Publishing with a purpose
The following Evidence & Policy Editors' Choice articles are free to access until 30 April 2020:
Building trust and sharing power for co-creation in Aboriginal health research: a stakeholder interview study [Open Access]
Authors: Sherriff, Simone Louise; Miller, Hilary; Tong, Allison; Williamson, Anna; Muthayya, Sumithra; Redman, Sally; Bailey, Sandra; Eades, Sandra & Haynes, Abby
'As interest increases in co-produced and co-created research, this article explores what enables co-creation in Aboriginal Health Research to work well. Forming part of a Study of Environment on Aboriginal Resilience and Child Health (SEARCH), the article draws from 26 stakeholder interviews. The findings demonstrate why the following nine factors were critical to success: shared power; strong credible leadership; shared vision, shared goals; willingness to take risks; connecting across cultures; empowering the community; valuing local Aboriginal knowledge; ongoing investment and collaboration; and adaptability. This article is likely to be of interest to anyone considering taking a co-creation approach to research with marginalized social groups.'
Evidence reviews in energy and climate policy
Authors: Warren, Peter
Contested knowledge in Dutch climate change policy
Authors: Bekkers, Victor; Van Buuren, Arwin; Edwards, Arthur & Fenger, Menno
'Two of our current Editors' Choice pieces focus on the critical issue of climate change but they each take rather different positions on the potential role of evidence. The first (written from a UK policy perspective) takes an optimistic view of the role that evidence can play in developing policy responses to climate change, arguing that evidence reviews (as opposed to literature reviews) can play an important role. It provides an overview of different types of evidence reviews and a framework through which stakeholders can understand the practicalities of different types of review. The paper concludes by recommending systematic scoping reviews and Rapid Evidence Assessments (REAs) as resource-efficient methods for informing policy development within the timescales and resources available to government departments. The second paper focusing on climate change situates policymaking in a broader set of public debates and political developments. Taking competing knowledge claims about Dutch climate change policy as its case study, this paper argues that policy responses to climate change are being developed against a backdrop of a broader challenge to the role of scientific evidence in policy making. The paper outlines three distinct forms of 'knowledge claims' for policy: evidence-based knowledge; commons (civic) knowledge; and political knowledge, examining the claims arising from each of these regarding Dutch climate change policy. It concludes with the rather challenging reflection (for those committed to improving the use of evidence in policy) that the quest for evidence-based policy may, paradoxically, be operating as an impediment to progress in finding common ground in practical policies. The authors argue that, rather than focusing overly (or exclusively) on promoting evidence-based knowledge ('facts'),we need to invest in renewed public engagement, supporting dialogue between skeptics and experts, in order to achieve the necessary policy progress.'
See also: Volume 14, Number 4, November 2018 our free sample issue.