tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/evidence-based-policy-6434/articlesEvidence based policy – The Conversation2021-09-23T14:08:37Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1653532021-09-23T14:08:37Z2021-09-23T14:08:37ZChildren are losing caregivers to COVID-19: they need support<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419974/original/file-20210908-15-ktc1cp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">As the pandemic progresses, many more children will experience devastating losses.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source"> SDI Productions/GettyImages</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Children have a very <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01897-w">low risk of death or severe disease</a> from COVID-19. As a result, they have not been a core focus in the pandemic response priorities of prevention, detection, and response. But this approach doesn’t take into account the secondary impacts of the pandemic. These include children being orphaned or bereft of their caregivers.</p>
<p>Children are among the most vulnerable members of any society and are thus disproportionately affected by the devastation of this pandemic. If every adult death represents a child who has lost a member of their care network, we are on the cusp of a crisis of care for those children left behind. Without support, these children are set to face adverse consequences, including poverty, abuse, and institutionalisation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-in-children-the-south-african-experience-and-way-forward-164586">COVID-19 in children: the South African experience and way forward</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A first step in supporting these children is to figure out how many have lost guardians to COVID-19. We <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01253-8/fulltext">worked with experts</a> at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organisation, the World Bank, and the United States Agency for International Development to estimate this number. </p>
<p>We used mathematical modelling and mortality and fertility data from 21 countries that account for 76% of the reported global deaths from COVID-19. </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/community/orphanhood-report.pdf">findings</a> uncovered a hidden, secondary pandemic. Over the first 14 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 1.5 million children around the globe lost primary caregivers, including at least one parent or grandparent, to the virus. We also created an <a href="https://imperialcollegelondon.github.io/orphanhood_calculator/#/country/Brazil">online calculator</a> that shows minimum estimates for every country in the world.</p>
<p>As the pandemic progresses, many more children will experience such devastating losses. By September 2021 the number had already risen to 2.3 million. Evidence-based responses to this caregiver loss are urgently needed within global and national responses to COVID-19.</p>
<h2>Crisis of care</h2>
<p>More than 1.1 million children around the world experienced the death of <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01253-8/fulltext">a primary caregiver</a>, such as a parent or custodial grandparent, between March 2020 and April 2021. More than <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01253-8/fulltext">1.5 million</a> children experienced the death of primary caregivers as well as co-residing grandparents (or kin).</p>
<p>Considering custodial grandparents as caregivers in our research is particularly important for an African context. Grandparents <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/data/living-arrangements-older-persons">often</a> serve as guardians, caring for children whose parents migrated for work, have died, or are separated by conflict or war. </p>
<p>Countries with the highest numbers of children losing primary caregivers were South Africa, Peru, the USA, India, Brazil, and Mexico. The number of children orphaned in these countries ranges from 94 ,625 to 1, 562, 000. On the African continent, South Africa has experienced the greatest loss of primary caregivers. Although it is likely that other countries may be under-reporting COVID-19-associated deaths and may have many more orphaned children than we were able to measure. But we know that one in every 200 children in the country lost their primary caregiver. In sum, estimates suggest that every 12 seconds, a child around the world loses a caregiver to the coronavirus pandemic.</p>
<p>As long as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, this devastating toll of caregiver loss will increase daily. For those of us working in child protection, these figures representing the scale of COVID-19-associated orphanhood are deeply concerning. They present serious long-term challenges to the well-being of children.</p>
<p>Children experiencing COVID-19-associated deaths of parents or caregivers are at greater risk of family separation and institutionalisation. Institutionalisation <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanchi/PIIS2352-4642(20)30060-2.pdf">should be avoided</a> because of its clear damage to psychosocial, physical and neural development.</p>
<p>Accelerating equitable vaccine delivery is key to developing a response to this crisis. Over half a billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered worldwide. But <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/31/world/global-vaccine-supply-inequity.html">more than 75%</a> have been used by the world’s richest countries. To this day, less than <a href="https://www.afro.who.int/news/eight-10-african-countries-miss-crucial-covid-19-vaccination-goal">3%</a> of Africa’s population has been fully vaccinated. This moment is all too reminiscent of when AIDS first rampaged through sub-Saharan Africa. It was a time when lifesaving medicines were available in the United States and Europe, but still years away for other countries.</p>
<h2>Lessons from HIV</h2>
<p>Lessons from mass-fatality outbreaks such as HIV might pave a way forward. </p>
<p>In 2003, the United States’ President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) programme made <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10797">a ground-breaking commitment</a> to children worldwide affected by the AIDS epidemic. It mandated that 10% of the programme’s funds would support children whose primary caregivers had died of AIDS or had acquired HIV. This programme, through evidence-based interventions and clinical services, continues to support families caring for children who lost caregivers to AIDS. This helps prevent children being placed in institutions.</p>
<p>Such evidence-based responses should inspire the thinking around how best to care for bereaved children. It is essential to help families caring for these children. Psychosocial support groups should be established. Surviving caregivers must be empowered to facilitate grieving and open communication with children about the trauma of losing loved ones. We must advocate for resources to be allocated to this.</p>
<p>Investments are also urgently needed for accelerator programmes adapted to COVID-19, which combine economic interventions, positive parenting, and education support. Our earlier <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(19)30033-1/fulltext">research</a> shows that low-cost approaches focused on family strengthening can improve multiple outcomes for children with deceased caregivers.</p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(19)30033-1/fulltext">research</a> on development accelerators on the African continent has also shown that programmes like these are feasible and can be affordable. For example, cellphone-based parenting support programmes that help caregivers to manage stress, give them strategies for nonviolent discipline and teach ways to keep children safe from sexual violence can cost as little as about $8 a child.</p>
<p>The grief of these children and their future are the global community’s responsibility. An all-encompassing response to these losses is urgent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165353/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lorraine Sherr has received various research grants over the course of my academic career.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lucie Cluver receives research grants to the University of Oxford and the University of Cape Town from the Oak Foundation and Global Challenges Research Fund (UK) for this work. </span></em></p>Estimates suggest that every 12 seconds, a child somewhere in the world loses a caregiver to the coronavirus pandemic.Lorraine Sherr, Professor of Clinical and Health Psychology, UCLLucie Cluver, Honorary Professor in Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1485442020-11-01T07:57:56Z2020-11-01T07:57:56ZEight common problems with science literature reviews and how to fix them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364703/original/file-20201021-19-1q0dnzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Researchers regularly study the literature in their field.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Oleksandr Korzh/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Researchers regularly review the literature that’s generated by others in their field. This is an integral part of day-to-day research: finding relevant research, reading and digesting the main findings, summarising across papers, and making conclusions about the evidence base as a whole. </p>
<p>However, there is a fundamental difference between brief, narrative approaches to summarising a selection of studies and attempting to reliably, comprehensively summarise an evidence base to support decision-making in policy and practice.</p>
<p>So-called “evidence-informed decision-making” relies on rigorous systematic approaches to synthesising the evidence. Systematic review has become the highest standard of evidence synthesis. It is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673616315926">well established</a> in the pipeline from research to practice in several fields including <a href="https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current">health</a>, the <a href="https://www.environmentalevidence.org/">environment</a> and <a href="https://campbellcollaboration.org/">social policy</a>. Rigorous systematic reviews are vital for decision-making because they help to provide the strongest evidence that a policy is likely to work (or not). They also help to avoid expensive or dangerous mistakes in the choice of policies.</p>
<p>But systematic review has not yet entirely replaced traditional methods of literature review. These traditional reviews may be susceptible to bias and so may end up providing incorrect conclusions. This is especially worrying when reviews address key policy and practice questions.</p>
<p>The good news is that the limitations of traditional literature review approaches could be improved relatively easily with a few key procedures. Some of these are not prohibitively costly in terms of skill, time or resources. That’s particularly important in African contexts, where resource constraints are a daily reality, but should not compromise the continent’s need for rigorous, systematic and transparent evidence to inform policy.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://rdcu.be/b8pp0">our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution</a>, we highlighted eight common problems with traditional literature review methods. We gave examples for each problem, drawing from the field of environmental management and ecology. Finally, we outlined practical solutions.</p>
<h2>Problems</h2>
<p>These are the eight problems we identified in <a href="https://rdcu.be/b8pp0">our paper</a>.</p>
<p>First, traditional literature reviews can lack relevance. This is because limited stakeholder engagement can lead to a review that is of limited practical use to decision-makers. </p>
<p>Second, reviews that don’t publish their methods in an <em>a priori</em> (meaning that it is published before the review work begins) protocol may suffer from mission creep. In our paper we give the example of a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320718313636">2019 review</a> that initially stated it was looking at all population trends among insects. Instead, it ended up focusing only on studies that showed insect population declines. This could have been prevented by publishing and sticking to methods outlined in a protocol.</p>
<p>Third, a lack of transparency and replicability in the review methods may mean that the review <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.1722">cannot be replicated</a>. Replicability is a central tenet of the scientific method.</p>
<p>Selection bias is another common problem. Here, the studies that are included in a literature review are not representative of the evidence base. A lack of comprehensiveness, stemming from an inappropriate search method, can also mean that <a href="https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-018-0599-2">reviews end up with the wrong evidence</a> for the question at hand.</p>
<p>Traditional reviews may also exclude <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jrsm.1433">grey literature</a>. This is <a href="https://libguides.nus.edu.sg/GEH1049/greyliterature">defined as</a> any document </p>
<blockquote>
<p>produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats, but which is not controlled by commercial publishers, i.e., where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It includes <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320715300689?via%3Dihub">organisational reports and unpublished theses or other studies</a>. Traditional reviews may also fail to test for evidence of publication bias; both these issues can result in incorrect or misleading conclusions. Another common error is to treat all evidence as equally valid. The reality is that some research studies are more valid than others. This needs to be accounted for in the synthesis.</p>
<p>Inappropriate synthesis is another common issue. This involves methods like vote-counting, which refers to tallying studies based on their statistical significance. Finally, a lack of consistency and error checking (as would happen when a reviewer works alone) can introduce errors and biases if a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jrsm.1369">single reviewer makes decisions without consensus</a>.</p>
<p>All of these common problems can be solved, though. Here’s how.</p>
<h2>Solutions</h2>
<p>Stakeholders can be identified, mapped and contacted for feedback and inclusion without the need for extensive budgets. Best-practice guidelines for this process <a href="https://stakeholdersandsynthesis.github.io">already exist</a>.</p>
<p>Researchers can carefully design and publish an <em>a priori</em> protocol that outlines planned methods for searching, screening, data extraction, critical appraisal and synthesis in detail. Organisations like the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence have <a href="http://www.environmentalevidence.org/guidelines/section-4">existing protocols</a> from which people can draw.</p>
<p>Researchers also need to be explicit and use high-quality guidance and standards for review <a href="http://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors">conduct</a> and <a href="http://www.prisma-statement.org/">reporting</a>. Several such standards <a href="http://www.roses-reporting.com">already exist</a>.</p>
<p>Another useful approach is to carefully design a search strategy with an info specialist; to trial the search strategy against a benchmark list; and to use multiple bibliographic databases, languages and sources of grey literature. Researchers should then publish their search methods in an <em>a priori</em> protocol for peer review.</p>
<p>Researchers should consider carefully planning and trialling a critical appraisal tool before starting the process in full, learning from <a href="https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials">existing robust critical appraisal tools</a>. Critical appraisal is the carefully planned assessment of all possible risks of bias and possible confounders in a research study. Researchers should select their synthesis method carefully, based on the data analysed. Vote-counting should never be used instead of meta-analysis. <a href="https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.178.3100&rep=rep1&type=pdf">Formal methods for narrative synthesis</a> should be used to summarise and describe the evidence base.</p>
<p>Finally, at least two reviewers should screen a subset of the evidence base to ensure consistency and shared understanding of the methods before proceeding. Ideally, reviewers should conduct all decisions separately and then consolidate.</p>
<h2>Collaboration</h2>
<p>Collaboration is crucial to address the problems with traditional review processes. Authors need to conduct more rigorous reviews. Editors and peer reviewers need to gate-keep more strictly. The community of methodologists needs to better support the broader research community. </p>
<p>Working together, the academic and research community can build and maintain a strong system of rigorous, evidence-informed decision-making in conservation and environmental management – and, ultimately, in other disciplines.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148544/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neal Robert Haddaway works for the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change. He receives funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Mistra, Formas, and Vinnova. He is also an honorary Research Associate at the Africa Centre for Evidence at the University of Johannesburg.</span></em></p>The limitations of traditional literature review approaches could be improved relatively easily with a few key procedures.Neal Robert Haddaway, Research Fellow, Africa Centre for Evidence, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1416162020-07-01T14:19:12Z2020-07-01T14:19:12ZAcademic freedom is sacrosanct. But so is ethical responsibility<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/344830/original/file-20200630-103645-8ru41j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> </figcaption></figure><p>In 1990 <a href="https://www.codesria.org/">CODESRIA</a>, Africa’s premier social science council, organised a conference in Kampala, Uganda, on academic freedom. The conference was against the backdrop of mounting harassment of academics on the continent. They were subjected to travel restrictions in some countries, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dech.12481">arrest, detention</a>, and sometimes even <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/17/world/idi-amin-murderous-and-erratic-ruler-of-uganda-in-the-70-s-dies-in-exile.html">assassination</a>.</p>
<p>The idea of defence of specific rights for academics was <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dech.12481">not without contention</a> within the council. Why would you argue for an exclusive right to middle-class academics when the basic rights of ordinary citizens are denied every day?</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the idea of a conference and a charter for intellectuals (not just scholars) prevailed. The African scholars at the conference took the <a href="https://www.achpr.org/legalinstruments/detail?id=49">1981 African Charter on Human and People’s Rights</a>, of the then Organisation of African Unity, as its grundnorm, that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>set the normal standards to guide the exercise of intellectual freedom and remind ourselves of our social responsibility as intellectuals.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Out of the conference, attended by the luminaries of the African social sciences, emerged <a href="https://www.codesria.org/spip.php?article350">the Kampala Declaration on Intellectual Freedom and Social Responsibility</a>. It remains Africa’s most definitive statement on academic freedom.</p>
<p>It followed almost two years after the 68th general assembly of the World University Service, held in Lima in 1988, adopted <a href="https://www.wusgermany.de/sites/wusgermany.de/files/userfiles/WUS-Internationales/wus-lima-englisch.pdf">the Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy of Institutions of Higher Education</a>. The Lima Declaration was driven by the realisation that, whereas there are several global instruments concerning human rights, there was none that specifically protected the freedom of intellectuals.</p>
<p>Both the Lima and the Kampala declarations are emphatic that academic freedom is fundamental to the functioning of the academic community. Its defence is seen as central to the viability and survival of the academy. Scholars must be able to teach, undertake research, report their findings and exchange ideas without fear or hindrance.</p>
<p>These principles still hold true. But that’s not the only consideration, as the Kampala Declaration acknowledges – academic freedom is only one wing by which the academy flies. The other is the duty of scholars to act ethically and responsibly.</p>
<h2>Uncomfortable truth</h2>
<p>By its nature, knowledge advances in unpredictable directions. Often, it might run counter to conventional wisdom and ideas with powerful vested interests. The most important findings from research may be something the researchers weren’t looking for. Similarly, the free exchange of information and protection of dissent against dominant paradigms are essential for the vitality of a research community.</p>
<p>The active and uninhibited dissemination of knowledge is vital for the advancement of knowledge. Scholarly debates need to be free and without let or hindrance. The instinct to restrict the free practice of the academic vocation does not come only from the state or powerful business interests. It may also come from powerful civil society entities. </p>
<p>You should not reject the findings of a study because they offend a segment of the population. You definitely should not attack a researcher purely because some find the results of their research offensive. The retort would be: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Don’t shoot the messenger. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Intellectuals can better deliver on their mandate to society when they can pursue their vocations without being hounded solely on account of their research findings and their dissemination. Nor should they be victimised for opinions they express in the practice of their vocation.</p>
