Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice

Description

Evidence & Policy is the first peer-reviewed journal dedicated to comprehensive and critical treatment of the relationship between research evidence and the concerns of policy makers and practitioners, as well as researchers. International in scope and interdisciplinary in focus, it addresses the needs of those who provide public services, and those who provide the research base for evaluation and development across a wide range of social and public policy issues - from social care to education, from public health to criminal justice. As well as more traditional research articles, the journal includes contemporary debate pieces, articles from practice and an invaluable sources and resources section.

  • Impact factor
    0.00
  • 5-year impact
    0.00
  • Cited half-life
    0.00
  • Immediacy index
    0.00
  • Eigenfactor
    0.00
  • Article influence
    0.00
  • Website
    Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice website
  • Other titles
    Evidence & policy (Online), Evidence and policy
  • ISSN
    1744-2648
  • OCLC
    60617224
  • Material type
    Document, Periodical, Internet resource
  • Document type
    Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article investigates the role of locally based research and development units (R&Ds) focusing on health and social services. Nearly 300 local R&Ds are funded by the Swedish government with the intention to facilitate knowledge transfer and development of high quality and effective health and social care organisations. Based on analyses of archival data on aims, activities and outputs of R&Ds focusing on care for older people the authors argue that local R&Ds have potentials to act as knowledge brokers, change agents and researchers, but these overlapping roles need clarified strategies and enactment of a variety of skills.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 09/2014; 10.
  • Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 08/2014; 10(3).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper examines notions of power in relation to evidence-informed policy making and explores four key areas. First, I outline contemporary conceptualisations of how power operates in society; second, I spotlight the implications of power inequalities for how evidence is used by policy makers (and present the policy 'agora'; a discursively controlled paradigm of ideology and epistemology which serves to distinguish between the types of evidence that policy makers will and won't engage with); third, I then define what I consider as evidence 'misuse'; before finishing with an analysis of why evidence misuse materialises and how its enactment might be minimised.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 08/2014; 10(3).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Much of the evidence translation literature focuses narrowly on the use of evidence in the initial policy formulation stages, and downplays the crucial role of institutions and the inherently political nature of policy making. More recent approaches acknowledge the importance of institutional and political factors, but make no attempt to incorporate their influence into new models of evidence translation. To address this issue, this article uses data from a comparative case study of bowel cancer screening policy in Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, to propose alternative models of evidence incorporation which apply to all stages of the policy process.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 08/2014; 10(3).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The last 20 years have seen significant international shifts towards greater patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research and development (R and D). In England, then first health R and D strategy in 1991 did not mention PPI. Twenty years later, PPI is deeply embedded within the National Institute for Health Research. This article examines the evolving relationship between evidence and policy on PPI in research through a documentary analysis of English health R and D policy documents published between 1991 and 2010. It then considers what model of the research-policy interface best explains the expansion of PPI in research and why this is important.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 08/2014; 10(3).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to conduct comparative analysis about the views and practices of policy makers and researchers on the use of health systems evidence in policy making in selected Eastern Mediterranean countries. We analysed data from two self-reported surveys, one targeted at policy makers and the other at researchers. Results show a wide gap between policy makers and researchers when comparing perceptions on factors influencing the policy-making process and use of evidence in health policy making. Findings highlight specific areas for undertaking knowledge translation activities and implementing interventions to narrow the gap between policy makers and researchers.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 08/2014; 10(3).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Effective knowledge translation processes are critical for the development of evidence-based public health policy and practice. This paper reports on the design and implementation of an innovative approach to knowledge translation within a mixed methods study on lay involvement in public health programme delivery. The study design drew on scientific and experiential knowledge, and included iterative feedback loops to ensure that lay and professional perspectives shaped the research process and dissemination outputs. The paper concludes by discussing the application of this approach as a means to close the knowledge-practice gap in public health.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 08/2014; 10(3).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our study responds to calls for theory-driven approaches to studying innovation diffusion processes in health care. While most research on diffusion in health care is situated at the service delivery level, we study innovations and associated processes that have diffused to the system level, and refer to work on complex adaptive systems and whole systems change to guide our work. System-level diffusion not only involves the spread of innovations across sector boundaries in a system, it may alter interactions and care delivery within multiple system components, change the nature of the interdependencies between components, and ultimately lead to whole systems change.