Evidence-based Policy Making: Understanding Different Types of Knowledge in Policy Process

• In Event: Policy knowledge networks and lesson drawing in an era of international comparison

Proposal

Evidence is often used to inform policy decisions during the policy design and evaluation stages. Particularly, with the rise of accountability around the world, the emphasis on evidence-based policy making has increased in recent years (Gorur, Sellar, & Steiner-Khamsi, 2018; Levin, 2003). In our preliminary analysis of Norwegian education policy documents produced by the government and government-commissioned expert panels, there was a drastic increase in the number of references between the Knowledge Promotion Reform in 2006 and the Renewal and Improvement Reform in 2016. On average, there were 102 references per document in 2006, compared to 246 references on average per document in 2016.

Despite the global movement toward the evidence-based policy, what constitutes “good” evidence in education policy making remains unclear. Some argue that policies should be based on research findings (research-based knowledge), particularly Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) while others argue that policies should be based on tacit knowledge obtained only through direct involvement and professional practice (practice-based knowledge) (Slavin, 2002; Thomas & Pring, 2004). In the field education, the tension between evidence and practice is more salient than any other fields because teaching and learning are perceived to be heavily contextual and hence difficult to utilize second-handed knowledge (Thomas & Pring, 2004). Previous literature also discusses that the definition of evidence varies by local contexts, and policy actors use different types of evidence depending on the stage in the policy process. (Hadorn, Baker, Hodges, & Hicks, 1996; Hulme, Hulme, & Rauschenberger, 2017; McDonnell & Weatherford, 2013). For example, in their analysis of the Common Core State Standards initiatives in the United States, McDonnell and Weatherford (2013) found that non-research knowledge was used as evidence in the problem-definition and solution-identification stage when policy actors needed to humanize the issue to obtain political supports.

Building on this body of literature on what counts as evidence, this presentation will set up the discussion for the national case studies in this panel (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) by proposing the typologies of evidence observed in the four Nordic countries. The evidence patterns will be analyzed by types of knowledge (e.g., peer-reviewed journal articles, government decree, and institutional reports), year of publication, publisher, author affiliation, and location of publication (international/national). Each Nordic case study that follows will provide richer contexts to situate the role and translation of the evidence in the process behind each reform.

Author

• Chanwoong Baek, Teachers College, Columbia University