<p>But the duty of scholars is to act ethically and responsibly. Article 19 of the Kampala Declaration <a href="https://www.codesria.org/spip.php?article350">states</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Members of the intellectual community are obliged to discharge their roles and functions with competence, integrity and to the best of their abilities. They should perform their duties in accordance with ethical and highest scientific standards.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The social responsibility of intellectuals was set out in eight articles of the declaration.</p>
<p>Academic freedom cannot be a defence for bad science. This, especially where the “findings” are driven by bigotry and subterfuge rather than science. Don’t shoot the messenger, alright. But it is essential for the integrity of the scholarly community that the messenger is not the message.</p>
<p>A scientist who cooks up data or makes scurrilous claims not based on research can legitimately be subjected to disciplinary action by their institution. Journals routinely retract the publications of “research papers” purely on the grounds of unethical research conduct and cooked-up data. </p>
<p>Academic institutions can legitimately discipline their academics found guilty of misconduct; including fiddling the results of their research. Fairness and due process are central requirements of such disciplinary steps. In other words, the buoyancy of the academy depends on the defence of academic freedom and the requirement that its members conduct themselves ethically.</p>
<h2>Critical compact</h2>
<p>Scholars, groups and institutions imperil their collective integrity when they pull up the shield of academic freedom to protect themselves from scrutiny and reckoning for unethical behaviour. Forces external to the academy who engage in similar ventures endanger the genuine defence of academic freedom. They both undermine a critical compact that the academy has with the rest of society. </p>
<p>The compact is this: on the one hand, society values and serves as a guarantor of academic freedom because it understands that this freedom is vital for the optimal functioning of the academy, and meeting the academy’s obligations to society. On the other hand, academics will not deploy this freedom merely to shield an offending colleague from scrutiny and accountability.</p>
<p>Such compact exists within the academic community as well. Mobilising the whole of the academy in defence of academic freedom requires transparency. All within the academy need to know that academic freedom is not being invoked to protect those who engage in unethical conduct. </p>
<p>Often, many in the academy appeal for intervention by external forces (the state or powerful civil society entities) in the affairs of the academy because they feel that academic freedom is being used to shield the privileged ones in its midst — those with immense cultural and procedural power.</p>
<p>Such misuse of the defence of academic freedom undermines the social compact within the academy itself. In the long run, such abuse of academic freedom threatens everyone’s academic freedom.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141616/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Prof Jimi Adesina receives funding from the National Research Foundation, South Africa. The opinions expressed in this article are entirely his. They do not, in any way, implicate my university, the SARChI Chair that he holds, or the National Research Foundation. </span></em></p>The active and uninhibited dissemination of knowledge is vital for the advancement of knowledge.Jimi Adesina, Professor and Holder of the South African Research Chair in Social Policy, University of South AfricaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1394032020-06-11T13:33:39Z2020-06-11T13:33:39ZThe voices missing from South Africa’s response to COVID-19<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/340870/original/file-20200610-34705-qp139r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A woman making masks in Alexandra, Johannesburg. The South African government hasn't consulted with its citizens on COVID-19.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Photo by Michele Spatari / AFP via Getty Images)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ten days after South Africa reported its first case of COVID-19 on 5 March 2020, the government moved quickly to declare <a href="https://www.nicd.ac.za/first-case-of-covid-19-coronavirus-reported-in-sa/">a national state of disaster</a>. Within days a National Coronavirus Command Council had been <a href="https://www.gov.za/speeches/president-cyril-ramaphosa-meets-political-parties-combat-coronavirus-covid-19-18-mar-18-mar">formed</a>, travel restrictions imposed and schools closed. A national <a href="https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/president-ramaphosa-announces-nationwide-lockdown">lockdown</a> was announced on 23 March. This remains in force though restrictions <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-safrica/south-african-president-says-lockdown-to-ease-from-june-1-idUSKBN2300PQ">are being lifted slowly.</a></p>
<p>South Africa’s response has been <a href="https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/coronavirus-in-sa-who-boss-praises-south-africas-response-to-covid-19-pandemic-45923836">praised</a> by the head of the World Health Organisation. But it has also come under intense scrutiny from those who cite major shortcomings in how the government has arrived at decisions. Specifically, it’s been criticised for whose advice it has sought and who it has chosen not to engage.</p>
<p>These limitations are exposed in three dimensions. </p>
<p>The first is the reliance on a small subset of the science community in deliberating on the response. South Africa’s Ministerial Advisory Committee on COVID-19 is dominated by <a href="https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200429090356725">medics and medical professionals</a>. </p>
<p>The second dimension is the seemingly erratic policy options being communicated from different advisers. For example, some have <a href="https://city-press.news24.com/News/prof-salim-abdool-karim-sa-is-fortunate-to-have-politicians-who-value-scientific-input-20200419">supported the lockdown</a> while others have been <a href="https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/unscientific-and-nonsensical-top-scientific-adviser-slams-governments-lockdown-strategy-20200516">calling for it to be halted</a>.</p>
<p>The third dimension is the absence of engagement with the public and civil society organisations. Here, the government could learn from one of the country’s provinces – the Northern Cape Provincial Legislature – which has gone online to strengthen <a href="https://democracyworks.org.za/northern-cape-provincial-legislature-goes-online-to-strengthen-public-participation-during-covid-19/">public participation</a> during COVID-19. The Democracy Works Foundation and Westminister Foundation of Development developed an online engagement series that allows communities to bring their challenges to the legislature. </p>
<p>Policy implementation is about the execution of political decisions, informed by evidence. But part of it is also about politics – being informed by the electorate. It is therefore important that government decision making and interventions be judged in terms of their capacity for effective problem solving. And for generating legitimacy. </p>
<h2>Diversity of scientific expertise is needed</h2>
<p>The economic, health and socioeconomic effects of the lockdown are multidimensional and far reaching. This suggests that advice from social scientists would be essential to inform the government response. Yet the voices of social scientists and civil society are filtering through to government opinion pieces and commentary in the print and social media – not through structured institutionalised advisory committees.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.assaf.org.za/index.php/news/626-public-statement-on-covid19">public statement</a> on COVID-19 recently released by the South African Academy of Sciences cautioned: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>it is crucial that the National Coronavirus Command Council, and the structures reporting to it, such as the Ministerial Advisory Committee on COVID-19, include in its advisory bodies scientists from a much broader range of disciplines. While it is important to have epidemiologists, vaccinologists and infectious disease experts on these bodies, we believe that the pandemic is not simply a medical problem but a social problem as well. This means that social scientists and humanities scholars should also form part of these advisory structures.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yet this isn’t happening.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africa-needs-a-post-lockdown-strategy-that-emulates-south-korea-136678">South Africa needs a post-lockdown strategy that emulates South Korea</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Even the advice from scientists who have formally been drawn into the process of advising government has its limitations. </p>
<p>Scientists on the ministerial advisory committee typically frame the issue based on their involvements and expertise. </p>
<p>What South Africa needs now is scientists to move from being issues advocates who seek to reduce the scope of available choices. They need to become what political scientist Roger A. Pielke refers to as <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232025245_The_Honest_Broker_Making_Sense_of_Science_in_Policy_and_Politics_Roger_A_Pielke_Jr_Cambridge_Cambridge_University_Press_2007_pp_ix_188">honest brokers of policy alternatives</a>. </p>
<p>This would involve scientists engaging in decision making and integrating scientific knowledge with stakeholder concerns, thus embracing the politics of expert advice. These stakeholder concerns would include business, labour, women’s organisations, religious organisations, professional societies and civic groups. </p>
<h2>Legitimacy</h2>
<p>The government has recently moved from a strict lockdown to a differential risk-adjusted model of alert levels. </p>
<p>The five risk-adjusted levels are guided by a set of criteria. These include the level of infections and rate of transmission, the capacity of health facilities, the implementation of public health interventions and economic and social impact. Built into the model is the possibility of a differentiated approach to deal with those areas that have <a href="https://www.gov.za/speeches/president-cyril-ramaphosa-developments-south-africa-risk-adjusted-strategy-manage-spread">far higher levels of infection and transmission</a>. Decision makers in the Department of Health say they are currently implementing what is <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2020-05-16-health-dg-slams-advisory-ministerial-committee-member-who-said-lockdown-laws-were-unscientific/">practical and implementable</a>. This, it’s envisaged, would be done in a way that’s “coherent and aligned to many factors”. </p>
<p>The question is: why are ordinary citizens not involved in decisions about what is practical and implementable, coherent and aligned?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/139403/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Isayvani Naicker is the Director of Strategy and Partnerships at the African Academy of Science (AAS), a non-aligned, non-political, not-for-profit pan African organisation whose vision is to see transformed lives through science. The AAS receives funding from various international philanthropic organisations and governments. She is an Associate at the Democracy Works Foundation. She is writing this piece in her personal capacity based on work undertaken for her PhD at the University of Cambridge looking at the role of science in issues advocacy in the management of invasive species within the Fynbos in the Western Cape Province in South Africa, and engagements during her PhD as an Associate Fellow at the Univeristy of Cambridge Center for Science and Policy that brings together public policy professionals and academics to learn from each other and help research from all disciplines contribute more effectively to society. </span></em></p>Policy implementation is about the execution of political decisions, informed by evidence.Isayvani Naicker, Director Strategy and Partnerships, African Academy of Sciences, African Academy of SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1191822019-07-01T14:04:47Z2019-07-01T14:04:47ZTechnology can make collecting and analysing evidence for policy easier<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280678/original/file-20190621-61747-1yu7clp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With so much research, data and evidence in the world, it's tough to pull it together in a useful way.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is more and more research being produced around the world every day. In total, <a href="https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf">about 3 million articles</a> are published every year.</p>
<p>That’s a lot of information, and a lot of evidence. But humans are finding it increasingly harder to read, analyse and assess so much data when trying to understand a particular topic, a process called <a href="https://evidencesynthesis.org/what-is-evidence-synthesis/">evidence synthesis</a>. This involves converting large bodies of scientific research – articles, reports and data – into reliable and digestible <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africas-new-dawn-should-be-built-on-evidence-based-policy-118129">evidence that can inform management or policy</a>. </p>
<p>So if humans might struggle to cope with the increasing volume of evidence needed to build effective, solid policy, what’s the solution? We think technology is the key. With accessible software tools and workflows, machines can be left to do the laborious work so that people can focus on planning, thinking and doing. That’s what prompted two of us (Neal and Martin) to create the <a href="https://www.eshackathon.org/2019/01/17/what_is_the_esh.html">Evidence Synthesis Hackathon</a> series.</p>
<p>This initiative was launched in 2017 to bring together world-leading and emerging researchers, practitioners and software developers to produce new Open Source tools and frameworks that support evidence synthesis. There have been three hackathons since then – two in Stockholm, and one in Canberra. They’ve drawn participants from 13 countries on six continents and led to 19 projects being initiated. </p>
<p>One such project is <a href="https://www.eshackathon.org/software/metafor-reports.html">metafor automated reports</a>, which automatically writes methods and results text for a particular statistical model (meta-analysis). This ensures that all the relevant information is included in any report in a consistent and reliable way.</p>
<p>Other projects include tools that help researchers visualise databases of studies to help identify gaps in global knowledge, and those that extract information from documents, like important data that describe the study location or its findings. We have also produced <a href="https://www.eshackathon.org/projects.html">discussion papers</a> that introduce new ways to think about evidence synthesis.</p>
<p>The hackathons, and other digital projects of this nature, are one way of creating a community of practice which together produces freely accessible tools and workflows. This helps to ensure the tools can speak to each other and reduces the risk of lots of different tools being produced that do the same thing.</p>
<h2>In practice</h2>
<p>Many of the outputs produced at the hackathons are already being used by researchers. One example is <a href="https://estech.shinyapps.io/eviatlas/">EviAtlas</a>. This is a tool for producing maps of evidence unearthed during systematic literature reviews. It converts a database into a set of attractive, interactive figures and tables that show patterns in the “evidence base” and where knowledge gaps and clusters might exist.</p>
<p>It also allows users to produce free, interactive websites displaying the nature of the evidence on a geographical map. This is something that would previously have been expensive and highly complex.</p>
<p>So, for instance if you wanted to know what research had been conducted on the impacts of buffer strips around farmland in temperate ecosystems in Africa, you could quickly and easily explore <a href="https://eviatlastest.github.io/">this interactive map</a> to find out.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280656/original/file-20190621-61756-151u3mc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280656/original/file-20190621-61756-151u3mc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280656/original/file-20190621-61756-151u3mc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280656/original/file-20190621-61756-151u3mc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280656/original/file-20190621-61756-151u3mc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280656/original/file-20190621-61756-151u3mc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280656/original/file-20190621-61756-151u3mc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EviAtlas interactive web site.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ESHackathon</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Evidence synthesis, much like the primary research studies that the process is based on, can sometimes ignore specialist evidence from Africa – perhaps because researchers do not know the literature landscape as well as that from North America and Europe. Similarly, developing policies based on examples and evidence from developed world contexts doesn’t work for countries with very different contexts. That’s why it’s so encouraging that there’s a growing African presence at the hackathons.</p>
<h2>African participation</h2>
<p>Earlier in 2019, the Evidence Synthesis Hackathon was able to host three participants from the African continent, thanks to funding from the University of Johannesburg through the <a href="https://africacentreforevidence.org/">Africa Centre for Evidence</a>. </p>
<p>The three participants were integral to the discussions and coding work at the hackathon, and were instrumental in its success.</p>
<p>Two of the participants were experienced software programmers Christopher Penkin and Mandlenkosi Ngwenya. They produced a tool to keep track of and save web-based searches for research. Until now, this has been almost impossible to do in evidence syntheses. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.eshackathon.org/software/grey-lit-reporter.html">tool</a>, which is in the final stages of development, is a Chrome browser extension that logs user search information and downloads it into a central database. Internet searches are notoriously difficult to keep track of and report transparently, but this tool does the reporting for you, and also automatically saves all your search results in one place.</p>
<p>This represents a huge step forward in transparency, efficiency and repeatability, <a href="https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0371-9">and an important gap in the methodology until now</a>. All of this is crucial for rigorous evidence synthesis. </p>
<p>The third attendee from Africa, Witness Mapanga, is an evidence synthesis specialist. He worked with other top researchers on projects to build a brighter future for evidence use in policy. This work is due to be published by the end of the year.</p>
<h2>Building communities</h2>
<p>We’re planning a number of hackathons in 2019 and beyond – one of them in South Africa in 2020. Doing this will hopefully highlight what resource-constrained environments need from evidence synthesis and what they can produce.</p>
<p>In the long run, hackathons and similar events can be used to build communities of practice: networks of researchers, data scientists, and software developers focussed on driving progress towards a sustainable future. The Evidence Synthesis Hackathon represents a novel but increasingly important part of this new movement.</p>
<p><em>Mandlenkosi Ngwenya and Christopher Penkin contributed to this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119182/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neal Haddaway and Martin Westgate and The Evidence Synthesis Hackathon have received funding from Mistra EviEM (<a href="http://www.eviem.se/en">www.eviem.se/en</a>), the Australian National University, the University of New South Wales, The University of Johannesburg, and Neal Haddaway and Martin Westgate are the co-founders of the Evidence Synthesis Hackathon.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Westgate receives funding from the Sustainable Farms Initiative (<a href="http://www.sustainablefarms.org.au">http://www.sustainablefarms.org.au</a>).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Witness Mapanga received funding from the University of Johannesburg and University of Witwatersrand to attend the 2019 Evidence Synthesis Hackathon in Australia. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carina van Rooyen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With accessible software tools and workflows, machines can be left to do the laborious work so that people can focus on planning, thinking and doing.Neal Robert Haddaway, Research Fellow, Africa Centre for Evidence, University of JohannesburgCarina van Rooyen, Senior researcher at the Africa Centre for Evidence, University of JohannesburgMartin Westgate, Research Fellow in Ecology & Evidence Synthesis, Australian National UniversityWitness Mapanga, Health Systems and Policy Researcher, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1181292019-06-04T13:21:40Z2019-06-04T13:21:40ZSouth Africa’s “new dawn” should be built on evidence-based policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277575/original/file-20190603-69059-1yjh9fh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Cyril Ramaphosa must prioritise evidence-based policy making.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">GovernmentZA/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South African President Cyril Ramaphosa was elected on the promise of bringing a “<a href="https://www.gov.za/speeches/president-cyril-ramaphosa-2018-state-nation-address-16-feb-2018-0000">new dawn</a>” to the country. There are clear signs that he is trying to make this happen. He’s reconfigured his <a href="https://www.gov.za/speeches/president-cyril-ramaphosa-cabinet-announcement-29-may-2019-0000">cabinet</a>. He’s also made several senior public sector <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2019-03-27-breaking-news-edward-kieswetter-appointed-new-sars-commissioner/">appointments</a>. These are designed to instil trust in key state institutions.</p>
