Firms require policies that are supportive to their operating environment and competiveness. Few firms, however, interact with policy makers and it is suggested in the literature that they do so in a self-interested manner. Policy makers are faced with the challenge of ensuring positive sum outcomes in a highly politicised process. Innovative firms could possible request more value creating policies with noninnovative firms requesting value capturing policies. A firm that is more networked is more innovative, but this also increases the management complexity of the firm. The purpose of this study was to enable policy makers to make more informed political decisions in the public policy process. A secondary dataset focused on firms in the innovation context. Groups of firms were categorised by their innovativeness, involvement with policy and network richness through Chi-square tests, Exploratory Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis. The policy requests of these firms were analysed through the Kruskal-Wallis test, with post hoc analyses using Mann-Whitney U tests. The study found that firms could be categorised based on their innovativeness and involvement, but that network richness played an important role in increasing both. Innovative and non-innovative firms had similar needs in policies. It is suggested that richly networked firms are not independently rent seeking as they request policies that are to the benefit of the broader innovation network in order to sustain and grow the collaborative relationships. Policy makers are advised to ensure the inclusion of network rich firms in the policy process. / Dissertation (MBA)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) / unrestricted

Background: The evidence-based approach to policymaking has greatly facilitated policymakers' capacity to make scientifically informed policy decisions, especially in the medical and public health contexts. However, this approach is most beneficial for policy development when trustworthy research is used. Predatory journals and publishers pose a potential threat to evidence-based policy making, since they are more likely than traditional academic journals to publish unreliable evidence. Research Objectives: The purpose of this thesis is to advance knowledge on what factors contribute to the citation of predatory journal articles in policy documents by answering the following research questions: 1) How do people preparing public health documents consider the trustworthiness of research evidence? 2) How do they source and evaluate the research evidence they cite? Methods: I identified a cross-sectional sample of public health policy documents from Overton - the world's largest policy document database - that cited articles published by the OMICS group. OMICS is a well-established predatory publisher. I extracted meta-data (e.g., document source) and document characteristics such as whether they described their method of selection or quality assessment for cited sources. Authors of these documents with contact information listed, as well as a convenience sample of people who have prepared public health documents, were invited for a semi-structured interview. I thematically analyzed these interviews by organizing the codes (both deductive and inductive) into key overarching themes. Results: Two hundred forty-two public health policy documents were included. The World Health Organization was the most common source accounting for 45 documents (19%). A total of 283 articles were cited from 126 OMICS journals. Only 54 (22%) of the policy documents described their source-selection methodology, and 22 (9%) assessed the quality of cited sources. Five key overarching themes were generated from the thematic analysis of the interview data, highlighting that information cited in policy documents is sourced and evaluated in several ways, many of which are related to a series of factors which could be contributing to the predatory journal citations. Conclusion: Public health policy documents are prepared using a variety of methods for information selection and evaluation, but the exact approach for doing so is rarely reported within the document itself. This may contribute to the reliance on untrustworthy research to inform policy; and thus, may help amplify misinformation entering policy globally. Certain steps can be taken to help minimize any potential negative impact of relying on such sources, but a better understanding of policymakers' perspectives may be required to ensure successful implementation.

京都大学 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(医学) / 甲第24285号 / 医博第4901号 / 新制||医||1061(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院医学研究科医学専攻 / (主査)教授 髙折 晃史, 教授 小杉 眞司, 教授 佐藤 俊哉 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Medical Science / Kyoto University / DFAM

Introduction: Persistent health inequalities are the focus for much public health policy activity. Understanding the policy response to public health problems, the role of evidence, and the roles and strategies of different actors may help explain this persistence. Research suggests that policy actors often access knowledge through interpersonal relations, but current perspectives in the literature do not analyse relational aspects of finding evidence and influencing policy. Identifying powerful and influential actors (in terms of personal characteristics, strategies, and network properties) offers a method of exploring the policy process and evidence use. Methods: Network data were gathered from a public health policy community in a large urban area in the UK (n = 152, response rate 80%), collecting relational data on perceived power, influence, and sources of evidence about public health policy. Hubs and Authorities analyses were used to identify powerful and influential actors, to test whether powerful and influential actors were also sources of information; and betweenness and Gould-Fernandez brokerage were used to explore the importance of structural position in policy networks. These data were analysed in conjunction with qualitative data from semi-structured interviews (n = 24) carried out with a purposive subsample of network actors. Characteristics of powerful and influential actors, the use of evidence in the policy process, and roles and strategies used to influence policy were analysed using a framework approach, and combined with network data. Results: The most influential actors were mid-level managers in the NHS and local authorities, and to a lesser extent, public health professionals. These actors occupied advantageous positions within the networks, and used strategies (ranging from providing policy content, to finding evidence, to presenting policy options to decision-makers) to influence the policy process. Powerful actors were also sources of information for one another, but providing information did not predict power. Experts, academics and professionals in public health were represented in the networks, but were usually more peripheral and played fewer roles in the policy process. This study presents empirical evidence to support the suggestion that recognition of network structure assists individuals to be influential, and proposes a framework to categorise their activities. Conclusions: In order to influence policy, actors need good relationships with other influential actors, and the skills to exploit these relationships. The relational approach is useful for both identifying powerful and influential people (potential evidence-users) and for exploring how evidence and information reaches them. Identifying powerful and influential actors and describing their strategies for influencing policy provides a new focus for researchers in evidence-based policy, and for those wishing to influence policy. For academics and researchers, this study demonstrates the importance of directly creating ties with decision-makers

