an article by Katherine E Smith (University of Edinburgh, UK) and Heide Weishaar (Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, Germany) published in Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice Volume 14 Number 3 (August 2018)
Abstract
The past two decades witnessed the international consensus around the idea that health policy decisions should be 'evidence-based'. These efforts have stimulated a wealth of studies explicitly concerned with understanding the use of research evidence in policy. The majority of such studies suggest there are few examples of public health policy outcomes that might reasonably be labelled 'evidence-based'.
Only a small number of these studies seek to explore how political dynamics interacted with evidence to shape policy outcomes. Here, we draw on two empirical case studies of efforts to promote public health evidence to decision makers (protection from secondhand smoke in Europe and tackling health inequalities in England), to highlight the primacy of 'policy networks' and 'advocacy' for understanding the role of evidence in achieving policy change.
Reflecting on our empirical findings, we argue that the policy networks literature usefully foregrounds the roles that diverse 'policy actors' can play in connecting research and policy.
However, our case studies also suggest that popular accounts of policy networks, such as Haas' 'epistemic communities' and Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith's Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), overstate the role of core values in driving policy network efforts, while underplaying the role of advocacy, leadership, network communication and trust, scientific consensus, political context and strategic policy trade-offs in network success.
We conclude by arguing for further efforts to connect analyses of policy networks and evidence use. We also reflect on the implications of our findings for those seeking to employ evidence to effect policy change.
Full text (PDF 28pp)
Showing posts with label advocacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advocacy. Show all posts
Thursday, 11 October 2018
Monday, 21 November 2011
Different yet complementary: …
Two approaches to supporting victims of sexual violence in the UK
an article by Amanda Robinson and Kirsty Hudson (Cardiff University) published in Criminology and Criminal Justice Volume 11 Number 5 (November 2011)
Abstract
This article explores the strengths and limitations of two different types of settings that provide specialist support to victims of sexual violence in the UK: Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) and voluntary sector organizations such as Rape Crisis. Qualitative data from six case study sites and quantitative data from 35 sexual violence projects in England and Wales revealed that the type of setting affected the types of referrals received and this, in turn, shaped the services required by victims and thus the nature of the work preformed. Consequently, each type of project had different emphases in their workload with which they were particularly well equipped to handle. Each type also had its own unique challenges; for example, while there were notable benefits from delivering support in partnership models, such as SARCs, their affiliation with statutory partners was perceived by some as a disadvantage, especially for those seeking support in relation to historical sexual abuse. On the other hand, those delivering support in voluntary sector projects had to work harder to establish and maintain relationships with other agencies, but their independence was seen to be greater and this was perceived as a strength for gaining access to victims and maintaining their confidence. Both approaches had notable benefits and, given the diverse array of sexual violence victims in any given area, providing these two different, yet complementary, approaches to supporting them is recommended.
an article by Amanda Robinson and Kirsty Hudson (Cardiff University) published in Criminology and Criminal Justice Volume 11 Number 5 (November 2011)
Abstract
This article explores the strengths and limitations of two different types of settings that provide specialist support to victims of sexual violence in the UK: Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) and voluntary sector organizations such as Rape Crisis. Qualitative data from six case study sites and quantitative data from 35 sexual violence projects in England and Wales revealed that the type of setting affected the types of referrals received and this, in turn, shaped the services required by victims and thus the nature of the work preformed. Consequently, each type of project had different emphases in their workload with which they were particularly well equipped to handle. Each type also had its own unique challenges; for example, while there were notable benefits from delivering support in partnership models, such as SARCs, their affiliation with statutory partners was perceived by some as a disadvantage, especially for those seeking support in relation to historical sexual abuse. On the other hand, those delivering support in voluntary sector projects had to work harder to establish and maintain relationships with other agencies, but their independence was seen to be greater and this was perceived as a strength for gaining access to victims and maintaining their confidence. Both approaches had notable benefits and, given the diverse array of sexual violence victims in any given area, providing these two different, yet complementary, approaches to supporting them is recommended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
