assessments and global rankings of universities; this availability enables a debate on appropriate use of academic impact evidence. Supply chain management academics evidencing non‐academic research impact on business, society and economy will enable governments and funders of research to evaluate value for money return on their investment.

This perspective of evidence‐based evaluation of research impact and its implications might encourage debate on academic and non‐academic impact and encourage supply chain researchers to consider evidencing impact in their research design and methodology.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to consider “equality mainstreaming” as an international policy and to explore some of the implications this raises for public management.

Design/Methodology/Approach – The methodology is based on literature review looking at the way gender mainstreaming practices have developed a wider application to equality mainstreaming. Examining the relationship between mainstreaming and evidence-based management, it comments on the challenges this poses for public management.

Findings – Equality mainstreaming and its implications have been largely absent from public management discourse despite the growth of equality mainstreaming in international policy.

Research limitations/Implications – Research in public management should address mainstreaming and its potential for social change.

Practical implications – This chapter brings this issue to the forefront in an effort to engage academics and public managers.

Social implications – This chapter raises theoretical questions about mainstreaming and social change in favor of equality. It is a starting point for further research on public management as a tool for shifting organizational and societal values.

Originality/Value – The chapter provides an overview of previous literature and policy development in this area and then moves on to explore the implications of extending mainstreaming as a concept to other policy areas and examines both challenges and opportunities raised by this approach for the management of values in public services.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and assess barriers and opportunities for evidence-based management (EBMgt) and decision-making in healthcare systems of the small island developing states (SIDSs) of English-speaking Caribbean.

The study utilized grounded theory to collect and analyze data on experiences and perceptions of 20 senior managers/leaders from seven Ministries of health in the region. It used semi-structured, in-depth interviews comprising open-ended questions. Data analysis comprised open, focused and theoretical coding.

EBMgt and decision-making is not a prominent approach taken by top officials of health systems because of internal and external barriers to its use. Indeed the absence of a culture of decision-making based on evidence pervades the public services of Caribbean island states. Notwithstanding, there are opportunities for meaningful application of this management/leadership strategy.

To the author’s knowledge, this is the first assessment of the application of EBMgt to health systems of SIDSs of the Caribbean. This paper is concerned with the approach to decision-making in health systems across island states and lends support to the use of evidence in decision-making and policy development. It provides useful direction for policy makers, and senior managers/leaders of these systems.

The shift from data-informed to data-driven educational policymaking is conceptually framed by institutional and transhumanist perspectives. Examples of the shift to large-scale quantitative data driving educational decision-making suggest that data-driven educational policy will not adjust for context to the degree as done by the data-informed or data-based policymaking. Instead, the algorithmization of educational decision-making is both increasingly realizable and necessary in light of the overwhelmingly big data on education produced annually around the world. Evidence suggests that the isomorphic shift from localized data and individual decision-making about education to large-scale assessment data has changed the nature of educational decision-making and national educational policy. Big data are increasingly legitimized in educational policy communities at national and international levels, which means that algorithms are assumed to be the best way to analyze and make decisions about large volumes of complex data. There is a conceptual concern, however, that decontextualized or de-humanized educational policies may have the effect of increasing student achievement, but not necessarily the translation of knowledge into economically, socially, or politically productive behavior.

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) count for over 80% of premature death worldwide. More than 76% of the total burden of diseases in Iran is devoted to NCDs. In line with the World Health Organization action plan, Iran has developed its national action plan that led to establishment of the National Committee for Prevention and Control of NCDs (INCDC), whose aim is 30% mortality reduction attributed to NCDs by 2030. The stewardship of health system is the cornerstone of performing and sustaining meaningful actions toward prevention and control of NCDs. The literature is tiny on how to materialize the stewardship and governance of health system. The purpose of this article is to report the findings of a national study that aimed to identity functions and subfunctions of stewardship of NCDs and its related risk factors in Iran.

This is a qualitative study. The authors conducted interviews with 18 purposefully selected interviewees until the authors reached saturation. Thematic content analysis was used for analysis and MAXQDA 10 was employed for data management. The difficulty of coordinating with interviewers and health policymakers in the field slowed the process of research progress.

The authors identified seven themes and categorized them as main functions for appropriate stewardship of NCDs in Iran, including intelligence generation; strategic framework; evidence-based policies/decisions; system design; resource allocation/development; capacity-building and enforcement/alignment; and categorized them as important.

The seven themes presented as stewardship functions include concepts and practical examples of the experiences and performance of leading countries in the field of NCDs control that can help policymakers and health managers for better descion-making.

Iran adopted its national action plan in 2015 and WHO selected Iran as a fast-track country in 2017. The study confirmed that to achieve the global targets, appropriate and contextual stewardship for any specific setting is fundamental. Iran needs to improve its stewardship for prevention and control of NCDs and implement its national action plan. Therefore, the functions and policies outlined in this article for the proper performance of NCDs can improve more meaningful practices in this area in Iran and many other countries.

The “two communities” metaphor for the relationship between policy and academia is inconsistent with empirical evidence that shows that a sizeable minority of public servants use academic research in their policy-related work. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the two communities metaphor by comparing the personal and professional characteristics of Australian public servants who claim to use research in their policy work with the characteristics of those who claim not to use research.

Using data from a survey of 2,084 public servants from the state and federal levels in Australia carried out from 2011 to 2013, tests of statistical significance were conducted for the relationship between some personal and professional characteristics (e.g. gender, age, work experience) and the claim that research is used in policy-related work.

The “two communities” metaphor is not an accurate description of the relationship between policy and academia. In reality, public servants who claim to use academic research in their policy work are more likely to have much in common with academics, including having postgraduate degrees and work experience in the university sector.

Rather than existing as isolated solitudes, the findings in this paper suggest that the policy and academic communities possess links that can encourage the use of research in policy making.

The findings presented in this paper are especially important for the evidence-based policy movement, which emphasises the value of the use of research evidence in the creation of public policy.