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 08/2014; 10(3).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The investment of decision makers in research can increase the likelihood that relevant and timely practice-based research questions are asked and that these findings are readily taken up into policy and practice. While many positive benefits may be gained from this type of research, various challenges may also arise along the way. These include: unpredictable practice settings and a change in priorities or study focus over time; time and staff workload; decision maker research knowledge and experience; and balancing applied research with good scientific practice. In this paper, we discuss these challenges and offer recommendations for overcoming them.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Climate policy is typically seen as informed by scientific evidence that anthropogenic carbon emissions require reducing in order to avoid dangerous consequences. However, agreement on these matters has not translated into effective policy. Using interviews with local authority officials in the UK's East Midlands region, this paper argues that the ideas, arguments and data informing local climate policy have been grounded in evidence from the natural sciences. Focusing on carbon emissions data demonstrated a consensus around scientific knowledge, not local policy responses to this knowledge. Acknowledging this 'mistaken consensus' provides the potential to utilise evidence more attentive to local contexts.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2014; 10(2).
  • Source
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2014; 10(2).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context conditions the nature of policy development. The relationship between evidence and policy is similarly conditioned in terms of the types of evidence deployed to address specific policy matters. This raises a number of interesting questions: how are different types of evidence best classified? Are there systematic linkages between context and evidence type? Do different forms of evidence hold greater sway at different points of the policy cycle? Antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy – and the way in which ASB policy in Scotland and England has diverged over time – offers a good vehicle for exploring these propositions and their implications.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2014; 10(1).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conservation-with-development landscapes, such as UNESCO's Man and Biosphere Reserves, differentiate between areas of 'nature' and 'society'. In Paraguay's Mbaracayú Biosphere Reserve, as elsewhere, this model has been used to support governance that focuses on conservation in the 'core area' and sustainable development in the 'buffer zone'. Such interventions are supported by evidence of biodiversity and threats to biodiversity. This paper challenges this divide by discussing other evidence relevant to governance: the social, political and economic influences that have shaped the Mbaracayú landscape. Accounting for this kind of evidence is likely to lead to greater appropriateness and acceptance of governance approaches.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2014; 10(2).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Taking an interpretive approach to evidence-based policy, this article illustrates the rhetorical and situated uses of evidence in two case studies of local cultural policy. Broadly defined as policy-relevant knowledge, evidence is selectively used by council officers in the development, delivery, and evaluation of arts programmes at two Australian municipalities. This article identifies four main uses of evidence in this context: rituals of accountability, advocacy, programme design, and improving practice. A narrow definition of evidence as scientific data or research would fail to account for the broad range of knowledge that informs the practice of local cultural policy.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2014; 10(2).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Knowledge mobilisation (KMb) attempts to address research-policy-practice gaps in education. Research brokering organisations (RBOs) are third party, intermediary organisations whose active role between research producers and users is a catalyst for research use in education. Sample: 44 Canadian RBOs in the education sector. Methodology: employed a new tool to measure KMb efforts of organisations using data from websites. Findings: typology of RBOs (governmental, not-for-profit, for-profit and membership), organisational features of RBOs (mission statements, target audiences, size, scope, operating expenses, KMb efforts), and eight brokering functions (linkage and partnerships, awareness, accessibility, engagement, capacity building, implementation support, organisational development and policy influence).
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2014; 10(1).
  • Source
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2014; 10(1).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Policy makers today rely primarily on technical data as their basis for decision making. Yet, there is a potentially underestimated value in substantive reflections of the members of the public who will be affected by a particular regulation. Viewing professional policy makers and professional commenters as a community of practice, we describe their limited shared repertoire with the lay members of the public as a significant barrier to participation. Based on our work with Regulation Room, we offer an initial typology of narratives – complexity, contributory context, unintended consequences, and reframing – as a first step towards overcoming conceptual barriers to effective civic engagement in policy making.
    Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 01/2014; 10(2).