Evidence-based policy, knowledge from experience and validity

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI:10.1332/174426419x15700265131524
Jennifer Smith‐Merry
{"title":"Evidence-based policy, knowledge from experience and validity","authors":"Jennifer Smith‐Merry","doi":"10.1332/174426419x15700265131524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evidence-based policy has at its foundation a set of ideas about what makes evidence valid so that it can be trusted in the creation of policy. This validity is frequently conceptualised in terms of rigour deriving from scientific studies which adhere to highly structured processes\n around data collection, analysis and inscription. In comparison, the knowledge gained from lived experience, while viewed as important for ensuring that policy meets the needs of the people it is trying to serve, is characterised by its tacit nature, unstructure and difficulty in transferring\n from one actor to another. Validity of experiential knowledge in policy arises from the connection of policy knowledge to the lived experience of individuals. This paper considers validity in this context through exploring four modes in which experiential knowledge is currently utilised within\n policy. The tensions surrounding validity in the policy context find resolution through the development of a situated notion of validity decoupled from structural rigour and recoupled to context.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"305-316"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419x15700265131524","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Evidence-based policy has at its foundation a set of ideas about what makes evidence valid so that it can be trusted in the creation of policy. This validity is frequently conceptualised in terms of rigour deriving from scientific studies which adhere to highly structured processes around data collection, analysis and inscription. In comparison, the knowledge gained from lived experience, while viewed as important for ensuring that policy meets the needs of the people it is trying to serve, is characterised by its tacit nature, unstructure and difficulty in transferring from one actor to another. Validity of experiential knowledge in policy arises from the connection of policy knowledge to the lived experience of individuals. This paper considers validity in this context through exploring four modes in which experiential knowledge is currently utilised within policy. The tensions surrounding validity in the policy context find resolution through the development of a situated notion of validity decoupled from structural rigour and recoupled to context.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于证据的政策,来自经验的知识和有效性
基于证据的政策在其基础上有一套关于如何使证据有效的想法,以便在制定政策时可以信任证据。这种有效性经常被概念化为严谨的科学研究,坚持围绕数据收集,分析和铭文的高度结构化的过程。相比之下,从生活经验中获得的知识,虽然被认为对确保政策满足它所努力服务的人民的需要很重要,但其特点是它的隐性、非结构性和难以从一个行动者转移到另一个行动者。政策经验知识的有效性源于政策知识与个人生活经验的联系。本文通过探索目前在政策中使用经验知识的四种模式来考虑在此背景下的有效性。围绕政策环境中有效性的紧张关系通过发展与结构严谨性分离并与环境重新耦合的有效性定位概念来解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study The critical factors in producing high quality and policy-relevant research: insights from international behavioural science units Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1