Parliamentary research services provide parliamentarians with qualified and politically neutral knowledge on day-to-day basis. Because this is an understudied phenomenon, the aim of the study is to investigate how parliamentarians use research services from the perspective of evidence based policy making. The study was conducted with semi-structured interviews with Swedish parliamentarians and party employees of the Social Democrats, the Green Party, and the Swedish Democrats. An interview was also conducted with a representative from the Swedish Research Service. The results show that the Swedish Research Service, as an incremental knowledge producer, is used by parliamentarians to reduce insecurity, get cues and assessments and to appear legitimate. It has also been shown that there is a difference between the parties regarding search activities. The study contributes to the policy sciences by introducing an ideal type on how parliamentarians use parliamentary research services in the policy process.

Darbas yra orientuojamas į opios šiandieninei Lietuvos visuomenei problemos sprendimą — alkoholio suvartojimo mastų ir su tuo susijusių pasekmių mažinimą Lietuvoje. Tuo tikslu darbe siekiama išanalizuoti Lietuvos alkoholio kontrolės politikos įgyvendinimo problematiką įrodymais grįstos politikos perspektyvoje. Viešųjų problemų efektyviam sprendimui didelę reikšmę turi moksliškai patvirtintos žinios, todėl pirmas ir antras darbo skyriai susiję su detalesne įrodymais grįstos politikos analize tiek tiriant bendrą jos reikšmę viešojoje politikoje, tiek ir jos reikšmę alkoholio kontrolės politikoje. Analizė grindžiama anglosaksų ir Skandinavijos šalių mokslininkų darbais, kadangi šiose šalyse mokslo naudojimas viešųjų problemų sprendimui, įskaitant ir didelio alkoholio suvartojimo visuomenėje problemos, gana paplitęs, akcentuojant, jog įrodymų naudojimas viešojoje politikoje, labai svarbus, siekiant suprasti politinę aplinką ir jos pokyčius, adekvačiai pažinti probleminę situaciją, tinkamai pasirinkti ir įgyvendinti geriausias politikos priemones, lemiančias efektyvius pasirinktos politikos rezultatus. Remiantis Lietuvos teisės aktų analize ir Lietuvos mokslininkų darbais, trečiajame skyriuje nagrinėjama Lietuvos alkoholio kontrolės politikos sistema, siekiant įvertinti, kiek LR alkoholio kontrolės politikoje pritaikytinas įrodymais grįstos alkoholio kontrolės politikos priemonių vystymas, įvertinant ir pagrindines vyraujančias problemas, neleidžiančias alkoholio kontrolės... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / This study is about one of the most serious problems in Lithuania — reduction of huge alcohol consumption and related consequenses in Lithuania’s civil society. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to analyze the problematic implementation of alcohol control policy in Lithuania in accordance with the perspective of evidence-based policy. The public policy to be effective, it’s very important to use knowledge based on researches, so in the first and the second chapter this evidence-based perspective is analyzed, respectively, to examine its general importance to public policy itself and to alcohol control policy. This analysis is based on the studies of Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian scientists, because in these countries researches in public policy is used broadly, including alcohol control policy, emphasizing on the use of evidence to be very important in understanding the political environment and its changes, an adequate understanding of the problematic situation, the right choice, and the best practices of that policy, which all determine effective outcomes of that policy. According to Lithuanian legislation and the analyses of the studies, in the third chapter it is examining the system of alcohol control policy in Lithuania, to seek evaluate the problems, which occur in adopting evidence-based alcohol policy to Lithuania’s alcohol control policy. As it turned out, in Lithuania, the development of alcohol control policy infrastructure is adequately formulated (for example... [to full text]