<p>And, crucially, he has <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africa-has-a-new-presidential-advisory-unit-will-it-improve-policy-117128">reintroduced</a> a high-level policy coordination unit, the Policy Analysis and Researcher Services, within his office. </p>
<p>This is an encouraging move. It suggests that, despite a flurry of radical changes in the executive, a core strength of previous administrations will not be lost: South Africa’s evidence-based approach to policy development and implementation is set to continue.</p>
<p>Evidence-based policy making has been a feature in South Africa for over 20 years. This approach is valuable for several reasons. First, it allows policy makers to understand which policies and programmes work in achieving their objectives. It also highlights which policies don’t and should be reviewed or stopped. </p>
<p>Second, the evidence-based approach to policy making has value beyond policies in individual sectors. It can also decrease wasteful expenditure by focusing on the most cost-effective programmes. For example, the UK’s <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/">National Institute for Health and Care Excellence</a> has for 20 years appraised and guided the country’s spending on health interventions and technologies. </p>
<p>Finally, it creates enhanced accountability and transparency in the state’s decision-making processes. That’s because systems used in this approach allow policy makers to <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2017/04/how-policymakers-prioritize-evidence-based-programs-through-law">openly declare</a> what types of information and data they used in reaching particular decisions.</p>
<p>Ramaphosa’s “new dawn” will require a rigorous evidence-base of what works to guide high-level policy planning and design.</p>
<h2>Policy examples</h2>
<p>There are several examples of successful evidence-based policy interventions in South Africa. Arguably, the most high profile example relates to the country’s fight against HIV/AIDS. A civil society group, the Treatment Action Campaign, <a href="https://tac.org.za/category/about/">advocated</a> for a more evidence-based approach to the management and care of HIV/AIDS. The subsequent policy change is estimated to have prevented <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002469">1.72 million deaths</a> between 2000 and 2014.</p>
<p>South Africa’s groundbreaking social grants system is another evidence-based policy success story. Its design and implementation have been rigorously evaluated in multiple studies. These have found significant positive effects on <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09765239.2017.1336304">poverty reduction</a> and <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-social-policy/article/child-support-grants-in-south-africa-a-pathway-to-womens-empowerment-and-child-wellbeing/9ED6B4F0D81D8F61BB2C29CD27C42F58">women’s empowerment</a>, among other outcomes.</p>
<p>While policy design has been solid, implementation has not always been successful. This is because while policy design largely happens at the national government level, implementation tends to be handled at a provincial or municipal level. These tiers must be strengthened to ensure better implementation.</p>
<h2>Successes so far</h2>
<p>Despite shortcomings in implementation, South Africa is a continental leader in evidence-based policy making. Its approach to evaluating and measuring policies’ effects is implemented across government departments through the <a href="https://www.dpme.gov.za/Pages/default.aspx">National Evaluation System</a>. The system has achieved international acclaim. Several <a href="https://www.twendembele.org/">other African countries</a> have used it as an inspiration from which to design similar systems. </p>
<p>By 2018, South Africa’s system had assessed <a href="https://evaluations.dpme.gov.za/images/gallery/NEP%202018-19_2020%20-2021.pdf">R110 billion of government expenditure</a>. By doing this, it was able to indicate the effectiveness of various policies and programmes. This is hugely important in a climate of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/south-africa-s-budget-deficit-seen-wider-than-treasury-forecasts">limited funds</a>.</p>
<p>The Department of Environmental Affairs is a useful example of transparency and openness in policy making. It develops dedicated <a href="https://www.environment.gov.za/mediarelease/deahosts3rdbiodiversityresearchandevidenceindaba">research and evidence strategies</a>. These are used to tell stakeholders what types of information the department needs to make key policy decisions. </p>
<p>The Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, meanwhile, is systematically collecting data from citizens themselves regarding policy implementation and service delivery. This is done through its <a href="https://www.dpme.gov.za/keyfocusareas/cbmSite/Pages/default.aspx">citizen-based monitoring programme</a>.</p>
<p>Another area of evidence-based policy making where South Africa has performed well relates to training. It is important that public servants be empowered to draw on relevant information and evidence without having to outsource this critical input for policy development. The Department of Public Service and Administration runs training programmes for all public servants. This is complemented by the University of Cape Town, which offers <a href="http://www.mandelaschool.uct.ac.za/gsdpp/courses/evidence_based_policy_making_implementation">executive training</a> on the topic for senior policy makers. </p>
<p>In addition, the Department of Science and Technology (which has now been merged with the Department of Higher Education and Training) supports <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/event/workshop/eipm-water-energy-food-health">a range</a> of evidence-based policy making <a href="http://sasdghub.org/about/">initiatives</a>.</p>
<p>All of this, along with a few other initiatives, has meant that South African civil servants are increasingly able to develop and maintain rigorous evidence-bases to inform their policy decisions. </p>
<h2>Build and adapt</h2>
<p>In the coming months, President Ramaphosa’s administration must maintain what has worked so far in evidence-based policy making. The focus should not shift to selected expert opinions and external consultant reports. After all, the country boasts <a href="https://www.dpme.gov.za/keyfocusareas/Socio%20Economic%20Impact%20Assessment%20System/Pages/default.aspx">many</a> robust, <a href="https://www.dpme.gov.za/news/Pages/DPME-to-launch-Evidence-Mapping-tool.aspx">proven systems</a> within the civil service <a href="https://www.dpme.gov.za/publications/20%20Years%20Review/Pages/default.aspx">already</a>.</p>
<p>The new administration can draw on and expand these existing efforts to build a civil service that is skilled at policy making in complex and rapidly changing local, national, and regional contexts. This is key to building a <a href="https://www.gov.za/speeches/president-cyril-ramaphosa-cabinet-announcement-29-may-2019-0000">modern developmental state</a> that’s capable of implementing the National Development Plan, a blueprint for the next decade.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118129/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laurenz Langer works for the Africa Centre for Evidence (ACE), University of Johannesburg. ACE has received funding from South African government departments to support evidence synthesis and evidence-based policy-making in a number of policy areas. ACE also has received a number of external research grants from international donors such as the Hewlett Foundation and overseas research councils. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Promise Nduku works for the Africa Centre for Evidence (ACE), University of Johannesburg. ACE has received funding from South African government departments to support evidence synthesis and evidence-based policy-making in a number of policy areas. ACE also has received a number of external research grants from international donors such as the Hewlett Foundation and overseas research councils.</span></em></p>Ramaphosa’s “new dawn” will require a rigorous evidence-base of what works to guide high-level policy planning and design.Laurenz Langer, Senior Researcher, University of JohannesburgPromise Nduku, Researcher, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/974902018-06-11T17:08:45Z2018-06-11T17:08:45ZAfrica takes steps to earn its stripes in using evidence to inform policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221951/original/file-20180606-137306-y5wff3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">By focusing on evidence to inform policy, Africa can tackle some major problems.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Rigorous, reliable evidence should be used when making decisions for any society. That’s because the use of evidence helps decision makers to maximise limited resources such as money and expertise. It’s also a way to avoid harm and to select the courses of action that have been shown to be beneficial.</p>
<p>The importance of basing decisions on the best available evidence is even more important in settings like Africa. The continent has enormous challenges to overcome. These include a lack of resources; poverty; and corruption.</p>
<p>Africa, like many developing countries, has a real challenge when it comes to using academic research and evidence to decide on and design policies. The problem is twofold. Policymakers sometimes don’t call on available research, while for their part academics don’t know how to engage with policymakers.</p>
<p>But academics would be naive to believe that only research evidence is important, or that they’re the only ones working to tackle Africa’s massive challenges. Rather, my colleagues and I should recognise our position within a wider community working towards <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19439342.2018.1425734?scroll=top&needAccess=true">real change</a>. This community is made up of people, the organisations they work for and their wider networks.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://africaevidencenetwork.org">Africa Evidence Network</a> is one of many on the continent working to break down the walls that stop decision makers and researchers from working closely together. </p>
<p>We set up the <a href="http://www.africaevidencenetwork.org/africa-evidence-leadership-award/">Africa Evidence Leadership Award</a> as part of this effort. It is aimed at people from Africa who work to support evidence-informed decision making. The way in which evidence-informed decision making has been defined has deliberately been left broad. This means that people from all sectors of the evidence ecosystem – not only academics – can apply. </p>
<p>It’s a chance to benchmark the highest standards of evidence-informed decision-making and to recognise people using evidence to make decisions and engaging with researchers to support evidence-informed decisions. Our hope is that a new generation of evidence champions will want to engage with evidence-informed decision-making if it’s seen to be prestigious. </p>
<h2>Work across the continent</h2>
<p>The winner of the inaugural Africa Evidence Leadership Award, Velia Manyonga, is an excellent example of an evidence champion. Manyonga is the head of the research division at the Parliament of Malawi. Her work involves generating evidence for Malawian MPs to use in parliamentary committee meetings and during house debates.</p>
<p>She also analyses the credibility of evidence sources and has developed guidelines for evidence use. These show how MPs and staff can access and use parliament’s research services. All this work crosses sectors and supports decision makers in a very direct way to engage with evidence. </p>
<p>Manyonga is part of a wide network of decision makers and researchers across the continent who are using evidence as a tool to change the world. </p>
<p>There are several examples of projects that have been launched on the back of co-operation between academics and policy makers. One of these is a rapid response service <a href="https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-017-0200-1">being carried out in Uganda</a>. There, evidence summaries were developed and tweaked according to Ugandan decision-makers’ specific needs.</p>
<p>Another project is the co-production of evidence syntheses <a href="http://www.dpme.gov.za/news/Pages/DPME-to-launch-Evidence-Mapping-tool.aspx">happening in South Africa</a>. Researchers from the Africa Centre for Evidence support the research division within the government’s Department for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation by developing evidence maps that different departments can draw on when making decisions.</p>
<p>This sort of work is happening elsewhere in Africa, too, as evidenced by the submissions we received for the Africa Evidence Leadership Award from countries like Ghana, Cameroon and Kenya.</p>
<h2>Setting high standards</h2>
<p>The award is a useful benchmarking exercise. By highlighting extraordinary examples of evidence-informed decision making, people doing this kind of work can push their standards ever higher. That’s a good thing for policy makers – and ultimately citizens – who benefit from these sorts of decisions.</p>
<p>The award will also help Africa develop a reputation for evidence-informed decision making and show its commitment to the process. The hope is that individuals will be lauded for their work on the continent, offered greater funding support and get opportunities for travel and learning.</p>
<p>We hope to present this award annually in future, although that will depend on several factors, including the availability of funding. Meanwhile, the hard work of putting evidence at the centre of decisions and policies across Africa continues – led by evidence champions around the continent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97490/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ruth Stewart is the director of the Africa Centre for Evidence at the University of Johannesburg, and the current chairperson of the Africa Evidence Network. The Africa Centre for Evidence is externally funded and has in the past received research funding from the South African national government.</span></em></p>Africa has a real challenge when it comes to using academic research and evidence to design policies.Ruth Stewart, Associate Professor: Evidence-Informed Decision-Making, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/952522018-04-24T14:36:11Z2018-04-24T14:36:11ZWhat’s holding Malawi back in its fight against malaria<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216172/original/file-20180424-57598-vs2esz.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A Malawian woman receives a bednet to protect her and her child from mosquitoes that spread malaria.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">MSF/ Wilfred Masebo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Malaria is a major health problem in Malawi. Each year <a href="https://reliefweb.int/report/malawi/president-s-malaria-initiative-malawi-malaria-operational-plan-fy-2017">millions of cases are recorded</a> – most are pregnant women and children under the age of five. </p>
<p>Eliminating malaria – or at least reducing the burden to a point where it has no public health significance – has become a <a href="https://rollbackmalaria.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Malawi-The-malaria-program-performance-review-20101.pdf">national priority</a> in the country. </p>
<p>As a result Malawi has a bevy of policies and guidelines that have been developed to help tackle the challenges presented by the disease. These relate to prevention, diagnosis and treatment. These guidelines and policies have had some success. One major feat is that malaria prevalence in the country dropped by 10%, from 43% to 33% <a href="https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/MIS18/MIS18.pdf">between 2010 and 2014</a>. </p>
<p>But in my <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27760552">research</a> I identify one of the major factors that’s stopping Malawi from making even greater progress. This is that research isn’t being fully used in the country’s efforts to move from malaria control to elimination. This is a major problem, and one that’s experienced in many other low and middle income countries that are also finding it difficult to use evidence based research to refine and adjust policies to suit local conditions.</p>
<p>On top of this Malawi doesn’t have the necessary resources to implement the policies its agreed to implement.</p>
<h2>Implementation challenges</h2>
<p>Most of the policies that have been introduced in Malawi are in line with the <a href="http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272284/9789241565578-eng.pdf?ua=1">World Health Organisation’s recommendations</a> as well as the global eradication campaign, the <a href="https://rollbackmalaria.com/">Roll Back Malaria Partnership</a>. They are based on interventions that have had international success. But Malawi falls short because it’s failed to act on problems that have been identified through research.</p>
<p>One example is the need to destroy mosquitoes breeding sites. For this to be effective, <a href="https://www.pmi.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/malaria-operational-plans/fy17/fy-2017-malawi-malaria-operational-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=6">research shows</a> it needs to take place at a specific time of the season when the breeding sites are at their peak. But in most instances resources are only made available late when the breeding sites are no longer critical.</p>
<p>There’s also the example of the National Malaria Treatment Guidelines. The guidelines were updated in 2007 to ensure that everyone who tested positive would get treated immediately. For this policy to be effective, the drugs need to be readily available in all health facilities. </p>
<p>But evidence shows that there are drug shortages at most of them, despite the fact that there are adequate stocks at the central and district levels. Research attributes the shortages to theft, stock mismanagement, poor record keeping, and <a href="https://www.pmi.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/malaria-operational-plans/fy17/fy-2017-malawi-malaria-operational-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=6">inadequate storage facilities</a>.</p>
<p>Other interventions are also hamstrung by a lack of resources. Take spraying inside homes with insecticides. The government agreed that this should be scaled up and rolled out in all 28 districts in the country, beginning with those with high malaria transmission rates. But since 2010, homes in only eight districts have been sprayed with insecticides because of a lack of <a href="https://www.pmi.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/malaria-operational-plans/fy17/fy-2017-malawi-malaria-operational-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=6">resources</a>. </p>
<p>In addition, health facilities in rural villages have severe shortages of health care workers. This means that health care is often metered out by someone who’s not a trained professional and may not follow what is stipulated in the policy. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216130/original/file-20180424-57591-ahef4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216130/original/file-20180424-57591-ahef4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216130/original/file-20180424-57591-ahef4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216130/original/file-20180424-57591-ahef4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216130/original/file-20180424-57591-ahef4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216130/original/file-20180424-57591-ahef4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216130/original/file-20180424-57591-ahef4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Local staff from Doctors Without Borders (MSF) prepare a workstation to test patients for malaria.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">MSF/Luca Sola</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It also means that no proper records are kept. This in turn translates into Malawi’s national health management information system lacking critical information that could inform policy decisions. Data entered at health centre level feeds into the district to regional and finally at the national level. </p>
<h2>Reconsider the policies</h2>
<p>For malaria control to improve in Malawi, each policy needs to be thoroughly assessed to identify the implementation challenges.</p>
<p>And when new policies are developed, policymakers need to understand which factors could influence implementation. Anticipating the potential barriers would give them room to develop strategies to overcome them. </p>
<p>There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach in addressing the barriers to managing malaria. But the factors that are getting in the way of implementation need to be assessed, preferably through research. </p>
