Special Issue Editors: Katherine Smith, Valerie Pattyn and Niklas Andersen
Evidence & Policy is pleased to invite abstracts for papers that explicitly employ comparative analysis and/or that develop insights about evidence use in policy through comparison. Authors of selected abstracts will be invited to submit a full paper for consideration for inclusion in a special issue that is aiming to demonstrate the conceptual and empirical contribution that comparative research can offer scholarship on evidence and policy.
When people ask about my research area, I answer that I study how policymakers use research evidence. Their response always follows a similar thread: ‘That sounds hard’ and ‘Ha! Do they even know what research is?’ These reactions align with a broader opinion in the United States that elected officials are clueless when it comes to using research evidence in the decision-making process.
Yet there are plenty of examples in research, legislation, and regulations where policymakers do use research in their work. My colleague Karen Bogenschneider and I wondered if this mismatch – assuming policymakers don’t use research when there are examples that they do – might have to do with a jingle-jangle problem: Do researchers and legislators actually mean the same thing when they say ‘research evidence’?
Knowledge mobilisation (KM) describes a process for enabling the use of research evidence in policymaking and public service design and delivery. Approaches to KM have evolved over the last two decades – away from one-directional efforts to push research out to decision makers towards a kaleidoscope of research-policy-practice engagement across overlapping phases of knowledge production and policy action. These processes are generally poorly understood at local levels of decision-making, where the specificities of policy and public service context can undermine generic ‘what works’ claims.
Our aim was to determine how KM is done ‘on-the-ground’, which can get obscured in frameworks that emphasise complexity while simplifying process. We argue that more detail is needed on these practices of KM to inform and improve process. Equally, attention is also needed on demand for and impact of evidence on policy and practice decisions.
The last decade or so have seen an explosion in the number of randomised controlled trials conducted in schools in the UK, and a similar, if less stratospheric, rise elsewhere in the world. The rise in the UK can be attributed in large part not to methodological interest by education academics, but the creation of the Education Endowment Foundation. Forming part of the UK Government’s “What Works” network aimed at improving evidence-informed decision-making in policy and overseeing a budget of more than £100 million, the EEF has funded hundreds of randomised trials of different interventions to boost children’s and young people’s attainment.
Enthusiasts of randomised trials argue that they provide the best and simplest (or least statistically burdensome) way of findings out which interventions work. However, opponents, often those responsible for designing and delivering interventions, consider them unethical because they necessitate withholding a potentially beneficial intervention from young people. In our paper, we consider another aspect of the ethics of randomised trials with young people – consent.
Informed consent is the cornerstone of postwar research, and aims to ensure that people are not experimented on against their will. As a principle, it is hard to argue with and should be at the centre of our thinking about how to run these kinds of trials.
The modern health landscape is dominated by the evidence-based practice paradigm which asks health professionals to prefer research evidence over other forms of knowledge and information when providing care to their patients. However, clinicians from most areas of health – including general practice and allied health – have argued that the realities of practice are not so simple. While this ‘messiness’ of clinical practice is documented for many mainstream health professions, there has been little to no research examining how clinicians from traditional medicine systems use knowledge and information in their practice, until now.
An international survey of naturopaths was recently published in Evidence and Policy which found they used a diverse range of knowledge and information sources when making clinical decisions. The survey respondents practice naturopathy, a traditional medicine system originating from Europe but now practiced in 108 countries across all world regions. Naturopathy uses a highly patient-centred and holistic clinical approach that prioritises preventive health and wellness, and patient education and empowerment.
From 1999 to 2021, opioid overdoses caused over one million deaths in the US. The pharmaceutical industry has been held legally responsible in some cases for overstating the benefits and understating the risks of opioid use, leading to overprescribing that contributed to these deaths. Opioid manufacturers sponsor clinical trials to generate scientific evidence that supports use of their products to gain regulatory approval, and to use in commercial materials to promote drug sales. Previous research has found industry sponsored research may use dubious research practices to generate findings that justify use. Three examples of such research practices include inappropriate use of enriched enrollment trial design, ghost authorship, and overstatement of research findings.
In our recently published Evidence and Policy article, we identified research practices used in clinical trials funded by opioid manufacturers that created the perception that opioids were safe, non-addictive and effective in treating pain. Since 2005, confidential documents made public in litigation against pharmaceutical companies have been collected in the Opioid Industry Document Archive (OIDA) at the University of California San Francisco for storage in perpetuity. In January 2020, OIDA made available the first 503 documents that later become part of the larger OIDA, totaling over 62,000 pages, that were released as part of the Oklahoma litigation in a discrete collection named the Oklahoma Opioid Litigation Documents. These documents included clinical trial reports, witness declarations, internal corporate communications and marketing strategies regarding opioids, and served as the primary data source for the study.
Gender differences in academic publications: why it matters
Across fields, there are concerns about the extent to which gender disparities exist in academic journal publications. Several studies of professional social science—including in economics, political science, and sociology—indicate women remain underrepresented in the pages of top journals. Inequalities in this regard may be particularly consequential because peer-reviewed publications remain one of the most important factors that contribute to success in applications for academic jobs, promotions, and grants.
While there are several reasons for this pattern, including authors’ perceptions of where their kinds of work are more likely to be favorably received, the simple fact of its presence has been enough motivation for some journal editorial teams to explicitly measure and report on the gender breakdown of both submissions and published work where possible.
Research evidence can be useful (alongside lots of other information) in informing policy, practice and personal decision making. But does this always happen? It tends to be assumed that if research is available and relevant then it will be used in an effective self-correcting ‘evidence ecosystem’, but in many cases the ‘evidence ecosystem’ may be dysfunctional or not functioning at all. Potential users may not demand relevant evidence, not be aware of the existence of relevant research, or may misunderstand it use and relevance.
Knowledge brokerage intermediary (KBIs) agencies (such as knowledge clearinghouses and What Works Centre) aim to improve this by enabling the engagement between research use and research production. We believe that KBIs are essential innovations for improving research use. In this blog, we suggest four ways that they might be further developed by having a more overt focus on the extent that they themselves are evidence informed in their work, as we explore in our Evidence & Policy article.
Evidence & Policy is piloting a new portable peer review policy aimed at reducing inefficiencies in the publication process, and lessening some of the burdens placed on reviewers and authors by the cycle of repeated submissions to different journals. The official policy is available in the journal’s Author Instructions, but this blog post provides some additional background details and rationale for adopting this policy.
The use of research to inform practice can play a vital role in improving decision-making and social outcomes. As such, research use has gained widespread attention, with a range of initiatives now in place across sectors, countries and jurisdictions that promote it. Yet, what it takes for research to be used on the ground, let alone what quality research use looks like, is not well understood (Sheldrick et al., 2022). Without these understandings, there are real risks that research into research use will stay, as Tseng (2022) suggests, on ‘the proverbial shelf (or website) — far from the action of policy deliberations and decision-making’. This presents a challenge to the research community; to not only gain robust evidence on how research is used by practitioners, but also what it means to use research well and what it takes for it to improve.
In our new article in Evidence and Policy, we address this challenge by presenting findings from an investigation into Australian educators’ views on using research well in practice. Utilising thematic analysis, we draw on survey and interview data from almost 500 Australian educators (i.e., school leaders, teachers and support staff) to examine their perspectives in relation to a previously developed conceptual Quality Use of Research Evidence (QURE) Framework (Rickinson et al., 2020, 2022).
Evidence & Policy Blog 