<b>Background</b>: Evidence-based policy making (EBPM) has become an article of faith. While critiques have begun to emerge, they are predominately based on theory or opinion. This thesis uses the 2008 case study of tobacco control policy making for Indigenous Australians to analyse empirically the concept of EBPM. <b>Research questions</b>: (1) How, if at all, did the Government use evidence in Indigenous tobacco control policy making? (2) What were the facilitators of and barriers to the use of evidence? (3) Does the case study augment or challenge the apparent inviolability of EBPM? <b>Methods</b>: Data were collected through: (1) a review of primary documents largely obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 1982; and (2) interviews with senior politicians, senior bureaucrats, government advisors, Indigenous health advocates and academics. <b>Results</b>: Historically, Indigenous smoking was not problematised because Indigenous people faced other urgent health/social problems and smoking was considered a coping mechanism. High prevalence data acquired salience in 2007/08 in the context of a campaign to reduce disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous health outcomes. Ensuing policy proposals were based on recommendations from literature reviews, but evidence contained in those reviews was weak; notwithstanding this, the proposals were adopted. Historical experiences led policy makers to give special weight to proposals supported by Indigenous stakeholders. Moreover, the perceived urgency of the problem was cited to justify a trial-and-evaluate approach. <b>Conclusion</b>: While the policies were not based on quality evidence, their formulation/adoption was neither irrational nor reckless. Rather, the process was a justifiable response to a pressing problem affecting a population for which barriers existed to data collection, and historical experiences meant that evidence was not the only determinant of policy success. The thesis proposes a more nuanced appraoch to conceptualising EBPM wherein evidence is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for policy. The approach recognises that rigorous evidence is always desirable but that, where circumstances affect the ability of such research being conducted, consideration must be given to acting on the basis of other knowledge (e.g. expert opinion, small-scale studies). Such an approach is justifiable where: (1) inaction is likely to lead to new/continued harm; and (2) there is little/no prospect of the intervention causing additional harm. Under this approach, non-evidentiary considerations (e.g. community acceptability) must be taken into account.

Policy makers in education and international development have lately gravitated toward the randomized controlled trial (RCT)—an evaluation design that randomly assigns a sample of people or households into an intervention group and a control group in order to measure the differential effect of the intervention—as a means to determine program impact. As part of federal regulations, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Agency for International development explicitly declared a preference for the RCT. When advocating for adopting the RCT model as the preferred evaluation tool, policy makers point to the success story of medical trials and how they revolutionized medicine from Medieval charlatanry to a modern life-saving discipline. By presenting a more nuanced account of the role of the RCT in medical history, however, this study finds that landmark RCTs were accompanied with challenges, Evidence-Based Medicine had rightful critics, and opportunistic biases in drug trials apply equally to education policy and international development. This study also examines the recent privileged role of the RCT in education and international development, concluding that its initial promise was not entirely born out when put into practice, as the national Reading First Initiative exemplifies. From a comparative perspective, the RCT movements also encountered major RCT critics, whose voices were not initially heard. These voices, however, seem to have contributed to a swing of the pendulum away from RCT primacy back towards greater methodological pluralism. A major conclusion of this study is that policy makers should exercise great caution when using RCTs as a policy evaluation tool. This conclusion is arrived at via considering RCT biases, challenges, and limited generalizability; understanding its interpretive-qualitative components; and broadening the overall methodological repertoire to better enable evaluations of macro-policy interventions. / text