<p>The findings must then be put to use to tackle the shortcomings. The relationship between researchers and policymakers should be a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5469173/">continuous interaction</a> that creates trust and understanding to improve research uptake. There also needs to be strong political commitment to help Malawi shift from prevention to elimination.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95252/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chikondi Mwendera receives funding from the University of Pretoria 's Institute for Sustainable Malaria Control as well as the SAMRC. </span></em></p>Malaria elimination in Malawi is lagging because research isn’t being used properly.Chikondi Mwendera, Researcher, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/790342017-07-25T20:07:40Z2017-07-25T20:07:40ZScientific integrity must be defended, our planet depends on it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178336/original/file-20170716-14267-199qs20.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">To conserve Earth's remarkable species, such as the violet sabrewing, we must also defend the importance of science.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jeremy Kerr</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science is the best method we have for determining what is likely to be true. The knowledge gained from this process benefits society in a multitude of ways, including promoting evidence-based decision-making and management. Nowhere is this more important than conservation, as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn">intensifying impacts of the Anthropocene</a> increasingly threaten the survival of species. </p>
<p>But truth can be inconvenient: <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-national-parks-must-be-more-than-playgrounds-or-paddocks-14389">conservation goals sometimes seem at odds with social or economic interests</a>. As a result, <a href="https://theconversation.com/nature-is-neglected-in-this-election-campaign-at-its-and-our-own-peril-56445">scientific evidence may be ignored or suppressed for political reasons</a>. This has led to <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7640/full/542165b.html">growing global trends</a> of attacking scientific integrity.</p>
<p>Recent assaults on science and scientists under <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/25/511572169/epa-scientists-work-may-face-case-by-case-review-by-trump-team-official-says">Donald Trump’s US administration are particularly extreme</a>, but extend far more broadly. Rather than causing scientists to shrink from public discussions, these abuses have spurred them and their professional societies to defend scientific integrity. </p>
<p>Among these efforts was the recent <a href="https://satellites.marchforscience.com/">March for Science</a>. The largest pro-science demonstration in history, this event took place in more than 600 locations around the world. </p>
<p>We propose, in a new paper in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12958/full">Conservation Biology</a>, that scientists share their experiences of defending scientific integrity across borders to achieve more lasting success. We summarise eight reforms to protect scientific integrity, drawn from lessons learned in Australia, Canada and the US. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178335/original/file-20170716-4792-h8vark.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178335/original/file-20170716-4792-h8vark.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178335/original/file-20170716-4792-h8vark.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178335/original/file-20170716-4792-h8vark.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178335/original/file-20170716-4792-h8vark.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178335/original/file-20170716-4792-h8vark.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178335/original/file-20170716-4792-h8vark.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178335/original/file-20170716-4792-h8vark.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">March for science in Melbourne.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">John Englart (Takver)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is scientific integrity?</h2>
<p>Scientific integrity is the ability to perform, use and disseminate scientific findings without censorship or political interference. It requires that government scientists can communicate their research to the public and media. Such outbound scientific communication is threatened by policies limiting scientists’ ability to publish, publicise or even mention their research findings. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/28/epa-website-removes-climate-science-site-from-public-view-after-two-decades/?utm_term=.00c63b79941f">Public access to websites</a> or <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-administration-restricts-news-from-federal-scientists-at-usda-epa/">other sources of government scientific data</a> have also been curtailed. Limiting access to taxpayer-funded information in this way undermines citizens’ ability to participate in decisions that affect them, or even to know why decisions are being made.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178337/original/file-20170716-25586-yiwuo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178337/original/file-20170716-25586-yiwuo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=232&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178337/original/file-20170716-25586-yiwuo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=232&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178337/original/file-20170716-25586-yiwuo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=232&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178337/original/file-20170716-25586-yiwuo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=292&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178337/original/file-20170716-25586-yiwuo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=292&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178337/original/file-20170716-25586-yiwuo0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=292&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">News of the rediscovery of the shrub <em>Hibbertia fumana</em> (left) in Australia was delayed until a development at the site of rediscovery had been permitted. Political considerations delayed protection of the wolverine (right) in the United States.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wolverine - U.S. National and Park Service. _Hibbertia fumana_ - A. Orme</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A recent case of scientific information being suppressed concerns the rediscovery, early in 2017, of the plant <em>Hibbertia fumana</em> in New South Wales. Last seen in 1823, 370 plants were found. </p>
<p>Rather than publicly celebrate the news, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage was reportedly asked to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/dont-rock-the-boat-rediscovery-of-plant-kept-under-wraps-as-project-approved-20170127-gtzrf3.html">suppress the news</a> until after a rail freight plan that overlapped with the plants’ location had been approved. </p>
<h2>Protecting scientists’ right to speak out</h2>
<p>Scientists employed by government agencies often cannot discuss research that might relate to their employer’s policies. While it may not be appropriate for scientists to weigh in on policy recommendations – and, of course, constant media commentaries would be chaos – the balance has tipped too far towards restriction. Many scientists cannot publicly refer to their research, or that of others, let alone explain the significance of the findings.</p>
<p>To counter this, we need policies that support scientific integrity, an environment of transparency and the public’s right to access scientific information. Scientists’ right to speak freely should be included in collective bargaining agreements. </p>
<p>Scientific integrity requires transparency and accountability. Information from non-government scientists, through submitted comments or reviews of draft policies, can inform the policy process. </p>
<p>Although science is only one source of influence on policy, democratic processes are undermined when policymakers limit scrutiny of decision-making processes and the role that evidence plays in them.</p>
<h2>Let science inform policy</h2>
<p>Independent reviews of new policy are a vital part of making evidence-based decisions. There is room to broaden these reviews, inviting external organisations to give expert advice on proposed or existing policies. This also means transparently acknowledging any perceived or actual vested interests.</p>
<p>Australian governments often invite scientists and others to contribute their thoughts on proposed policy. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-finkel-review-at-a-glance-79177">Finkel Review</a>, for example, received <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/energy/publications/electricity-market-final-report">390 written submissions</a>. Of course, agencies might not have time to respond individually to each submission. But if a policy is eventually made that seems to contradict the best available science, that agency should be required to account for that decision. </p>
<p>Finally, agencies should be proactively engaging with scientific groups at all stages of the process. </p>
<h2>Active advocacy</h2>
<p>Strengthening scientific integrity policies when many administrations are publicly hostile to science is challenging. Scientists are stuck reactively defending protective policies. Instead, they should be actively advocating for their expansion. </p>
<p>The goal is to institutionalise a culture of scientific integrity in the development and implementation of conservation policies. </p>
<p>A transnational movement to defend science will improve the odds that good practices will be retained and strengthened under more science-friendly administrations.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178338/original/file-20170716-14267-v3urwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178338/original/file-20170716-14267-v3urwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178338/original/file-20170716-14267-v3urwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178338/original/file-20170716-14267-v3urwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178338/original/file-20170716-14267-v3urwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178338/original/file-20170716-14267-v3urwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178338/original/file-20170716-14267-v3urwd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The monarch butterfly, now endangered in Canada, and at risk more broadly.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jeremy Kerr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many regard science as apolitical. Even the suggestion of publicly advocating for integrity or evidence-based policy and management makes some scientists deeply uncomfortable. It is telling that providing factual information for policy decisions and public information can be labelled as partisan. Nevertheless, recent research suggests that public participation by scientists, if properly framed, <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170226212742.htm">does not harm their credibility</a>. </p>
<p>Scientists can operate objectively in conducting research, interpreting discoveries and publicly explaining the significance of the results. Recommendations for how to walk such a tricky, but vital, line <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12193/abstract">are readily available</a>. </p>
<p>Scientists and scientific societies must not shrink from their role, which is more important than ever. They have a responsibility to engage broadly with the public to affirm that science is indispensable for evidence-based policies and regulations. These critical roles for scientists help ensure that policy processes unfold in plain sight, and consequently help sustain functioning, democratic societies.</p>
<p><br></p>
<hr>
<p><em>The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr Carlos Carroll, a conservation biologist at the Klamath Center for Conservation Research.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79034/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Euan Ritchie receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Euan Ritchie is a Director (Media Working Group) of the Ecological Society of Australia, and a member of the Australian Mammal Society.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Watson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeremy Kerr receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada through a Discovery Grant and Discovery Accelerator Supplement. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martine Maron receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Environmental Science Programme, the Science for Nature and People Partnership, and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. She is a Director of BirdLife Australia and a Governor of WWF Australia. </span></em></p>To conserve Earth’s remarkable species, we must also defend the importance of science and scientific integrity.Euan Ritchie, Senior Lecturer in Ecology, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin UniversityJames Watson, Associate Professor, The University of QueenslandJeremy Kerr, Research Chair in Macroecology and Conservation, Professor of Biology, Chair of Department of Biology, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of OttawaMartine Maron, ARC Future Fellow and Associate Professor of Environmental Management, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/642282016-10-30T19:06:52Z2016-10-30T19:06:52ZSurgery isn’t always the best option, and the decision shouldn’t just lie with the doctor<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142121/original/image-20161018-12454-11m0fyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Weighing up the evidence for surgery is just one thing to consider before going under the knife.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/dl2_lim.mhtml?src=G5r9D6sZtKvWkj3xzKlPTw-1-19&id=210890980&size=medium_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Surgeons often decide to perform procedures because that’s what’s usually done, it’s what they’re taught, it sounds logical or it fits with observations from their own practice.</p>
<p>If the surgeon’s decision is in line with evidence from scientific studies, there’s little problem. But if the two conflict, either the surgeon’s opinion or the evidence is wrong.</p>
<p>The best way to test whether surgery works (particularly when the outcome is subjective, such as with pain) is to compare it with a sham or placebo procedure. The idea is to keep the patients and those who measure the effectiveness “blinded” to which treatment is given.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3253">review of studies</a> comparing surgery to sham or placebo surgery showed surgery was no better than placebo in just over half of the studies. And in studies where surgery was better than placebo, the difference was generally small.</p>
<p>As an example, two studies compared placebo surgery to keyhole surgery (arthroscopy) of the knee in patients with degenerative conditions (arthritis, meniscus tears and catching and clicking). Both studies showed no important difference in surgery outcomes between the two groups.</p>
<h2>What about other options?</h2>
<p>We don’t always need to compare surgery with a sham. Sometimes comparing surgery with non-surgical treatment (like physiotherapy or medications) is more appropriate.</p>
<p>One <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0096745">study</a> looked at all orthopaedic surgical procedures performed on more than 9,000 patients in three hospitals over three years. Only half the procedures were compared with non-operative treatment. And of that half, about half were no better than not operating.</p>
<p>So there are two problems in surgery: an evidence gap (in which there’s a lack of high quality evidence) and an evidence-practice gap (where there’s high quality evidence that a procedure doesn’t work, yet is still performed).</p>
<p>Part of the problem is that operations are often introduced before there’s good quality evidence of their effectiveness in the real world. The studies comparing them to non-operative treatment or placebo often come much later – if at all.</p>
<h2>When should surgery be funded?</h2>
<p>Doctors should not perform surgical procedures and taxpayers should not have to cover their cost until there’s high quality evidence they work. It should be unethical for surgeons to introduce a new technique without studying whether or not <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24484092">it works</a>.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the opposite is true: ethical approval is not required before surgeons can start performing new procedures, but it is required to study the effectiveness of that procedure.</p>
<p>Often, procedures surgeons consider effective are later shown not to be.</p>
<p>In the US in the 1980s, a new procedure for the lung disease emphysema touted removing some lung tissue. Animal studies and (non-comparative) human studies were encouraging. So the procedure became common. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142124/original/image-20161018-12459-vq1dx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142124/original/image-20161018-12459-vq1dx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142124/original/image-20161018-12459-vq1dx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142124/original/image-20161018-12459-vq1dx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142124/original/image-20161018-12459-vq1dx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142124/original/image-20161018-12459-vq1dx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142124/original/image-20161018-12459-vq1dx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142124/original/image-20161018-12459-vq1dx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Weighing up the evidence for surgery could shed light on whether it should be funded.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/dl2_lim.mhtml?src=lfFyW8Ym2fcj54AIiy-Tfw-1-0&id=89667058&size=medium_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some surgeons called for a trial comparing the procedure to non-operative treatment. But proponents of the procedure said this would deprive many people of the procedure’s benefits, the effectiveness of which was obvious.</p>
<p>Medicare in the US decided only to fund the surgery if patients took part in a trial comparing it to non-surgical treatment. The <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa030287#t=article">trial</a> was done and the surgery was found wanting, with no overall benefit over non-operative treatment. The trial cost the government some money, but much less than paying for the procedure for decades until someone else studied it.</p>
<p>This type of solution should be considered in Australia: new procedures should only be funded by the public if they are performed as part of a trial to adequately test their effectiveness.</p>
<p>Once evidence is available, the key is using it to make good decisions about the effectiveness of a particular procedure for an individual patient. So how should surgeons do that? The answer lies in measuring the right outcomes to begin with and then making shared decisions.</p>
<h2>How do we know if surgery works?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/budget-2016-healthcare-waste-costs-20bn-a-year/news-story/37475d4c7c3a7adfcd65b8216b8ed015">Billions</a> are spent worldwide on surgical procedures that may not be <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/197/10/over-150-potentially-low-value-health-care-practices-australian-study">effective</a>. But how should we define effectiveness?</p>
<p>There is a growing acceptance that doctors should partner with patients to identify outcomes important to them. These might include avoiding complications and an unexpectedly long stay in hospital. But they should also consider longer-term quality of life, disability and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25689756">survival</a>.</p>
<p>This is important when a good operation might be a bad choice. Some medical conditions herald a terminal decline in health, for which living longer is not as good as living well. A good operation may also be a bad choice in cases where attempts at prolonging life are futile.</p>
<h2>Sharing decisions</h2>
<p>Shared decision-making takes into account beliefs, preferences and views of the patient as an expert in what is right for them, supported by clinicians who are the experts in effective therapeutic options.</p>
<p>Patients should have the opportunity to ask further questions when deciding whether to go ahead with surgery to see if surgery is consistent with their values and lifestyle goals. For the critically ill, frail or confused, this discussion should often include the person’s spouse, family or next of kin.</p>
<p>The right decisions in surgery are patient-centred, based on good evidence, clearly communicated and made in a supportive environment. Everyone – doctors, other health professionals, the patient, sometimes their family, and the public – have a right and a responsibility to be included.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64228/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Harris receives no direct payment or funding for research projects. He is an investigator on research projects funded by NHMRC, HCF Research Foundation, AO Trauma Asia Pacific, Lincoln Centre, UNSW, Arthritis Australia, AOA Research Foundation, MAA and SIRA</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Paul Myles receives research funding from the NHMRC and the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. </span></em></p>There’s often limited evidence for many common types of surgery. Understanding what makes good evidence is the key to deciding what’s best for you.Ian Harris, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, UNSW SydneyProfessor Paul Myles, Chair of the Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/667712016-10-18T01:13:33Z2016-10-18T01:13:33ZTeaching in higher education – there isn’t enough evidence to tell us what works and why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141919/original/image-20161017-30252-1bosd7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There isn't enough robust data around what teaching style are effective in higher education. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>Do I deliver this unit online or face to face? How should I arrange my lesson? Do I incorporate pre-class and post-class activities? What methods should I use to engage my students: problem-based learning, active learning strategies, small group work? Should I ask students to come to class or connect remotely? If they come to class, should I ask students to bring and use their own devices?
