Suchergebnisse

The most different similar outcome/most similar different outcome (MDSO/MSDO) technique. A tool for the selection of causally relevant conditions in a database with a limited number of cases
The most different similar outcome/most similar different outcome (MDSO/MSDO) technique. A tool for the selection of causally relevant conditions in a database with a limited number of cases
In this contribution we discuss the potential of the most different similar outcome/most similar different outcome technique. The technique enables a researcher to cope with the degrees of freedom problem (large number of conditions/small number of cases). Through a systematic comparison of pairs of cases, the method identifies the conditions of likely most explanatory relevance to understand differences and similarities in outcome. The actual causal power of the conditions and the underlying causal mechanisms can be subsequently explored with other qualitative methods. The technique relies on the same causal assumptions as other configurational comparative methods, such as qualitative comparative analysis.

While think tanks are no longer solely a feature of Anglo-Saxon countries, they still appear less prevalent in consensus-oriented and neo-corporatist political regimes. To what extent do central characteristics of these countries shape the organizational characteristics and political activities of think tanks? We theoretically contribute to the existing literature on policy advice by drawing inspiration from niche theory, and empirically complement previous work by focusing on think tanks in Belgium, a country with a crowded and closed advisory landscape. Relying on a combination of data sources, our analysis highlights three central features of think tanks: (1) the long-term and anticipatory character of their policy advice, (2) the evidence-based nature of their policy work, and (3) their consensus-oriented mode of operating. The first two features echo what earlier studies in pluralist setting identified as key distinguishing characteristics. The third feature, their consensus-oriented mode of operating, represents a new element that turns out critical for understanding the niche of think tanks in Belgium. Its consensus-style tradition shows not only in how think tanks position themselves externally, but also in their internal organizational structure. Points for practitioners - Think tanks have potential to be key providers of policy advice, also in relatively closed systems with neo-corporatist traits. - In such settings, think tanks especially benefit from a consensual mode of operating, both internally and externally. - The long-term orientation of think tanks can set them apart from other providers of policy advice, such as interest groups and political party think tanks.

Background:While current public policy scholarship can take advantage of a decades-long accumulated knowledge base on the relationship between evidence and policy, it is hard to keep the overview across different literatures. Over time, the ever more differentiated branches of public policy research have developed their own perspectives, languages, and conceptualisations of 'evidence' and 'policy', as well as their connections.
Aims and objectives:Existing reviews have stressed that studies often do not provide clear definitions of 'policy' or 'evidence', and have outlined the importance of investigating underlying conceptualisations in the literature. Against this backdrop, this article investigates how present-day public policy scholarship approaches the concepts of 'evidence', 'policy', and their connections.
Methods:We conducted a qualitative systematic review following the PRISMA method. Using a keyword search, we identified relevant articles (n=85) in eleven Q1 and Q2 policy journals included in Web of Science in the period 2015 to 2019.
Findings:The synthesis confirms that 'evidence' and 'policy' are often not clearly defined, yet different trends regarding understandings can be identified. There are two approaches taken on the evidence and policy connection: a 'use of evidence' or a 'use for policy' perspective.
Discussion and conclusions:Research on evidence and policy would benefit from more explicit conceptual discussions. This review may provide a heuristic for explicating conceptual choices when working with the notions of 'evidence', 'policy', and their connections. It also suggests several avenues that are worth exploring in future research.

AbstractIn this article, we inquire to what extent different manifestations of trust are associated with public support for evidence informed policy making (EIPM). We present the results of a cross‐sectional survey conducted in the peak of the second COVID‐19 wave in six Western democracies: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Switzerland, and the United States (N = 8749). Our findings show that public trust in scientific experts is generally related to positive attitudes toward evidence‐informed policy making, while the opposite is the case for trust in governments and fellow citizens. Interestingly, citizens' assessment of government responses to COVID‐19 moderates the relationship between trust and attitudes toward EIPM. Respondents who do rather not trust their governments or their fellow citizens are more in favor of EIPM if they evaluate government responses negatively. These findings suggest that attitudes toward EIPM are not only related to trust, but also strongly depend on perceived government performance.

Evaluations are considered of key importance for a well-functioning democracy. Against this background, it is vital to assess whether and how evaluation models approach the role of citizens. This paper is the first in presenting a review of citizen involvement in the main evaluation models which are commonly distinguished in the field. We present the results of both a document analysis and an international survey with experts who had a prominent role in developing the models. This overview has not only a theoretical relevance, but can also be helpful for evaluation practitioners or scholars looking for opportunities for citizen involvement. The paper contributes to the evaluation literature in the first place, but also aims to fine-tune available insights on the relationship between evidence informed policy making and citizens.