Suchergebnisse

The processes for moving research-based knowledge to the domains of action in social policy and professional practice are complex. Several disciplinary research traditions have illuminated several key aspects of these processes. A more holistic approach, drawing on systems thinking, has also been outlined and advocated by recent contributors to this debate. This paper seeks to draw on these foundations to sketch a more integrated approach to nine organisational variables that influence the successful implementation of a 'knowledge-to-action' framework for evidence-based policy and practice.

Evidence‐based policy and practice (EBPP) involves complex issues of design, implementation and evaluation. While there are several grounds for scepticism about the capacity of government and other organisations to implement reasonably robust forms of EBPP, some of the practical impediments are readily identifiable. This article proposes ten dimensions of capability that might underlie practical improvements in EBPP. We describe these as challenges and opportunities for learning, rather than prescriptive requirements or technical guidelines or checklists. This framework addresses a spectrum of implementation issues at the organisational and individual level that are vital for evidence‐based (or more evidence‐informed) approaches within policy and practice contexts. There may be some overlap in how these dimensions are conceptualised, but it is argued that taking all dimensions into account is important for supporting a more coherent approach. The practical configuration of EBPP support systems will vary across fields of policy and practice. Future experience and further research should assist in learning how consideration of such issues can assist in protecting and promoting the interests of programs, clients, practitioners, and policy‐makers.

AbstractThe massive global growth in the production, use, and disposal of plastic materials has generated a pollution crisis in many countries. In Australia, debates about how to address this multi‐faceted challenge have lacked the political urgency necessary for adopting strong reform measures. Consistent with the early stages of other sustainability debates, the industrial producers and distributors of plastic materials have been successful in prioritising voluntary measures, such as recycling materials and local authority collection schemes, to mitigate the problem, instead of agreeing to implement enforceable reduction targets. This paper examines Australian measures to manage plastic waste with a focus on how particular policy instruments were favoured and endured and how a greater focus on the full range of policy instruments—market based, regulatory, and voluntary—could generate more effective solutions.Points for practitioners
Choice of effective policy instruments is crucial for tackling sustainability problems.
Policy instruments employed by Australian governments to manage plastic waste have been ineffective.
Moreover, policy settings do not support effective co‐ordination between key stakeholders for the reduction of plastic pollution.
Policy advisors should recognise the limits of voluntary approaches and market‐based mechanisms, and consider introducing clear and mandatory pathways to achieve policy targets.

Behavioural and experimental projects have become increasingly popular with policymakers. Behavioural insights teams have used several policy design and implementation tools drawn from behavioural sciences, especially randomised controlled trials, to test the design of 'nudge' interventions. This approach has attained discursive legitimacy in government agencies seeking to use the best available evidence for behaviourally informed, evidence-based policy innovation. We examine the practices of governmental behavioural insights teams in Australia, drawing on two research projects that included interviews with key personnel. We find that teams make strong commitments to using and promoting randomised controlled trials in government policy innovation. Nevertheless, some members of these teams are beginning to appreciate the constraints of relying solely on randomised controlled trials in the development of behavioural public policy. We conclude that while an initial focus on rigorous trials helped behavioural insights teams establish themselves in policymaking, strict adherence may represent a risk to their long-term growth and relevance.