How should I arrange the classroom furniture for my lesson? Does it matter what I do or how I do it?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The current higher education environment presents multiple challenges for academics. </p>
<p>The above queries provide a few questions university educators ask themselves before they plan their classes. </p>
<h2>Challenges</h2>
<p>In their teaching, academics face larger classes, an ever-changing student cohort, and for many, institutional pressure for blended and online teaching. </p>
<p>As such, university teachers are confronted with many choices, with even our most confident and effective educators expressing concern about the best way to deliver their programs or lessons. </p>
<p>This raises the question of whether one teaching or learning design approach is better than another, and whether the investment in time and effort to transform curriculum is really worth the effort.</p>
<p>In the higher education context, researchers rely on well-formed studies and strong, reliable evidence to inform their decisions. </p>
<p>Similarly, teachers need the same rigour and evidence to support them in their decision making processes around teaching practices. </p>
<h2>Teachers need to know what works</h2>
<p>Teachers are looking for studies that indicate whether there will be an improvement in student success. This might be measured by an improvement in students’ learning experience (students are more motivated and inspired), their learning approach (better study approaches) or learning outcome (grades or employability).</p>
<p>There is an extraordinary number of <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/prin/csj/2015/00000049/00000003/art00013">individual studies</a> that focus on evaluating a change to teaching practice. </p>
<p>For every study that says a change is better - for example, <a href="https://www.learntechlib.org/p/108655">introducing social media into the classroom</a> - there will be another that <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131946.2013.866954?journalCode=heds20">argues the opposite</a>. </p>
<p>We have seen recent articles from The Conversation in which authors argue to <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-the-university-of-adelaides-lecture-phase-out-be-a-flop-44074">phase out passive lectures</a> followed by counter arguments to <a href="https://theconversation.com/lets-not-abandon-the-humble-lecture-quite-yet-44501">not abandon the humble lecture theatre</a>. </p>
<p>Many of these studies are usually undertaken in one subject, in a particular year level, and using a particular approach. As such the results might be influenced by the particular context and culture of the discipline.</p>
<p>These limitations make it unclear whether similar results would be achieved if that same study was applied elsewhere. This in turn makes the evidence unreliable. </p>
<h2>Unreliable evidence</h2>
<p>When considering changes to curriculum and teaching practices, many research studies lack the research rigour required to measure the affect of the changes. </p>
<p>Most studies report on anecdotal evidence, they may not be peer reviewed or published in a reputable journal. </p>
<p>Many disciplines are embedded in their own research paradigms – physical sciences often use positivist approaches in which the researcher focuses on facts, formulates a hypothesis, collects data from large samples and runs statistical tests to determine whether X causes Y.</p>
<p>In contrast, social sciences often use anti-positivist (interpretivist) approaches whereby the researcher focuses on gaining a better understanding of the situation. They collect data usually through interviews or case studies, using a small number of cases or over a long period of time. </p>
<p>In education there is no common approach to systematically obtain, collate and interpret the data, so often a combination of approaches are used. </p>
<p>The strongest evidence usually comes from meta studies, sometimes called meta analyses. These are studies that examine all the individual studies addressing a particular research question. </p>
<p>Usually a meta study involves a systematic review of published research in which the approach (data collection and analysis methods) is considered in terms of its academic rigour. </p>
<p>Those that pass the criteria for methodological rigour have their results synthesised, and conclusions are drawn about the collective meaning. </p>
<p>Studies included in the meta analysis may come from different disciplines and be undertaken in different contexts, but conclusions can be more confidently and broadly applied. </p>
<p>Systematic reviews take a lot of time and money because they involve a number of steps and usually a team of people.</p>
<p>Many have generated over tens of thousands of studies that might attempt to address a particular research question, but are usually filtered to a small select few that pass the rigour markers. </p>
<p>Meta studies that use systematic reviews are likely to provide educators with the practices that have the biggest impact on their students and can bust educational myths. </p>
<p>Systematic reviews are common in the medical field, but not as common in higher education. </p>
<p>In the secondary school context, John Hattie in his book on <a href="http://visible-learning.org/category/books/">Visible Learning</a> has completed over 800 meta studies for secondary school practices that improve achievement. </p>
<p>Robert Mazzaro from Colorado has explored <a href="https://katiedevine.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/classroom-instruction-that-works_pdf.pdf">classroom instruction</a> that works and provides a list of top ten methods for teachers to use in their classroom.</p>
<p>And Geoff Petty is leading an <a href="http://unuvotwic.ru/vovisecipit.pdf">evidence-based teaching network</a> in the UK.</p>
<h2>Few studies on effective teaching in higher education</h2>
<p>In higher education, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07294360.2012.702735">very few meta studies</a> that adopt a systematic review have been completed. </p>
<p>The Australian Government’s Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) once provided funds for these types of large-scale, multi-institutional studies, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/innovation-in-learning-and-teaching-is-too-important-to-cut-58629">funding has since ceased</a>.</p>
<p>There a few meta studies that have attempted to undertake a systematic review in learning and teaching in higher education:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30070540">One investigated</a> the effectiveness of supplemental instruction, a term used to describe models of extra support provided for students to help them develop strategies to succeed. It found that supplemental instruction correlates with better grades and lower failure rates. </p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/150/">Another explored</a> the appropriate mix of online and face to face components to develop the best learning course. The study found that an effective blend is based on a number of criteria. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>These included: the teacher’s willingness to try new teaching approaches, their experience in using technology and their workload, the students’ access to campus, their access to technology and their outside commitments, the type of course (theoretical, practical or a combination) being taught, and enrolment types (on campus vs off-campus vs both), and the support available from the institution such as technical support and professional development. </p>
<p>– Researchers have also <a href="http://www.olt.gov.au/Resource-development-instruments-assess-teaching-quality">undertaken a systematic review</a> to explore what teaching quality is. In doing so they reviewed the instruments that measured teaching quality in higher education, and found that teaching quality was comprised of a common set of dimensions. </p>
<p>These include but not limited to: it is personable, motivates students, creates interactions, uses effective assessment processes, is performative, places realistic demands on students, helps students make meaning, develops students’ autonomy and has an international perspective.</p>
<p>Teachers in higher education need objective evidence to inform and guide how they should modify their teaching practices or programs so that <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-urban-myths-about-education-are-so-persistent-and-how-to-tackle-them-60680">urban educational myths</a> do not persist.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66771/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela Carbone receives funding from Australian Government's Office for Learning and Teaching. </span></em></p>Research looking at evidence-based teaching in higher education tends to be based more on anecdotes than on large, robust and peer-reviewed data.Angela Carbone, Director Education Excellence, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/616842016-06-27T19:08:59Z2016-06-27T19:08:59ZHow a deep dive into people’s lives helps to separate fact from fiction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128264/original/image-20160627-28362-9ow7gb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In-depth surveys allow governments to drill their understanding down to street level.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image courtesy GCRO/Clive Hassall</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>How do you decide whether a society is making progress or not, and on what basis are these judgements made? In an election year – which is the case in nearly <a href="https://eisa.org.za/index.php/election-calendar/">a third</a> of Africa’s 54 countries during 2016 – political rhetoric spikes. But the sweeping statements that politicians make are seldom supported by evidence that can be trusted. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://gcro1.wits.ac.za/qolviewer/">Quality of Life survey</a>, conducted every two years over the past eight, has worked to address this. It is produced by a university-based research institute, South Africa’s <a href="http://www.gcro.ac.za/">Gauteng City-Region Observatory</a>. This was established in partnership with the Gauteng government. Its purpose is to inform provincial and local government so that they can make better policy decisions. The institute’s independent character underpins the reliability of the survey’s findings. </p>
<p>The survey is distinctive because it takes objective, subjective, economic and non-economic factors into account to arrive at a composite view of the quality of life in the region. As has become evident, personal human fulfilment is not reliant on the delivery of basic services alone, as important as these are.</p>
<p>One of the key things we’ve learned from these successive in-depth community surveys during the past eight years is that South Africa is a society characterised by relatively low levels of trust. This can be seen in how people relate to their fellow citizens, people from other countries and the government. A dearth of data can contribute to this deeply rooted mistrust. And the data that does exist may either be viewed as irrelevant – it addresses the wrong questions – or partisan.</p>
<p>By understanding the drivers of this mistrust, the government is better able to address its manifestations. For instance, South Africa has been beset by <a href="http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/xenophobic-violence-democratic-south-africa">xenophobic violence</a> in recent years. <a href="http://www.gcro.ac.za/media/reports/GCRO_Vignette_Informal_cross_border_trade_spending_in_Gauteng_FA_XD9dcZI.pdf">Data</a> shows politicians just how much migrants from elsewhere in Africa <a href="http://www.gcro.ac.za/media/reports/September_Map_of_the_Month_WrWTRBo.pdf">contribute</a> to Gauteng’s fortunes. They can then share this empirical, accurate information with the general public to hopefully start shifting xenophobic attitudes.</p>
<h2>Unpacking attitudes</h2>
<p>The most recent survey polls the views of 30 000 respondents across all quarters of Gauteng, South Africa’s wealthiest and most populous province, and its economic heartland. The province attracts people from around the country and the continent. </p>
<p>Respondents from all walks of life are probed about their material circumstances. This includes their dwelling, the basic services they can count on, their employment, income and availability of transport. They’re also asked to discuss the psycho-social dimensions of “headspace”: their perceptions around race relations, neighbourhood, xenophobia and gender relations. Some of the questions allow respondents to reflect on their attitudes to the various spheres of government, as well as the likelihood that they’ll vote or participate in civic affairs.</p>
<p>Such surveys are an example of scholarly research that’s purpose-designed to provide rigorous and disinterested data and insight. These can then be used by the government and broader civil society. Our research occupies the hybrid space between the worlds of academia and government, with the intention to inform the complex business of urban futures. Researchers can gain an increasingly nuanced insight into the challenges of governance, then shape their work to address these questions. In this way, surveys like ours become a reliable source of frank information for government to use in its decision-making processes. </p>
<p>This relationship requires a high degree of trust between the parties. The researchers commit to pursuing their scholarly work in good faith for the public good. The government guarantees that it won’t try to exert political control over the results – even when they reveal discomforting insights. </p>
<p>Primary data-sets from the Quality of Life survey are made available to civil society organisations, other academics and political parties, for their own analysis. This guarantees the independence of our work. In other words, this is publicly-funded research, made publicly available, to inform the processes of democracy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128335/original/image-20160627-28373-1cb6o6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128335/original/image-20160627-28373-1cb6o6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=134&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128335/original/image-20160627-28373-1cb6o6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=134&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128335/original/image-20160627-28373-1cb6o6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=134&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128335/original/image-20160627-28373-1cb6o6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=168&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128335/original/image-20160627-28373-1cb6o6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=168&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128335/original/image-20160627-28373-1cb6o6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=168&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What better way to understand a complex city like Johannesburg than by talking to its residents?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Paul Saad/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A thirst for evidence</h2>
<p>The key question, of course, is whether this research makes a difference to how government does its work. The call for evidence-based policy-making is gathering <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-using-research-why-it-starts-with-the-policymaker-59265">increasing credence</a> in government circles. It is clear that both academics and governments need to understand more clearly how such work can be done.</p>
<p>In the first instance, research that seeks to inform governance – and much research does not have this intention – needs to be configured to ask the right questions. Its outcomes need to framed in ways that make them digestible and usable in government decision-making. Academia in general is not known for these qualities. It is predicated on advancing scholarly fields of knowledge rather than the practical business of government. </p>
<p>On the other hand government agencies need to have the capability to receive research insights and integrate these into their regulative systems. Again, this is not a natural feature of many government processes. These are inclined rather to respond to political imperatives and the contingencies of the day. Good quality research takes time; government often demands nimble responsiveness. Finding the means to bridge these incommensurate cultures is not straightforward and there’s clearly still a long way to go.</p>
<h2>Changing, informing governance</h2>
<p>So how does one judge the impact so far of this kind of work on government decision-making? One indicator is the growing appetite for the information provided from this survey: Gauteng’s government has continued to expand its funding for the research and the province’s <a href="http://www.localgovernment.co.za/provinces/view/3/gauteng">three metropolitan municipalities</a> have now added to this. They want increasingly nuanced data about their respective wards and are moving towards linking senior managers’ performances with the survey’s outcomes.</p>
<p>Gauteng’s Premier <a href="http://whoswho.co.za/david-makhura-7560">David Makhura</a> has provided strong public leadership on key issues, for example on <a href="http://ewn.co.za/2016/05/25/Makhura-Africa-must-unite-and-reject-xenophobia">xenophobic violence</a>. This is informed at least in part by insights from previous iterations of the Quality of Life survey. </p>
<p>However, increasingly evidence-based and inclusionary processes for governance and policy-making are necessarily ongoing objectives. They require sustained political will (beyond the inevitable term-limit churn), increasingly astute approaches to policy-related research, and the capabilities within government to invest in and make use of the insights from systematic scholarly work. </p>
<p>Strenghtening this knowledge-based dialogue between sectors of society will ultimately enable South Africans to make decisive improvements in the quality of life for all its citizens.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61684/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr. Robin Moore is the Executive Director of the Gauteng City Region Observatory (GCRO), which is a partnership between the Universities of Johannesburg (UJ) and the Witwatersrand (Wits) and the Gauteng Provincial Government (GPG) and organised local government. The GCRO receives funding from the GPG, the Metropolitan governments within Gauteng and in-kind support from the two Universities. Rob Moore is the Chair of the Board of The Conversation Africa.</span></em></p>Without data, people don’t know what to believe or whom to trust. Empirical, thorough data collected by academics can help to fill important governance gaps.Robin Moore, Executive Director: Gauteng City-Region Observatory, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/592652016-05-19T17:57:52Z2016-05-19T17:57:52ZThe science of using research: why it starts with the policymaker<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123171/original/image-20160519-30717-1j5e4w6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Piles of evidence don't make any difference if they're not being used to develop policy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Governments all over the world <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS">invest</a> large sums of public money into producing knowledge that helps them understand their countries’ complex socioeconomic issues. This knowledge, in the form of research, can be used to formulate potential solutions through public policies and programmes. </p>
