Evidence & Policy最新文献

This article introduces a framework for disability lived expertise, aiming to address the undervaluing of contributions from people with disability in crucial sectors such as policy, services, rehabilitation, education and research. It distinguishes between disability lived experience, which is the personal and individual experience of disability, and 'lived expertise', which builds on personal experience through critical reflection and engagement with the disability community. Developed by seventeen individuals with diverse disabilities, the framework outlines key components of disability lived expertise, including: Leadership qualities: rejecting paternalism, emphasising self-determination and challenging conventional paradigms. Core values: including loyalty and solidarity with the disability community, humility alongside pride, a focus on human rights and access, courage for sustained change, and managing personal triggers. Essential skills and knowledge: covering human rights principles, disability history, the social model, ableism, intersectionality, co-design and community organising. The framework views lived expertise as a dynamic capability, nurtured through reflection, community engagement and resources. It acknowledges the complexities of disability identification and disclosure, advocating for individual choice in self-identification without rigid rules. Ultimately, this framework seeks to validate previously marginalised knowledge, reshape power imbalances and empower people with disability to leadership roles aimed at a more inclusive and equitable society.

Low levels of competencies and capabilities in public administration hamper evidence-informed policy making (EIPM), yet we know little about how such policy capacities could be developed. Drawing on interviews with Finnish civil servants who participated in collaborative research projects, this study explores learning as a pathway to capacity development. The study operationalises a practice theoretical perspective to learning. The analysis presents diverse learning perceptions from civil servants, representing the construction of a range of knowledge, including know-how for interpreting research and collaborating with researchers, familiarity with colleagues, and understanding of the boundaries of supporting policy making with research. These perceptions are connected to various developments in civil servants' analytical, operational and political capacities, and are argued to support knowledgeable engagement with research both within the collaborative projects and beyond them. The findings highlight the relationship between the potential of collaborative research to develop policy capacities and the interactions among the involved actors, the research projects' practices and the broader context in which the projects operate. Overall, the article complements the EIPM literature by placing emphasis not on indicating capacity deficits but on illustrating how their development can be understood and enhanced.

This article examines the impact of participatory processes in research organisations, focusing on the 'Citizens' Dialogues' initiative at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. As research increasingly embraces inclusive approaches, the article presents a scheme designed to evaluate the effects of such dialogues on different actor groups: citizens, scientists and institutional management. Drawing from both literature and practical experience, the scheme assesses immediate, gradual and continual impacts, offering insights into the effectiveness of participatory formats in shaping research agendas and promoting democratic engagement with academic research. Additionally, the article explores how this scheme can be applied to other contexts, enhancing the integration of participatory outcomes into research decision-making processes. By providing a structured approach to impact assessment, this work contributes to the broader understanding of how citizen participation influences scientific research and its societal relevance.

There is growing interest in evidence intermediary organisations as a means of bridging the gap between research and policy. However, their activities and effectiveness remain under-researched. This article provides an empirically grounded analysis of the activities and attributes of the leaders of evidence intermediary organisations operating at different levels of government and across diverse policy domains in the UK. It shows that successful research-policy engagement calls for an unusual blend of leadership skills and behaviours. Leaders of evidence intermediaries highlighted the need for four core capabilities (strategy making, policy engagement, quality assuring evidence, and organisational management) and three essential characteristics (the ability to overcome entrenched institutional obstacles to evidence mobilisation, to respond to shifting stakeholder demands, and to persevere when evidence is ignored by policy makers). These findings add to our understanding of day-to-day practices of evidence mobilisation, have implications for policy and practice, and point to several promising avenues for future research about this relatively new breed of organisations which are playing an increasingly prominent role in research-policy systems in a range of countries. The leadership capabilities and characteristics identified in our research can be used to develop job descriptions, career paths, and training and development opportunities for current and future leaders. They should also inform the design and leadership of future research-policy engagement initiatives. Future studies could usefully test out the applicability of our findings in other countries and contexts and from the perspectives of a wider range of actors.

Health in urban development is one example of the increasing complexity of research issues that cross disciplinary boundaries, calling for integrated knowledge. Overcoming the challenges of working across disciplines is essential to understanding how to support inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) projects and mitigate issues that stand in the way of collaborations aiming to contribute to societal change. The aim of this article is to provide qualitative evidence of the practices required to support the effective operating of large-scale ITD teams. This article draws on a UK-based research consortium that brings together expertise from numerous disciplines to collaborate through evidence-based interventions in the context of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and the creation of healthier urban environments. Our novel approach combines qualitative and participatory methods with the principles of hierarchical process modelling. Interview data (20 interviews) collected in 2023-2024 were enriched through a participatory workshop with consortium members in 2024. Following initial thematic coding, processes and evidence of challenges or facilitators were categorised under three research stages. The findings emphasise that supporting the development of cognitive processes during the first stage is required to enable deliberation and consensus seeking during the subsequent stages. While the strengths of the mission-oriented consortium lie in motivational processes and relationship building, the drive to deliver impactful research was limited by challenges in cognitive processes such as the development of shared mental models. This suggests that large-scale complex teams require evidence-based best practice frameworks to guide the development and maintenance of a cohesive transdisciplinary (TD) team environment.

Background: Third sector intermediary bodies play an important role in representing third sector and community perspectives in democratic governance. A key challenge they face is in navigating relationships between the third sector and the state.

Aims and objectives: This article presents the outcomes and learnings from a knowledge exchange (KE) project, co-designed with a third sector intermediary body, that engaged stakeholders in the development of policy recommendations to address the challenges intermediary bodies face in managing their complex role. It also reflects on the process and challenges of engaging different stakeholders in a process designed to develop collective recommendations.