Die vorliegende Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit einer klassischen aber noch immer zentralen und aktuellen Frage der Evaluationsforschung, der Hinterfragung der Verwendung bzw. Wirksamkeit von Evaluationsverfahren. Vor dem Hintergrund der seit Ende der 1990er Jahre vor allem in Europa starken Zunahme von institutionalisierten Politik-Evaluationsverfahren sowie der zugleich zunehmenden Kritik dieser Verfahren in Wissenschaft und Praxis, untersucht die Arbeit diese Wirksamkeit am Fallbeispiel der Forschungspolitik der Europäischen Union. Aufbauend auf einer Aufarbeitung des Forschungsstandes zur Evaluationsverwendungsforschung und einer Vorstellung des gewählten Politikfeldes sowie der spezifischen Evaluationspraxis, erfolgt dazu eine systematische Gegenüberstellung der zentralen Evaluationsempfehlungen und der Entwicklung im Politikfeld über die vergangenen 15 Jahre. Im Ergebnis kommt die Arbeit zu der Feststellung eines (überraschend) hohen Ausmaßes an Entsprechung der Evaluationsempfehlungen mit der Politikentwicklung im untersuchten Fallbeispiel. Auf der Basis der Untersuchung des Fallbeispiels aber auch unter Heranziehung weiterer empirischer Beiträge in der Literatur ist damit der Behauptung der fehlenden Wirksamkeit der institutionalisierten Evaluation auf die Politikgestaltung klar zu widersprechen. Eine weitergehende Diskussion des Ergebnisses der Fallstudie legt darüber hinaus nahe, dass einige spezifische Faktoren und Bedingungen die Wirksamkeit der Evaluationsverfahren im untersuchten Fallbeispiel positiv zu beeinflussen scheinen. Im Einzelnen sind dies: der Charakter und die Ausprägung der Evaluationsempfehlungen, das spezifische institutionelle Umfeld der Evaluation sowie das spezifische 'politische Klima'. Aus dem Ergebnis lässt sich andererseits aber auch folgern, dass insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Akzeptanzproblematik eine Verstärkung der Bemühungen zur Wahrnehmung der Evaluations-wirksamkeit auf Seiten aller Beteiligten geboten scheint. Die Arbeit stellt hierzu abschließend einige Vorschläge und Ideen zusammen, die diese Wahrnehmung verbessern können. / The present paper discusses a classic but still essential and prevailing problem in evaluation research, the analysis of the utilization and effects of evaluation results. Given the notable increase of institutionally conducted policy-evaluations as of the late 1990's in especially in Europe accompanied by an equally notable increase of criticism from both academics and practitioners towards the utilization of evaluation, the paper examines the actual utilization of evaluation based on the example of the European Union research policy. Following an extensive literature review on evaluation utilization research and a presentation of the selected policy field including the specific evaluation context and arrangements, the paper conducts a detailed and systematic comparison of the key evaluation recommendations and the successive development in the policy field during the past 15 years. The comparison and subsequently the paper demonstrate a (surprisingly) high degree of correlation between the evaluation recommendations and the policy development in the chosen example. Based on these results together with further empirical evidence identified in evaluation research literature, the criticism towards the general non-utilization of evaluation results is clearly to be opposed. In addition, a further discussion and analysis of the results of the case study suggests that certain factors and conditions have contributed positively to the evaluation utilization in the chosen example. In particular these are: the characteristics of the evaluation recommendations, the specific institutional context of the evaluation and the specific 'political climate' in research policy. Finally, based on the result of the study, the paper also invites to reflect on the appropriateness and further development of means to enhance the visibility and recognition of the (actual) evaluation utilization by all parties concerned. In its final section the paper therefore proposes a number of means qualified to contribute to this recognition.

Why is it that the international scientific consensus on climate change has not been followed by a proportionate policy response in Canada? Perhaps the relationships between the country’s science organizations and government agencies are not functioning properly. My research adopts an interdisciplinary approach (i.e. science studies and political science) to this issue, highlighting the relevant literature’s underlying consensus on co-production, a norm of deliberative two-way engagement between scientists and policy-makers. I hypothesize that relationships embodying elements of co-productive design (e.g. informal communication, appointed liaisons) are more likely to facilitate climate action. To test this, I examine three cases of climate science-policy partnership in Canada by interviewing participants from both sides. The partnership between the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium and BC municipalities exhibits substantial influence on policy, tied to a considerable degree of co-productive design. The partnership between the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions and the Climate Action Secretariat of the BC provincial government also displays notable design characteristics, but primarily facilitates side benefits and soft influences rather than concrete policy changes. The attempted partnership between the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences and the federal government exhibits few elements of co-productive design and has been effectively terminated, demonstrating the prerequisite importance of political interest. The relevant literature is not sufficiently nuanced to fully predict or explain these situations, so I put forward a new theoretical model. My science-policy relationship hierarchy (SPRHi) suggests that each such case can be classified as incidental interaction, basic partnership, interactive dialogue, or true co-production. It specifies the conditions which must be met for any given relationship to improve, maximizing potential benefits and influences. Concrete policy changes seem to result only from true co-production, though, which generally requires exceptional external requirements and thus cannot be deliberately facilitated. As such, co-productive design ultimately does not offer a clear way to address Canada’s climate inaction. I suggest that further research be conducted on international coordination mechanisms, public attitudes, and (especially) political leadership. However, the soft influences of science-policy partnerships may affect these broader factors in unpredictable ways, so the importance of co-productive design should not be underestimated. / Graduate