<p>But it’s not enough just to produce research. It must also be considered and drawn from when policies are being created. However, a range of barriers might prevent policymakers from accessing and using evidence in their work. To understand the use of evidence, then, it’s important to understand the policymaker. Who is she? What are her incentives and biases? What is her professional and institutional context? </p>
<p>This is important for two reasons. The first is that it’s wasteful for governments to fund research – with taxpayers’ money – that’s just going to gather dust. The second is that governments may implement programmes and policies that have no impact or are actually detrimental to the very people they’re supposed to help. This isn’t unprecedented: a programme run in the US to <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3658560?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">scare juvenile delinquents “straight”</a> was implemented even though researchers had shown that it had, on average, previously caused more harm than merely leaving these young people be.</p>
<p>A new global <a href="http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/Science%202016%20Langer%20report.pdf?ver=2016-04-23-122500-213">systematic review</a> conducted by the <a href="http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/">Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre</a> has shed some light on the important issue of getting more scientific about the practice and study of research use. Our report, “Science of using science: researching the use of research evidence in decision-making”, combined insights from 36 existing systemic reviews that reported on 91 different research-use interventions. It identifies the most effective strategies for increasing and strengthening how research is used to build public policy.</p>
<h2>What the review found</h2>
<p>A golden thread throughout the review findings is the importance of getting serious about approaching research use from a policymaker’s perspective. For example, we found that programmes supporting practical research-use skills, such as appraising the quality of a study, were effective. Likewise, targeting and tailoring the communication of research findings to policymakers’ preferences yielded positive results. This could be achieved by framing research findings according to policymakers’ mode of decision-making – such as being risk or loss averse. </p>
<p>We also found that policymakers place an opportunity cost on every interaction. They’ll forgo and sacrifice other commitments or work to engage with researchers. If those interactions don’t come with tangible benefits, the policymaker is unlikely to bother making time for researchers again.</p>
<p>Each policymaker will have her own networks of people with whom she engages and shares information. So if researchers engage with the same group of policymakers again and again, there is a risk that the research they share never spreads through the system. Researchers need to target policymakers who can act as bridges between, for instance, different government departments. This creates more effective networks through which evidence can flow.</p>
<p>Lastly, the review identified how important it is to facilitate evidence use through organisational processes. This could involve supervising how the evidence is used and giving policymakers the tools they need to apply evidence effectively.</p>
<h2>The South African context</h2>
<p>We were particularly interested in how these findings can be applied in South Africa, as this is where we conduct our work through the <a href="http://www.africaevidencenetwork.org/">Africa Evidence Network</a>.</p>
<p>South Africa is one of only a handful of countries that has created government structures that institutionalise the use of research evidence in policymaking. Government <a href="http://www.dpme.gov.za/publications/Strategic%20Plan%20and%20Annual%20Reports/DPME%20Strategic%20Plan%202015-2020.pdf">policy</a> is organised according to a framework of 14 key outcomes that all departments must work towards. A range of evidence is used to assess government’s progress and the effects of its policies and programmes on contributing to the national key outcomes. </p>
<p>South Africa is in a rare position: there’s a high-level demand for evidence-informed decision-making. The country’s cabinet meetings often <a href="https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/16821/">discuss</a> impact evaluation reports. Organisational structures and processes are being put in place to nurture this demand.</p>
<p>This approach is yielding results. A number of national policies have already been systematically informed by the best available research evidence. These include the <a href="http://www.gov.za/services/child-care-social-benefits/child-support-grant">child support grant</a> and the <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2011/Confronting%20youth%20unemployment%20-%20Policy%20options.pdf">youth wage subsidy</a>.</p>
<p>But, as <a href="http://www.aejonline.org/index.php/aej/article/view/145">a survey</a> has shown, the use of evidence is still far from common decision-making practice. Government demand for evidence also relies on a research supply of policy-relevant evidence, which can be <a href="http://www.ksi-indonesia.org/index.php/publications/2016/03/23/82/using-evidence-to-reflect-on-south-africa-s-20-years-of-democracy.html">a challenge</a> at times. There is still a lot of work to be done. Our review offers some ideas and suggestions that South Africa and other countries could adopt.</p>
<h2>Effective strategies</h2>
<p>It is crucial to invest in policymakers’ skills to use evidence. If they have the capacity and tools they need, there’s a greater chance they’ll use evidence. In South Africa, a number of different organisations and bodies offer capacity building around research use. But their activities are not homogeneous.</p>
<p>A more systematic approach to capacity building would mean that public servants and policymakers are exposed to similar support, particularly at provincial government level.</p>
<p>Also, if policymaking is to be more frequently informed by scientific evidence, researchers need to understand policymaking. Sadly most researchers don’t often leave their natural habitat at universities to engage and collaborate directly with policymakers. Researchers and policymakers could establish mentoring relationships – an effective strategy for exchanging knowledge.</p>
<p>One thing lies at the heart of all these suggestions: the use of evidence as a salient feature in decision- and policymaking. </p>
<h2>Engagement and dialogue</h2>
<p>Direct engagement between researchers and policymakers is crucial. There are growing opportunities for this, such as at the <a href="https://confsa.eventsair.com/QuickEventWebsitePortal/evidence-2016-conference/aen-2016">2016 Africa Evidence Network conference</a>. The conference will focus on three themes: engage, understand and impact. These also feature in the discussion around a <a href="http://www.ksi-indonesia.org/index.php/publications/2016/03/23/82/using-evidence-to-reflect-on-south-africa-s-20-years-of-democracy.html">new landmark report</a>, “Using evidence to reflect on South Africa’s 20 years of democracy”, which was published in March 2016.</p>
<p>This and similar initiatives mean that the time is ripe for South Africa’s research-use community to interrogate how effective its strategies are in supporting evidence-informed decision-making. It’s time to become more scientific about the use of research evidence.</p>
<p><em>Authors’ note: The Science of Using Science project was led by the Alliance for Useful Evidence, with generous funding and support from the Wellcome Trust and the What Works Centre for Wellbeing. The research was undertaken by Laurenz Langer, Janice Tripney and David Gough of the EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59265/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laurenz Langer receives funding from from the UK government's Department for International Development for a programme supporting capacity to use research evidence in southern Africa.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ruth Stewart receives funding from the UK government's Department for International Development for a programme supporting capacity to use research evidence in southern Africa.</span></em></p>Researchers and policymakers need to talk to each other. If they don’t, important research will merely gather dust and policies might do more harm than good.Laurenz Langer, Senior Researcher, University of JohannesburgRuth Stewart, Professor: Evidence-Informed Decision-Making, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/548752016-03-10T11:12:00Z2016-03-10T11:12:00ZWhen good intentions aren’t supported by social science evidence: diversity research and policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114137/original/image-20160307-31275-mlwc4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Successful group outcomes aren't guaranteed by the simple recipe of 'Just add diversity.'</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-273543236/stock-photo-business-people-diversity-talking-communication-concept.html">Talking image via www.shutterstoc.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>You’d be forgiven for assuming a quick and sure way to multiply profits and amplify organizational success is to increase the gender and racial diversity of any group. According to claims in the mainstream media, the effects of gender and racial diversity are universally favorable. News stories tend to mirror this 2014 <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/09/24/more-women-at-the-top-higher-returns/"><em>Washington Post</em> article’s claim</a> that “researchers have long found <a href="http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/women-on-boards-improve-a-banks-performance-1063776-1.html">ties between having women</a> on a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2013/11/27/more-women-on-boards-cheaper-mergers/">company’s board of directors</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2014/06/04/an-index-fund-that-bets-on-women/">better financial performance</a>.” </p>
<p>And as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/opinion/kristof-twitter-women-power.html">Nicholas Kristoff wrote</a> in <em>The New York Times</em> in 2013:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Scholarly research suggests that the best problem-solving doesn’t come from a group of the best individual problem-solvers, but from a diverse team whose members complement each other. That’s an argument for leadership that is varied in every way — in gender, race, economic background and ideology.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The truth is there’s actually no adequate scientific basis for these newsworthy assertions. And this lack of scientific evidence to guide such statements illustrates the troubled relations of science to advocacy and policy, that I have <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12163">analyzed in an article</a> in the current Journal of Social Issues.</p>
<h2>A chasm between research findings and advocates’ claims</h2>
<p>I began to think more deeply about these issues during my recent service as president of the <a href="http://www.spssi.org">Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues</a>. This organization has worked since 1936 to join social science findings to responsible advocacy and effective social policy.</p>
<p>This goal is laudable, but the task is supremely challenging. As I’ve come to realize, different camps have varying goals. Scientists aim to produce valid knowledge. Advocates work to promote their favored causes. Policymakers hope to efficiently deploy resources to attain social and economic ends. And they’re all assuming their claims are supported by the same body of social science research.</p>
<p>In politically sensitive areas, advocates may eagerly invoke social scientific data that support their objectives but ignore nonsupportive findings. They may highlight politically congenial findings that are unrepresentative of the available scientific knowledge. </p>
<p>Researchers, in turn, may fail to communicate their findings effectively. Communication is challenging when study outcomes are more complex and less affirming of advocates’ goals than what they desire and expect.</p>
<p>These issues often arise when research addresses controversial questions of social inequality. That’s where social science myths can and do emerge.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113898/original/image-20160304-17734-yyab4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113898/original/image-20160304-17734-yyab4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113898/original/image-20160304-17734-yyab4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113898/original/image-20160304-17734-yyab4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113898/original/image-20160304-17734-yyab4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113898/original/image-20160304-17734-yyab4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113898/original/image-20160304-17734-yyab4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113898/original/image-20160304-17734-yyab4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Does who fills these empty boardroom chairs affect the bottom line?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=141135247&src=lb-29877982">Boardroom image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Case study: diversity research</h2>
<p>To illustrate these problems, consider two prominent social science myths about diversity.</p>
<p>One concerns the effects of the gender diversity of corporate boards of directors on firms’ financial performance. The other pertains to the effects of the gender and racial diversity of workgroups on their performance.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.2020wob.com/sites/default/files/2020GDI-2015Report.pdf">Advocates for diversity</a> generally maintain that the addition of women to corporate boards <a href="http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/companies-behaving-responsibly-gender-diversity-boards">enhances corporate financial success</a>. And they hold that diversity in task groups <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/01/16/why-is-diversity-vital-for-innovation/#1cb510fa4e7c">enhances their effectiveness</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003">Abundant findings</a> have accumulated on <a href="http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0319">both of these questions</a> – more than 140 studies of corporate boards and more than 100 studies of sociodemographic diversity in task groups. Both sets of studies have produced mixed outcomes. Some studies show positive associations of diversity to these outcomes, and some show negative associations.</p>
<p>Social scientists use meta-analyses to integrate such findings across the relevant studies. Meta-analyses represent <em>all</em> the available studies on a particular topic by quantitatively averaging their findings and also examining differences in studies’ results. Cherry-picking is not allowed. </p>
<p>Taking into account all of the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2696804">available research on corporate boards</a> and diversity of task groups, the net effects are very close to a null, or zero, average. Also, economists’ studies that carefully evaluate causal relations have <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.007">typically failed to find that women cause superior corporate performance</a>. The most valid conclusion at this point is that, on average, diversity neither helps nor harms these important outcomes.</p>
<p>Given these overall findings, further studies are needed to identify the conditions under which diversity has positive or negative effects. And there is some progress here. </p>
<p>For example, research suggests that diversity tends to make decision-making groups more effective if their members <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823">create norms that foster personal ties</a> across the races and genders as well as the exchange of ideas. Also, a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.003">positive and inclusive mindset about diversity</a> increases the chances of favorable effects on group performance.</p>
<p>But such conditions are often absent. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025767">Diversity can create tensions</a> within groups, and the newly introduced female or minority group members may encounter resistance that makes it difficult for them to gain a foothold in decision-making. It’s hardly surprising that the results of empirical studies are inconsistent. These kinds of interpersonal relationships are messy and complicated – it makes sense that upping diversity, on its own, wouldn’t be a magical key to success.</p>
<h2>A worthwhile social outcome</h2>
<p>What’s the harm in journalists announcing false generalizations about diversity if such statements help increase the number of women and minorities in important roles? After all, most people would agree that it would be an egregious violation of equal opportunity and antidiscrimination laws to exclude women and minorities from opportunities merely on the basis of their sex or race. Isn’t any and all support for inclusion valuable? My answer to this question is no.</p>
<p>First of all, social science myths make a mockery of evidence-based advocacy and policy. In fact, an unusually large body of social science evidence has emerged in tests of the effects of diversity on corporate success and group performance. Advocacy and policy should build on this research, not ignore it.</p>
<p>Myths also set people up to expect that corporate financial gains and superior group performance follow easily from diversity. Of course they don’t. That expectation could sideline people from understanding and overcoming diversity’s challenges.</p>
<p>Finally, false generalizations can impede progress toward better science that may disentangle the causes of diversity’s varied effects on group and organizational success.</p>
<p>Social scientists should freely admit that diversity science doesn’t have all the answers. At the same time, they should not silently tolerate distortions of available scientific knowledge to fit advocacy goals. Ideally, researchers are honest brokers who communicate consensus scientific findings to the broader public. Only then can social science make a meaningful contribution to building sound social policy.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113901/original/image-20160304-17723-1xsw5gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113901/original/image-20160304-17723-1xsw5gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113901/original/image-20160304-17723-1xsw5gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113901/original/image-20160304-17723-1xsw5gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113901/original/image-20160304-17723-1xsw5gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113901/original/image-20160304-17723-1xsw5gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113901/original/image-20160304-17723-1xsw5gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113901/original/image-20160304-17723-1xsw5gj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There are other reasons to value diversity in the group.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Table image via www.shutterstockcom</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Social justice goals are valid on their own</h2>
