Knowledge mobilisation and the civic academy: The nature of evidence, the roles of narrative and the potential of contribution analysis

Contemporary Social Science

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 249-262

  Bannister, Jon ^a   O'Sullivan, Anthony ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

civic academy; contribution analysis; evidence; knowledge mobilisation; narrative; policy development

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889654556     PISSN: 21582041     EISSN: 2158205X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/21582041.2012.751497     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S., & Moro, D. (2010). The ambitions and challenges of SROI (Third Centre Research Centre Working Paper 49). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
2. Banks, G. (2009). Evidence-based policy making: What is it? How do we get it? ANU Public Lecture Series, presented by ANZSOG, 4 February. Canberra: Productivity Commission.
3. Barnes, M., Matka, E., & Sullivan, H. (2003). Evidence, understanding and complexity: Evaluation in non-linear systems. Evaluation, 9(3), 265-284. doi: 10.1177/13563890030093003
4. Bauld, L., Judge, K., Barnes, M., Benzeval, M., Mackenzie, M., & Sullivan, H. (2005). Promoting social change: The experience of health action zones in England. Journal of Social Policy, 34(3), 427-445. doi: 10.1017/S0047279405008858
5. Best, A., Terpstra, J. L., & Moor, G. (2008). Windows on our world: Conceptual and organisational models for knowledge to action, presented to the NORFACE. Improving the use of evidence in the policy process seminar, 12 October, Oslo.
6. Blaug, M. (1996). Economic theory in retrospect (5th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Bruner, J. S. (1987). Life as narrative. Social Research, 71(3), 691-710.
8. Burke, P. (2005). History and social theory (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
9. Cabinet Office (1999a). Modernising government, Cm 4310. London: Stationary Office
10. Cabinet Office (1999b). Professional policy making for the 21st century, London: Author.
11. Campbell, S., Benita, S., Coates, E., Davies, P., & Penn, G. (2007). Analysis for policy: Evidence-based policy in practice, London: Government Social Research Unit.
12. Car, J., Huckvale, K., & Hermens, H. (2012). Telehealth for long term conditions. British Medical Journal, 344, 1-2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4201
13. Chalmers, I. (2005). If evidence-informed policy works in practice, does it matter if it doesn't work in theory? Evidence and Policy, 1(2), 227-242. doi: 10.1332/1744264053730806
14. Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research, London: Sage.
15. Davies, H. T.O., & Nutley, S. M. (2001). Evidence-based policy and practice: Moving from rhetoric to reality. Paper presented at the Third International, Inter-disciplinary Evidence-based Policies and Indicator Systems Conference, Proceedings, 86-95. Durham: Durham University. Retrieved from http://www.cemcentre.org/evidence-based-education/evidence-based-policies-and-indicator-systems-3
16. Davoudi, S. (2006). Evidence-based planning: Rhetoric and reality. disP, 165(2), 14-24.
17. De Neufville, J. I., & Barton, S. E. (1987). Myths and the definition of policy problems. Policy Sciences, 20(3), 181-201. doi: 10.1007/BF00156584
18. Duncan, S. (2005). Towards evidence-inspired policymaking. Social Sciences, 61, 10-11.
19. Duncan, S. (2011). Eat your greens: Why doesn't social policy research have more impact? Policy World, Autumn, 14-15
20. Dybdal, L., Nielsen, S., & Lemire, S. (2011). Contribution analysis applied: Reflections on scope and methodology. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 25(2), 29-57.
21. European Evaluation Society. (2007). EES statement: The importance of a methodologically diverse approach to impact evaluation - specifically with respect to development aid and development interventions. Retrieved October 9, 2012, from http://www.europeanevaluation.org/images/file/Member_section/EES%20Statement%20on%20Methodological%20Diversity/EES%20Statement.pdf
22. Fitch, C., Rhodes, T., & Stimson, G. V. (2000). Origins of an epidemic: The methodological and political emergence of rapid assessment. International Journal of Drug Policy, 11(1), 63-82. doi: 10.1016/S0955-3959(99)00056-0
