www.3ieimpact.org philip davies making evidence accessible and relevant for policy and practice...
Post on 11-Jan-2016
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Making Evidence Accessible and Relevant for Policy and Practice
Philip Davies
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation [3ie]
Africa Evidence Network Regional MeetingJohannesburg, South Africa, 3rd June 2015
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
• Helping people make better decisions and achieve better outcomes, by using the best available evidence from research and other sources
• Knowing what are effective interventions (“what works?”)
• In achieving which outcomes?
• For which groups of people?
• Under what conditions?
• Over what time span?
• At what costs?, plus
• Integrating research with decision makers’ knowledge, skills, experience, expertise and judgement
What is Evidence-Based Policy
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Evidence
Experience & Expertise
Judgement
Resources
Values, Beliefs and
Ideology
Habits & Bureaucratic
Culture
Lobbyists & Pressure Groups
Pragmatics & Contingencies
Factors Other Than Evidence
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Understanding
the Problem(Conceptualisation
) Developing
Solutions
(Policy Develop
ment)Putting Solution
s Into Effect
(Implementation)
Monitoring and
Evaluation
(M&E)
The ‘Classic’ Policy Cycle The ‘ROAMEF’ Policy Cycle
Evidence is required across the entire policy cycle
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
The Kind Of Evidence Decision-Makers Look For
• Identifying the nature, size and dynamics of the problem
• Specifying the desired objectives• Identifying viable policy options• Identifying how the policy is supposed to work• Identifying the likely and achieved outcomes/impacts• Identifying the social distribution of
outcomes/impacts• Understanding people’s attitudes, experiences,
behaviour• Valuing the impacts (cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness)• Identifying effective implementation and delivery
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Types of Evidence for Policy Making
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Theory of Change/Logic Model/Programme Theory
• How is a policy/programme supposed to work?
• What activities, mechanisms, people, outputs have to be in place?
• And in what sequence – what is the causal chain?
• What resources are required – and are available?
• What data are required – and are available?
• Is the policy/programme feasible/achievable?
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Constituent Features of a Theory of Change
Assumptions?
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Constituent Features of a Theory of ChangeData Required
•Surveys, statistics, demographic data
•Qualitative data•Costs/benefits data•Systematic review data•Documentary analysis
• Performance data• Historical data• Diversity data• Qualitative data• Effectiveness data
• Stakeholder data• Qualitative data• Public opinion data• Effectiveness data
• Performance data• Effectiveness data• Stakeholder data• Qualitative data• Costs/benefits data
• Administrative data• Performance data• Costs/benefits data
• Administrative data• Performance data• Qualitative data
• Counterfactual data• Administrative data• Survey data, statistics• Cost/benefit data
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Types of Systematic Review
• Statistical Meta-Analyses
• Narrative Systematic Reviews
• Qualitative Systematic Reviews
• Rapid Evidence Assessments
• Evidence Maps and Gap Maps
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Single studies can:
Misrepresent the balance of research evidence
Illuminate only one part of a policy issue
Be sample-specific, time-specific, context-specific
Often be of poor quality
Why Do We Need Systematic Reviews?
Consequently, give a biased view of the overall evidence
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
• Systematic searching for studies
• Systematic critical appraisal of identified studies – separating the wheat from the chaff
• Systematic and transparent inclusion/exclusion of studies for final review
• Systematic and transparent extraction of data
• Systematic statistical testing and analysis
• Systematic reporting of findings
What Makes a Review Systematic?
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Statistical Meta-Analytical Reviews
Source: David B. Wilson, 2006, A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
• Synthesise qualitative and ethnographic evidence
• In-depth interviews, focus groups, observational studies, documentary analysis, case studies
• Seek common themes, concepts and principles across different studies
• Detailed attention to context/contextual specificity
• And stakeholders’ views
• Do not seek generalisations
Qualitative Systematic Reviews
Photo © Albert Gonzalez Farran - UNAMID
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
• Scaled down systematic reviews of existing evidence
• Timed to meet the needs of policy makers/practitioners (1-3 months)
• Strategically using the ‘three arms’ of systematic searching, but less exhaustively
Rapid Evidence Assessments – What Are They?
• Critical appraisal of identified studies is included
• Summary of findings, with caveats and qualifications
Photo © Panos East Africa
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Rapid Evidence Assessments – How Scaled Down?
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
3ie Evidence Gap Maps
• Maps of the existing evidence base on a policy issue, topic or sector such as maternal health, HIV/AIDS, agriculture, extreme poverty
• Structured around a framework of interventions and outcomes (intermediate and final)
• A ways of identifying where there is evidence, and where there is not
• An indication of the quality of this evidence
• Links to user-friendly summaries in the 3ie database of systematic reviews.
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Rapid Evidence Assessments - LimitationsEvidence Gap Maps
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Some Key Sources of Sythesised Evidence
• 3ie Impact Evaluations Database(http://www.3ieimpact.org/en/evidence/impact-evaluations/)
• 3ie Systematic Reviews Database • (http://www.3ieimpact.org/en/evidence/systematic-reviews/)
(http://www.3ieimpact.org/en/evidence/systematic-reviews/)• Best Evidence Encyclopedia (http://www.bestevidence.org/)• Cochrane Collaboration (www.cochrane.org)• Campbell Collaboration (www.campbellcollaboration.org)• Collaboration for Environmental Evaluation (http://www.environmentalevidence.org/)• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (http: www.nice.org.uk/)• NHS Evidence (http://www.evidence.nhs.uk/)• National Guidelines Clearinghouse (USA) (www.guidelines.gov)• Prospero: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/• Social Care Institute for Excellence (http://www.scie.org.uk/)• Social Programs That Work (http://evidencebasedprograms.org/)
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
UK Policymakers’ Views of Evidence
• Focus on the ‘end product’, rather than how the information was either collected or analysed
• Use of ‘anecdotal’ evidence (“tells a story”)• Drawing on such things as ‘real life stories’,
‘fingers in the wind’, ‘local’ and ‘bottom-up’ evidence
But:
• “If we try and move anywhere without having the scientific basis to do so we get fleeced in the House”
• And: DfID Evidence into Action Team
• And: BCURE Programme + DPME (South Africa)
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Sharks
Where Do UK Civil Servants Go For Evidence?
PlanktonAcademic/Evaluation Research?
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
UK Policymakers’ Views of Research Evidence
• Too Long • Verbose• Too Detailed • Too Dense• Impenetrable• Too Much Jargon• Too Methodological• Untimely• Irrelevant for policy
Source: Campbell, S., et al; 2007, Analysis for Policy
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
• Establish what research says and does not say
• Establish the policy messages and policy implications
• Use a 1:3:25 format
• Very little mention of methodology
• Be clear - plain English summary
• Be persistent and opportunistic
Improving Communication of Evidence
www.3ieimpact.orgPhilip Davies
Thank you
Philip Davies
Email: pdavies@3ieimpact.org
+44 (0)207 958 8350
Visit www.3ieimpact.org
top related