<p>Many advocates and policymakers share the admirable goal of producing a more just society. But they’re narrow-minded if they focus only on whether diversity and inclusion foster outcomes such as business profits or effective group problem-solving. The more fundamental gains from diversity pertain to social justice. Diversity and inclusion can serve social justice goals by countering discrimination that may have put women and minorities at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>Beyond countering possible discrimination lies an even more fundamental social justice consideration – that of equitable representation. This principle holds that citizens in democracies should have equal access to influencing the decisions that shape their lives. To the extent that women and minorities are not represented in decision-making groups in proportion to their numbers in the population, they are unlikely to have their interests fairly represented. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647821">political scientists have pointed out</a>, the ideals of democracy are violated if decision-making is dominated by the rich, the white and the male. Then the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00569.x">needs of the poor, the minorities</a> <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.123839">and the female</a> likely are neglected.</p>
<p>Most advocates, policymakers and social scientists may not be aware of sharp divergence in their claims about diversity. Yet, policy based on sound social science should be a shared goal. Without understanding the causal relations in society that this research helps identify, policymakers lower the odds they’ll reach their targets. Policy based on myths and hunches has little chance of success. To achieve evidence-based policy, all parties should take a close look at what diversity research has produced so far. Rather than selectively featuring congenial results, they should work together to untangle diversity’s complex effects on group and organizational performance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54875/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alice H. Eagly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The relationship between social science research and advocates and policymakers is undermined if they cherry-pick evidence that supports their goals, ignoring the wider field.Alice H. Eagly, Professor of Psychology; Faculty Fellow Institute for Policy Research; Professor of Management and Organizations, Northwestern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/516412015-12-03T10:21:12Z2015-12-03T10:21:12ZGovernments should turn to academics for advice on radicalisation, religion and security<p>In August 1939, the operational head of Britain’s Government Communication and Cypher School, Alistair Denniston, wrote to the Foreign Office about the need <a href="https://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/news/v.rhtm/Wartime_Office_where_US_Special_Relationship_was_Born-740078.html">to recruit “men of the professor type”</a> into the wartime code-breaking hub at Bletchley Park in order to help combat the Nazi threat.</p>
<p>Following the horror of <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/paris-attacks-2015">marauding attacks in Paris</a>, the British prime minister has announced he will be <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34836925">recruiting</a> a further 1,900 personnel to the Security and Intelligence Agencies. “Professors” may also be able to add value to these organisations and wider society. The government should not forget the wealth of talent available within our universities to offer insight and depth to the judgments of decision-makers.</p>
<p>In my capacity as champion to the Partnership for Conflict, Crime & Security Research, I organised a <a href="http://www.paccsresearch.org.uk/news/policy-workshop-role-religion-contemporary-security-challenges/">workshop recently</a> where four leading academics discussed how best to get research on religion and contemporary security challenges in front of politicians, policymakers and the press, to help them deliver better service to the public. The academics were historian of <a href="http://www.islamicreformulations.net/">Muslim thought</a> Robert Gleave; Kim Knott <a href="http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/projects/ideology-and-uncertainty/">who researches</a> ideologies, beliefs and decision-making; Peter Morey who <a href="http://www.muslimstrustdialogue.org/">explores trust</a> between Muslims and non-Muslims, and John Wolffe <a href="https://mail.google.com/_/scs/mail-static/_/js/k=gmail.main.en.5EQ-zVMXp3w.O/m=m_i,t/am=PiPeQMD8v_cHcY1xQLP0lQp77z-_-0jxkYPH_ydMAJF1BfB_s_8H8G_QXrSFAg/rt=h/d=1/t=zcms/rs=AHGWq9BFrQJNqfwGF2QGWVl1cfW9-DCDTw">who works on</a> the interface between religion and security. </p>
<p>One key message from this debate was that those in positions of authority and influence must overcome the tendency to regard religious issues as marginal until they become a security risk. Religion is poorly understood, and while academic focus on definition can be dismissed as pedantry, there is a need for clarity when talking about religion and security – to avoid millions of devout people around the world being swept into a bucket labelled “terrorist”. </p>
<h2>Improve religious literacy</h2>
<p>For instance, <a href="http://www.open.ac.uk/arts/research/religion-martyrdom-global-uncertainties/sites/www.open.ac.uk.arts.research.religion-martyrdom-global-uncertainties/files/files/ecms/arts-rmgu-pr/web-content/Religion-Security-Global-Uncertainties.pdf">research</a> helps us to draw a distinction between religion and faith. Religion is defined by creed, doctrine, framework and practice; whereas faith is more personal, abstract, emotional and often at some distance from the teachings of established religious institutions.</p>
<p>We must improve religious literacy among politicians, policymakers, the press and the general public. In a security context, this should include a more nuanced understanding of the variants of institutionalised religion, while comprehending the universe occupied by men and women of faith. </p>
<p>A single office of responsibility in the government could act as a conduit for informing and shaping policy and legislation relating to religion and religious issues, including those linked to security and violence. An immediate priority for the office should be to inform efforts to address radicalisation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/after-paris-europe-must-lead-the-fight-against-islamophobia-50808">Islamophobia</a> and other forms of prejudice. This wouldn’t carry any extra cost if one of the government’s chief scientific advisors was asked to undertake this work, tapping into the wealth of expertise addressing these issues inside the nation’s universities.</p>
<p>Opinion-formers, including those in the press, <a href="http://www.iengage.org.uk/component/content/article/1-news/1591-new-research-on-representation-of-muslims-in-the-british-press">must also resist</a> the simplistic temptation to describe religion as the motive for acts of violence. In the same way, “Third World” insurgents during the Cold War, such as those in North Vietnam, were too easily defined by the Communist ideology they embraced.</p>
<h2>How to dispel alienation</h2>
<p>But closer attention needs to be paid to the relationship between faith and alienation. There is a wealth of research – including historian <a href="http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/kate.cooper/publications">Kate Cooper’s work</a> into the radicalisation of early Christian martyrs over 1,500 years’ ago – that can help us understand how alienation, especially of young people, leads to a sense of hopelessness that translates all too readily into violent resolve.</p>
<p>We must galvanise support for the public sector, faith groups and charities to promote engagement between polarised communities. But this is not a simple matter of issuing a commandment from on-high that: “thou shalt engage in mutually informative dialogue and develop trustful relationships”. </p>
<p>Evidence and experience, for instance <a href="http://www.open.ac.uk/arts/research/religion-martyrdom-global-uncertainties/sites/www.open.ac.uk.arts.research.religion-martyrdom-global-uncertainties/files/files/ecms/arts-rmgu-pr/web-content/Religion-Security-Global-Uncertainties.pdf">from Northern Ireland</a>, shows how different the certainties of macro-political strategies can be from micro-realities, leading to communities being filled with mistrust and disillusionment. Interventions tailored to dispel alienation and build trust must reflect local circumstances, with a strong emphasis on “bottom-up” rather than “top-down” solutions.</p>
<p>There are some powerful examples of how the arts can operate to communicate religious difference in our complex, multicultural society, but common artistic endeavor can also help heal divisions. For example, the UK-based <a href="http://theberakahproject.org/project/the-berakah-multi-faith-choir/">Berakah Choir</a> works to transcend barriers of faith and culture through collaborative activities, allowing the individual voice to be heard working in harmony with others to build a common humanity. There is much that could be achieved at a low cost to harness the arts to counter alienation.</p>
<h2>Draw on academics as an asset</h2>
<p>Western governments are deploying a range of strategies and tactics to deal with the threat posed by the so-called Islamic State. David Cameron is recruiting more spies, and parliament is <a href="https://theconversation.com/investigatory-powers-bill-will-remove-isps-right-to-protect-your-privacy-50178">discussing profound changes</a> to the way in which digital intelligence is collected. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104142/original/image-20151202-22476-1lwz2fi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104142/original/image-20151202-22476-1lwz2fi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104142/original/image-20151202-22476-1lwz2fi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104142/original/image-20151202-22476-1lwz2fi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104142/original/image-20151202-22476-1lwz2fi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104142/original/image-20151202-22476-1lwz2fi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104142/original/image-20151202-22476-1lwz2fi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Great minds were brought together at Bletchley.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mwichary/2189535149/sizes/l">Marcin Wichary/flickr.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But we must not ignore the invaluable supply of knowledge and insight available from our men and women in academia. Research can provide evidence-based context to contemporary challenges, including an enlightened understanding of the place of religion and faith in a security context. </p>
<p>We can stop mistakes being made in terms of misguided policies and knee-jerk reactions. And researchers can help the design and deployment of interventions that make a real difference, focusing limited resources effectively. </p>
<p>It has been said that the scholars working in Bletchley Park saved countless lives and took one or more years off the duration of World War II. Let us hope that politicians, policy-makers and the press are enlightened enough to make full use of the contribution that university researchers can make to today’s security challenges.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51641/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tristram Riley-Smith receives funding from the Economic & Social Research Council, supporting his work as External Champion to RCUK's Partnership for Conflict, Crime and Security Research. </span></em></p>We must improve religious literacy among politicians. They should look to universities for more insight.Tristram Riley-Smith, Associate Fellow, Centre for Science and Policy; Director of Research, Department of Politics & International Studies, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/437542015-07-02T14:32:48Z2015-07-02T14:32:48ZWhy addiction treatment is in need of a fix<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87152/original/image-20150702-11345-zc8zyh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Grasping for a solution</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Who cares what happens to drug addicts? Perhaps we all should. As well as social problems including family breakdown, homelessness and unemployment, drug use is linked to crime costing the state and individuals an estimated <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-drug-misuse-and-dependency/2010-to-2015-government-policy-drug-misuse-and-dependency">£13.3bn a year in the UK</a>. Because we are citizens and taxpayers, drugs impact us all.</p>
<p>There is a strong public perception that treating drug addicts is about providing rehabilitation that will “sort them out”. Around <a href="http://www.nta.nhs.uk/uploads/drug-treatment-statistical-bulletin-2013-14.pdf">200,000 people</a> are currently in drug treatment in England. And yet, unlike other areas of health care, drug treatment lacks a convincing body of evidence to guide services, policy makers and most importantly the individuals seeking help.</p>
<p>Despite several <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12693/full">large scale trials</a> investigating the effectiveness of drug treatment interventions, there is little evidence that any of these interventions make a big difference in the real world. Several factors have contributed to this situation. Funding is limited and patients are hard to retain in trials and have complex interrelated problems. Also, academic journals have a bias towards publishing positive results and we need to know what doesn’t work as well as what does. The impact of this lack of evidence has been to create a patchwork of services of widely varying effectiveness and suffering key problems.</p>
<h2>Struggling services</h2>
<p>Drug use, like fashion, is fickle. There are the old staples such as heroin and cannabis and this season’s must-haves such as so-called “legal highs”, nitrous oxide and steroids. Those responsible for commissioning or providing services just aren’t as nimble footed as these changing trends.</p>
<p>Most drug services remain focused on providing treatment for people who have problems with opiates such as heroin. But cannabis is now the <a href="http://bit.ly/1CEF7eS">most frequently cited</a> drug used by those entering treatment. There is a danger that drug users believe treatment is only available for heroin, which could be putting them off accessing treatment and delaying their recovery. Or worse give the impression that it is only heroin that causes problems.</p>
<p>Providers of drug treatment have tried to control costs by de-professionalising their workforce, employing fewer nurses and doctors in favour of generic workers whose <a href="http://www.drugscope.org.uk/POLICY+TOPICS/State+of+the+Sector">training and backgrounds vary</a>. A leading addiction researcher, Colin Drummond, recently argued addiction psychiatrists were a “<a href="http://bit.ly/1KuLKqu">speciality on the brink of extinction</a>”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87154/original/image-20150702-11345-1dyrzh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87154/original/image-20150702-11345-1dyrzh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87154/original/image-20150702-11345-1dyrzh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87154/original/image-20150702-11345-1dyrzh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87154/original/image-20150702-11345-1dyrzh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87154/original/image-20150702-11345-1dyrzh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87154/original/image-20150702-11345-1dyrzh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Must-have hit of the year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Providers of drug treatment are now in <a href="http://www.drugscope.org.uk/POLICY+TOPICS/State+of+the+Sector">direct competition</a> with each other as services are put out to tender and, invariably, those who can cut costs win the bid. This impedes the spread of information between providers who have no incentive to share best practice with their direct competitors.</p>
<p>This landscape of constantly changing providers can also create “staff churn”, where each new provider employs staff who may have less experience in the field. All of this can potentially leave clients facing constantly changing services and staff at a point in their life when they need consistency.</p>
<p>The government has also attempted to introduce a payment-by-results system in which providers are paid depending on how many people they treat who then become drug free. But there’s little evidence this kind of system works. A <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12920/pdf">recent study</a> showed that compared to traditional treatment, clients in payment by result (PBR) pilots were actually more likely to opt out of treatment.</p>
<p>We have known for decades that the majority of people who are in drug treatment have a co-existing mental health problem and that these <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/ADD-05-2014-0013">problems are inter-related</a>. Despite this, when new treatments for addiction are tested, people who have mental health problems are routinely excluded from trials. This may make research less complicated but limits the practical application of any positive findings.</p>
<p>Addiction treatment mimics this form of discrimination by excluding people who present with combined mental health and drug problems in the belief that the drug problem can’t be effectively dealt with until the persons mental health has improved. Paradoxically when mental health services receive such a referral they won’t accept the person into treatment until their drug problem is resolved. As a result, both specialities leave these people as health nomads.</p>
<h2>Solving the problem</h2>
<p>So what needs to happen to change all this? First, prevention is better than cure, so we need not only financial and political investment in anti-drug programmes but also reform of our non-evidence based drug laws. As it stands, the law often compounds the problems of drug users by giving them a criminal record, impeding their ability to gain employment and recover in a broader sense than just health.</p>
<p>For those people that require treatment for addiction, we need this to be provided and based on solid evidence. The ingredients for this include adequate investment in research, training and the workforce. To achieve parity with other areas of health such as cancer, diabetes or heart disease, a shift in public opinion is needed. All too often addiction is viewed as a self-inflicted choice rather than a problem that does not discriminate by age, gender or social status.</p>
<p>Historically drug treatment has had an underpinning philosophy of “<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02673.x/full">come and see us when you are ready to change</a>”. It lacks the assertive approach that has transformed mental health services over the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpm.12239/abstract">past twenty years</a>. I am not suggesting that drug treatment should be coercive. But the model of treatment should rely less on waiting for people to make appointments and instead seek to engage them in a much more flexible and timely way.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43754/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Hamilton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There’s a worrying lack of evidence for what works when it comes to drug treatment. And our addiction services are suffering as a result.Ian Hamilton, Lecturer in Mental Health, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/410882015-05-04T19:25:56Z2015-05-04T19:25:56ZTime to listen to the evidence for a rethink of super tax concessions<p>Evidence doesn’t matter when it comes to policy development. At least it doesn’t matter as much as it should in theory.</p>