23. Harding, D. (2008). FoolWatch: A case study of econometric analysis and evidence-based-policy making in the Australian government, Melbourne: Latrobe University.
24. Harper, D. J. (2004). Storying policy: Constructions of risk in proposals to reform UK mental health legislation. In B. Hurwitz, V. Skultans, & T. Greenhalgh (Eds.). Narrative research in health and illness (pp. 397-413). London: Blackwell.
25. Henderson, D. (1986). Innocence and design: The influence of economic ideas on policy, Oxford: Blackwell.
26. Higher Education Funding Council for England (2009). Research excellence framework: Second consultation on the assessment and funding of research, London: Author.
27. Higher Education Funding Council for England (2011). Decisions on assessing research impact, research excellence framework 2014, Bristol: HEFC.
28. House, E. R. (2006). Democracy and evaluation. Evaluation, 12(1), 119-127. doi: 10.1177/1356389006064196
29. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2007). Scientific advice, risk and evidence based policy making (Seventh Report of Session 2005-06, Volume 1, HC 900-I). London: The Stationery Office.
30. Judge, K., & Bauld, L. (2001). Strong theory, flexible methods: Evaluating complex community-based initiatives. Critical Public Health, 11(1), 19-38. doi: 10.1080/09581590010028237
31. Jung, T., Nutley, S., Morton, S., & Millar, A. (2010). Linking research and policy in Scotland. Evidence & Policy, 6(2), 213-235.
32. Kaplan, T. J. (1986). The narrative structure of policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(4), 761-778. doi: 10.2307/3324882
33. Kotvojs, F., & Shrimpton, B. (2007). Contribution analysis - a new approach to evaluation in international development. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 7(1), 27-35.
34. Levin, B. (2004). Making research matter more. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(56), 1-20.
35. Loader, I., & Sparks, R. (2010). Wacquant and civic sociology: 'Formative intentions' and formative experiences. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10(4), 405-415. doi: 10.1177/1748895810382366
36. Marris, P. (1997). Witnesses, engineers, and storytellers: Using research for social policy and action, College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Urban Studies and Planning Program.
37. Marston, G., & Watts, R. (2003). Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence-based policy-making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(3), 143-163.
38. Mayne, J. (2001). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: Using performance measures sensibly. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16(1), 1-24.
39. Mayne, J. (2004). Reporting on outcomes: Setting performance expectations and telling performance stories. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 19(1), 31-60.
40. Mayne, J. (2006). Performance studies: The missing link? Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 21(2), 201-208.
41. Mayne, J. (2008). Contribution analysis: An approach to exploring cause and effect, the institutional learning and change initiative (ILAC Brief Number 16). Rome: Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
42. Mayne, J. (2011). Contribution analysis: Addressing cause and effect. In R. Schwartz, K. Forss, & M. Marra (Eds.), Evaluating the complex: Attribution, contribution and beyond (pp. 53-95). New York, NY: Transaction.
43. Mayne, J. (2012). Contribution analysis: Coming of age? Evaluation, 18(3), 270-280. doi: 10.1177/1356389012451663
44. Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert, E., & Goodspeed, T. (2009). A guide to social return on investment, London: Office of the Third Sector, The Cabinet Office.
45. Nutley, S. M. (2003). Increasing research impact: Early reflections from the ESRC evidence network (Working Paper 16). Queen Mary, University of London: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice.
46. Nutley, S., Morton, S., Jung, T., & Boaz, A. (2010). Evidence and policy in six countries: Diverse approaches and common challenges. Evidence and Policy, 6(2), 135-136. doi: 10.1332/174426410X502275
47. Pain, R., Kesby, M., & Atkins, K. (2010). Geographies of impact: Power, participation and potential. Area, 43(2), 183-188. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2010.00978.x
