Suchergebnisse

This chapter examines the practice of evidence-based policymaking in five Nordic countries. By comparing the references that national policy actors have utilized in their policy documents to evidentiate policy ideas and recommendations, it draws attention to the contextual factors that shape each country's practice of evidence-based policymaking. The results illustrate that all five Nordic countries actively use evidence to support and legitimate their policy proposals; however, their utilization varies by (1) institutionalized forms of policymaking system, (2) degree of self-referentiality, and (3) type of reform. This comparative study offers timely reflections on how the discourse of evidence-based policymaking is interpreted and adapted differently across countries. ; publishedVersion ; Peer reviewed

Citizen preferences play a key role in a democracy, and there is a substantial body of work that tries to understand the role that public preferences play in the policy process. Despite the important role public opinion plays, there are only limited efforts to document public opinion about education, psychology, and health. The Public Mind project seeks to address this gap by providing reliable, valid public opinion data to inform public debate. The Project includes a series of public opinion surveys on a variety of issues related to governance, policies, and practice that have the potential to affect human development. This research brief examines Americans' views of stakeholders in education: parents, teachers, teacher unions, academic researchers, business leaders, and think tanks. Whereas in the past only elected officials were considered legitimate policy actors, today there are more groups of people competing to shape education policy. But we know very little about which stakeholders are seen as credible by the public, and why.

This chapter focuses on government-appointed advisory commissions in Norway and Sweden and investigates how and to what extent their respective governments use the evidence produced in these commissions for education policymaking. Drawing on the concepts of network governance and multi-centric policymaking, it compares reference patterns (a) between Green Papers (GPs) and White Papers (WPs) and (b) between Norwegian and Swedish GPs. The results show that the WPs produced by the ministries share strikingly few references with the GPs produced by their appointed commissions. An in-depth analysis of the references which "made" it to the political level demonstrates how knowledge gets lost, rebalanced, or reinterpreted in the policy process. This chapter situates the findings within discussions on the changing role of advisory commissions in today's policymaking.