Methods: KE events were held to present previous research findings about the role of intermediary bodies in democratic governance. Interested intermediary bodies, third sector organisations and public bodies participated in interviews or focus groups to develop recommendations.

Findings: Developing collective policy ideas with diverse stakeholders is a complex process for researchers, particularly when the approach is co-designed with only one stakeholder organisation. Different perspectives can be difficult to bridge and there is a risk that resulting recommendations will be diluted.

Discussion and conclusions: This project highlighted the challenges associated with putting evidence into action and in co-designing projects. A key learning is the need for clear and upfront communication with collaborating organisations. Despite the challenges that exist in working across diverse stakeholder groups, third sector intermediary bodies are uniquely placed to act as knowledge brokers, representing experience at the community level and bringing this understanding into democratic governance spaces and networks.

While the inclusion of 'disability lived experience' is increasingly advocated for in research, policy and practice, its conceptualisation and application present significant challenges. This article, a collaborative effort by 16 individuals with diverse disabilities and expertise, critically examines the limitations inherent in the current usage. We argue that prevailing interpretations of 'lived experience' presume subjectivity and over-emphasise narratives of suffering, leading to tokenism and a false dichotomy between lived experience and professional or academic expertise. These issues can undermine the true value and breadth of knowledge held by disabled people. To address these limitations, we propose a crucial distinction between 'disability lived experience' - the personal, embodied experience of disability - and 'disability lived expertise', which synthesises lived experience with a deep knowledge of the history, concepts, rights and collective experiences of people with disability, the core values of the disabled community, and advocacy skills needed to redesign and reshape the social environment to enable people with disabilities to flourish. This distinction aims not to diminish disability lived experience, but to more accurately recognise and legitimise the developed expertise many disabled people bring to various fields. By recognising the concept of disability lived expertise, we aim to foster more meaningful inclusion, challenge ableist power structures, and ensure that the expert contributions of disabled people are fully valued in driving social change.

In political discourse, speakers use scientific and experiential evidence. Both types can inform policy making, yet little is known about when political actors turn to experiential evidence to back their statements. In this article, we examine factors that influence the selection of scientific and experiential evidence in political discourses. Using data from a quantitative content analysis, we assess the influence of (1) issue polarisation, (2) the statement's focus on either the problem or the solution, and (3) the actor's position on policy change on the type of evidence used in Swiss media discourse on pesticides between 2013 and 2022. Our results show that an increase in issue polarisation was associated with an increase in the use of experiential evidence. It also mattered whether evidence was used to describe problems or solutions. In both cases, scientific evidence was preferred, but experiential evidence was used more often when speaking about solutions. Whether speakers were proponents or opponents of policy change had no influence on the type of evidence used. These findings suggest that speakers generally considered scientific evidence more appropriate to support their statements than experiential evidence. However, with increasing polarisation, the reliance on experiential evidence over scientific evidence suggests a shift towards emotionally resonant narratives rather than rigorously validated knowledge. For the case studied, we conclude that while speakers are committed to evidence-informed policy making in principle, experiential evidence is at risk of being devalued and weaponised in polarised contexts.

Aims and objectives: This article presents findings from an evaluative study of the first cohort of Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Policy Fellows (2021-2023), identifying challenges at the research-policy nexus to refine the evidence base for future mobility investments and contribute to broader debates about knowledge-exchange and boundary-spanning.

Methods: An initial desk-based review of the existing research on barriers and analysis of survey data previously collected by the ESRC informed design of semi-structured interviews (the focus of this article). Interviews were conducted with 18 fellows and ten policy host representatives. Transcripts underwent thematic analysis through multiple rounds of coding and theme development in relation to 'barriers and blockages'.

Findings: Nine main 'barriers and blockages' were identified in the research: opaque expectations; competing pressures; managing complexity; boundary-spanning stretch; strategic support; administrative absorption; academic absorption; spatial (im)mobilities; silos and hierarchies. Several of these issues were either under-acknowledged or absent within the existing knowledge and research base.

Discussion and conclusion: Facilitating the mobility of people within research, development and innovation 'ecosystems' remains a core strategic goal of funders and governments around the world. An increasing number of R2P fellowships (and policy-to-research secondments) are being established, but often on the basis of a weak or non-existent evidential basis with regard to 'what works'. This article contributes to remedying this gap and identifies new research themes.

Background: Evidence implementation considers the myriad factors and stakeholders that impact the delivery of best practice care. To date, no studies have comprehensively examined the contextual factors influencing evidence implementation (EI) in contemporary naturopathic medicine practice using a validated, multi-domain framework.

Methods: Australian managers, directors, administrators, academics, students and clinicians in naturopathic medicine were eligible to participate in this national cross-sectional study. Using a comprehensive recruitment strategy and non-probability sampling, participants were invited to complete the 44-item Global Assessment of the Evidence Implementation Environment (GENIE) questionnaire, online.

Results: The GENIE questionnaire was completed by 219 participants (75.6 per cent female; 52.5 per cent aged 40-59 years). At least one-half of participants indicated that 16 of the 34 indicators of EI preparedness in naturopathic medicine had been met, with most uncertain and/or disputing that the remaining indicators had been achieved. Of the three environments examined, the regulatory environment was considered the least ready for EI in naturopathic medicine overall (46.6 per cent agreed that this sector was ready for EI), followed by the academic environment (64.0 per cent agreed this sector was ready) and clinical environment (70.9 per cent agreed this sector was ready).

Conclusion: This novel study highlights several shortcomings in the Australian naturopathic medicine profession's preparedness for EI, particularly in relation to evidence-based practice/research advocacy, capacity and culture. To overcome these challenges and critical sector-specific gaps, increased investment in capacity building and proactive efforts from regulatory and professional bodies will be crucial to fostering evidence-based practice, building professional credibility and improving patient outcomes.