48. Phillips, R. (2010). The impact agenda and geographies of curiosity. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(4), 447-452. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00393.x
49. Riessman, C. K. (2005). Narrative analysis. In N. Kelly, C. Horrocks, K. Milnes, B. Roberts, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Narrative, memory and everyday life (pp. 1-7). Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield.
50. Riessman, C. K., & Quinney, L. (2005). Narrative in social work: A critical review. Qualitative Social Work, 4(4), 391-412. doi: 10.1177/1473325005058643
51. Roberts, G. (2006). History, theory and the narrative turn in IR. Review of International Studies, 32, 703-714. doi: 10.1017/S0260210506007248
52. Rock, D. (2009). Knowledge broker stories: Defining knowledge mobilization from a strategic perspective, weblog entry. Knowledge mobilization works blog, posted December 7. Retrieved October 9, 2012, from http://bit.ly/6TntBs
53. Rogers, P. (2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14(1), 29-48. doi: 10.1177/1356389007084674
54. Sandercock, L. (2003). Out of the closet: The importance of stories and storytelling in planning practice. Planning Theory and Practice, 4(1), 11-28. doi: 10.1080/1464935032000057209
55. Sanderson, I. (2011). Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? Reflections on Scottish experience. Evidence & Policy, 7(1), 59-76. doi: 10.1332/174426411X553007
56. Scottish Government (2009a). Contribution analysis: Guide 6 in the social science methods briefings series, Edinburgh: Author.
57. Scottish Government (2009b). Changing Scotland's relationship with alcohol: A framework for action, Edinburgh: Author.
58. Scriven, M. (2008). A summative evaluation of RCT methodology and an alternative approach to causal research. Journal of Multi Disciplinary Evaluation, 5(9), 11-24.
59. Scriven, M. (2009). Demythologizing causation and evidence. In S. Donaldson, C. Christie, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? (pp. 134-152). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
60. Stame, N. (2006). Governance, democracy and evaluation. Evaluation, 12(1), 7-16. doi: 10.1177/1356389006064173
61. Stame, N. (2010). What doesn't work? Three failures, many answers. Evaluation, 16(4), 371-387. doi: 10.1177/1356389010381914
62. Tamura, E. H. (2011). Narrative history and theory. History of Education Quarterly, 51(2), 150-157. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5959.2011.00327.x
63. Tenbensel, T. (2008). The role of evidence in policy: How the mix matters. Paper presented at the International Research Society for Public Management, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 26-28 March 2008.
64. Tilley, N. (1999). Evaluation and evidence-(mis)led policy. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 11(2), 48-63.
65. Toulemonde, J., Carpenter, D., & Raffier, L. (2011). Coping with the evaluability barrier: Poverty impact of European support at country level. In R. Schwartz, K. Forss, & M. Marra (Eds.), Evaluating the complex: Attribution, contribution and beyond (pp. 123-144). New York, NY: Transaction.
66. C. H. Weiss (2001). What kind of evidence in evidence-based policy?, Third International Inter-Disciplinary Evidence-based Policies and Indicator Systems Conference, Proceedings, 284-291. Durham: Durham University. Retrieved from http://www.cemcentre.org/evidence-based-education/evidence-based-policies-and-indicator-systems-3
67. White, H. (1984). The question of narrative in contemporary historical theory. History and Theory, 23(1), 1-33. doi: 10.2307/2504969
68. Wimbush, E., & Beeston, C. (2010). Contribution analysis: What is it and what does it offer impact evaluation? The Evaluator, Spring, 19-24
69. Wimbush, E., Montague, S., & Mulherin, T. (2012). Applications of contribution analysis to outcome planning and impact evaluation. Evaluation, 18(3), 310-329. doi: 10.1177/1356389012452052
70. Yin, R. (2000). Rival explanations as an alternative to reforms as 'experiments'. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Validity and social experimentation (pp. 239-266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.