<p>In theory, the full range of evidence is sought and nothing is off limits. In theory, objective evidence will show a clear path forward that is obvious to everyone. And in theory, as soon as new evidence is available, it will result in policy action.</p>
<p>This is the “evidence-based policy” mantra that echoes through forums for Australian scholars and bureaucrats, that academics rely on to train future policymakers, and that can even be found in the vision statements of Commonwealth departments.</p>
<p>But of course there can be big difference between theory and reality. Especially when that reality is a government minority in the upper house and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-new-senate-could-be-abbotts-obstacle-or-an-opportunity-28002">one of the most complex Senates</a> in living memory.</p>
<p>Let’s take the current <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/its-super-tax-concessions-not-pensions-that-are-killing-the-budget-20140421-zqx7p.html">superannuation debate</a> for example.</p>
<p>Over the last six months a public consensus has emerged among academics, think tanks, community organisations, elements of the superannuation industry and most politicians about superannuation. They now agree that superannuation tax concessions are growing rapidly, are unevenly distributed and are in need of reform. Indeed, even new Treasury Secretary John Fraser has said we need a “<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasury-boss-john-fraser-calls-for-a-fundamental-rethink-of-superannuation-pensions-20150408-1mgqwq.html">fundamental rethink</a>” of retirement income policy.</p>
<p>Clearly, this public consensus has emerged because the latest evidence is in. We finally have a clear path forward about which everyone is agreed. Well, not quite.</p>
<h2>The evidence is old, political interest is new</h2>
<p>First, the evidence hasn’t changed. For many years, academics, bureaucrats and financial planners have known that the system of tax concessions for superannuation was fundamentally flawed. They have asked why – when the supposed purpose of superannuation is to reduce the number of Australians relying on the aged pension – does our system shovel billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to wealthy people who were never going to get a pension anyway?</p>
<p>Back in 2007, <a href="http://media.wix.com/ugd/b629ee_7e1713e1e3d1f4d5be149103ff8f616b.pdf">Australia Institute research showed</a> that it was cheaper for the federal government to provide the age pension than it was to fund so called “self-funded retirement” via tax concessions. Since that time, dozens of analysts using a variety of methods and data sources have confirmed that finding. </p>
<p>Despite all the available evidence, up to now, the response has been policy inaction. For instance, both major parties went to the 2013 federal election <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-31/bowen-promises-five-year-freeze-to-superannuation-policy/4856748">promising</a> to give the superannuation industry “<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-in-pledge-to-shield-super-20130127-2df10.html">certainty</a>”, which is just good spin for ignoring the problem.</p>
<p>Second, what has changed in the past six months is not the size or rigour of evidence regarding the problem, it is the political significance of the problem. To put it another way, the research that is behind this new-found interest in reforming superannuation is not economic data, it is polling data.</p>
<p>In opposition, the Coalition had a simple (but effective) political strategy in the lead-up to the 2013 federal election. Promise to do popular things like scrapping the carbon tax, avoid promises to do unpopular things such as cutting the age pension, and suggest the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd budget deficits constituted a “budget emergency” caused by a “reckless” government.</p>
<p>Similarly, on entering government, the prime minister and treasurer had a clear budgetary (and re-election) strategy: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Step one: use the Commission of Audit to confirm that the budget emergency was even worse than previously thought. </p></li>
<li><p>Step two: use the commission’s findings to justify unpopular decisions (such as a GP co-payment and cuts to the age pension). </p></li>
<li><p>Step three: wait two years until things had settled down in the electorate before announcing tax cuts for middle and high-income earners in the lead-up to the 2016 election. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>This could have been an effective strategy, if only the Senate had not refused to support spending cuts that were not signalled before the last election.</p>
<h2>Where does superannuation fit into all this?</h2>
<p>So what has this got to do with the role of evidence and the emergence of a public consensus around superannuation policy? Well, a lot.</p>
<p>Where the Coalition government has succeeded is in convincing people that the budget deficit needs fixing. As anyone with a household budget understands, if you can’t cut your spending, then the only other way to avoid running up your debt is to increase your income. This is how common sense has come to prevail where tax concessions on superannuation are concerned.</p>
<p>According to Treasury, <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/%7E/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2015/Tax%20Expenditures%20Statement%202014/Downloads/PDF/TES_2014.ashx">tax concessions on superannuation</a> cost the Commonwealth government <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-01/lewis-woods-tax-reform-a-super-idea/6363644">around $30 billion</a> per year. Again according to Treasury, more than one-third of that lost revenue goes <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-21/super-tax-concessions-fc/6365098">to the top 10% of income earners</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80189/original/image-20150504-23890-1q6pcjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80189/original/image-20150504-23890-1q6pcjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80189/original/image-20150504-23890-1q6pcjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80189/original/image-20150504-23890-1q6pcjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80189/original/image-20150504-23890-1q6pcjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80189/original/image-20150504-23890-1q6pcjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80189/original/image-20150504-23890-1q6pcjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80189/original/image-20150504-23890-1q6pcjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Treasury estimates from the March 2015 Tax Discussion Paper show much in superannuation tax concessions (in green) goes to the top income earners.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://bettertax.gov.au/files/2015/03/TWP_combined-online.pdf">Commonwealth Government March 2015</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, if you want to have a big impact on the budget deficit, there are few policy areas that promise as much as the reform of superannuation tax concessions.</p>
<p>To reiterate our point, it is not that evidence is unimportant for policy development (often it is), but if it is a competition between politics and evidence, bet on politics every time. </p>
<p>We suggest that this is a principle that goes beyond the example of superannuation.</p>
<p>If we look to the international policy context, a similar story is playing out in relation to corporate tax evasion. Everyone who has taken the time to look at the evidence has known what Apple and Google have been up to with their tax for a decade. But in Europe – where unemployment and deficits remain high after the global financial crisis – it is politics (not new evidence) that has led to taking the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/irelands-move-to-close-the-double-irish-tax-loophole-unlikely-to-bother-apple-google-33011">double Irish sandwich</a>” off the tax-evasion menu. </p>
<p>This is equally the case in Britain. Poor polling in the lead-up to the May 7 general election has provided the political incentive for their Coalition government to enter into <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-19/australia-uk-crackdown-profit-shifting-multinational-companies/6403712">a new partnership</a> with the Australian government to chase down firms that shift their profits offshore.</p>
<h2>Key MPs can tip balance towards evidence</h2>
<p>In our recent book on <a href="https://www.mup.com.au/items/152294">Minority Policy</a>, we argue that the conventional Australian approach to evidence-based policy inevitably results in complaints that good policy is being ruined by bad politics. This offers little to help understand the nuances of policy development in minority government contexts and does even less to support better links between evidence and policy in these contexts. In response, we suggest that the focus of those dedicated to improved public policy should be the question of <em>when</em> does evidence matter and <em>when doesn’t</em> it?</p>
<p>We argue that an understanding of the motivations and priorities of the parliamentarians who are, or might soon be, in a position of holding the balance of power can provide a powerful new lens through which the policy development process can be understood. </p>
<p>Like government ministers, Jacquie Lambie, Nick Xenophon and Clive Palmer all claim to consider evidence before making their decisions. But politicians representing different sections of the electorate can value different types of evidence, or can consider the same evidence but come to different conclusions. It is no longer just the evidence preferred by the minister that matters.</p>
<p>The evidence about superannuation tax concessions has been in for years, but it is the political will that has been out. However, the mood has clearly changed. There is now public consensus for a “fundamental rethink”. </p>
<p>Those interested in the role of evidence in informing and shaping policy can learn a lot by watching closely to see when it matters, when it doesn’t, and what might explain the difference.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41088/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Over the last six months a public consensus has emerged among academics, think tanks, community organisations, elements of the superannuation industry and most politicians about superannuation.Richard Denniss, Adjunct Professor, Crawford School, Australian National UniversityBrenton Prosser, Senior Research Fellow, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/398862015-04-13T05:31:09Z2015-04-13T05:31:09ZWhat evidence do MPs turn to when they make policy?<p>MPs value the views of constituents and expert opinion more highly than evidence from randomised controlled trials, <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/what-do-mps-think-of-rcts.html">a new survey</a> has found. However, the majority of the 104 Labour and Conservative MPs from the previous parliament who were questioned support the idea of using randomised controlled trials to evaluate policies and don’t believe they are too expensive.</p>
<p>The survey, conducted by <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/">Ipsos MORI</a> and the charitable trust <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org/">Sense about Science</a>, also found that MPs were more inclined to act on their own principles than on the results of randomised controlled trials, which involve testing new interventions on a randomly selected group of people and comparing that with a control group of people who get the usual intervention. </p>
<p>Interestingly, the survey found that the views of experts and the opinions of constituents trumped those of practitioners, such as teachers or doctors. It also found that MPs give very little weight to the views of journalists.</p>
<p>There are signs that a lot of MPs harbour some erroneous misgivings about randomised controlled trials, suggesting a widespread lack of understanding of how the trials work and how they might be used to test the effectiveness of policies.</p>
<p>Many thought it unfair that some people would be randomly assigned to not receive the policy being investigated – 35% believed this, including 26% of the 74 MPs who supported the use of the trials. But this is a fundamental principle, and a strength, of this kind of trial. </p>
<p>The MPs quizzed were roughly as supportive of pilot schemes without a comparison group as they were for randomised controlled trials by 67% to 64%, misunderstanding the value that the addition of a randomly selected control group can bring. </p>
<p>Pilot studies also contain an aspect of “unfairness”, for people in areas where the scheme is not piloted. But pilot studies do not have the added benefit of collecting data in those areas to provide a comparison, generating stronger evidence as to whether a policy is effective. </p>
<p>Each word in the name RCT is important. Randomisation of the trial’s subjects mean that, in a health trial for example, there’s less chance of the sickest people being all in one group and warping the findings. Controlled studies compare the new treatment to a baseline group where the usual treatment is given to check whether there’s a real difference between the two. And they are a trial, rather than just implementing a new treatment without testing it first.</p>
<h2>What’s important for MPs</h2>
<p>The survey also highlighted the difference between where politicians think they should look for evidence when making policy decisions, and what evidence they have actually used to justify the decisions they’ve made in the past. Randomised controlled trials were rated as less important than uncontrolled pilot trials in both instances. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77639/original/image-20150410-2122-y4oqtz.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77639/original/image-20150410-2122-y4oqtz.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77639/original/image-20150410-2122-y4oqtz.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=344&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77639/original/image-20150410-2122-y4oqtz.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=344&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77639/original/image-20150410-2122-y4oqtz.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=344&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77639/original/image-20150410-2122-y4oqtz.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77639/original/image-20150410-2122-y4oqtz.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77639/original/image-20150410-2122-y4oqtz.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">MPs put more trust in their own principles than RCTs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ipsos MORI</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Evidence from experts was voted top of what politicians felt they should consider, but this was beaten by “the views of constituents” when they were asked what they have used to justify a policy in the past. In both instances, the MPs’ own principles were rated much higher than evidence from RCTs.</p>
<p>Political decisions will rarely be based on evidence alone. And it should absolutely be the case that politicians want to listen to their constituents and act accordingly. But where the impact of a potential policy change is not known, testing this out before it is widely implemented can save money long-term, and make sure only policies likely to be effective are implemented.</p>
<p>Although the background of the MPs surveyed is not reported, an interest in and understanding of science is somewhat lacking in the corridors of power. In 2010, the Campaign for Science and Engineering compiled <a href="http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/?page_id=1543">a list</a> of MPs with an interest or background in science, and it equated to roughly 10% of MPs in parliament at that time. The implication here is that the other 90% have little or no interest in science whatsoever, let alone a scientific background or understanding of its methods.</p>
<h2>Randomised trials gaining ground</h2>
<p>In medicine it seems obvious to test treatments before rolling them out, and there is a move to apply such techniques to policy too, aided by RCTs. In 2013, the then secretary of state for education, Michael Gove, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/18/teaching-research-michael-gove">enlisted the help</a> of epidemiologist Ben Goldacre to help bring a strong evidence base to educational policy. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/about-us">Behavioural Insights Team</a> work with the government to design and test policies or interventions, and along with Goldacre and David Torgerson have authored a policy paper called <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/test-learn-adapt-developing-public-policy-with-randomised-controlled-trials">Test, Learn, Adapt</a>, instructing how to run trials for policy.</p>
<p>The Behavioural Insights Team have already used randomised controlled trials to investigate the effectiveness of a number of policy changes or interventions. One such trial showed that a small change to a government website led to <a href="http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/publications/applying-behavioural-insights-organ-donation">increases in organ donation</a> sign-up. </p>
<p>A government-backed charity called the <a href="https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/index.php/news/teaching-assistants-can-improve-numeracy-and-literacy-when-used-effectively/?hc_location=ufi">Educational Endowment Foundation</a> have used randomised trials to show that <a href="https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/index.php/news/teaching-assistants-can-improve-numeracy-and-literacy-when-used-effectively/?hc_location=ufi">teaching assistants can improve numeracy and literacy</a> when used effectively, which had been doubted after evidence from earlier largely non-randomised research. Goldacre has himself said that if anyone wants to help bring RCTs to policymaking, he will “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/18/teaching-research-michael-gove">stand on the barricades</a>” with them. </p>
<p>The results of this new survey suggest MPs would be receptive to this. Rather than smirking at politicians’ failure to grasp the complexities of scientific trials, researchers need to explain their importance, design and limitations. Randomised controlled trials have changed medicine for the better, and if done properly can do the same for the way policies are developed. </p>
<p>MPs don’t need a scientific background to value evidence-based policy, but if they need help understanding how to get the strongest evidence, we should provide it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39886/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzi Gage does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new survey has found MPs are largely in favour of randomised controlled trials, even if they don’t understand why.Suzi Gage, Postdoctoral research associate, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/379242015-03-03T00:56:41Z2015-03-03T00:56:41ZWe must defend science if we want a prosperous future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73549/original/image-20150303-15984-re4pwm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Science is under attack but we must defend it if we want to improve politics in Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Victoria University</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Today’s Australians are, by far, the best educated cohort in our history –- on paper, anyway -– but this is not reflected in the quality of our political discourse. We appear to be lacking in courage, judgement, capacity to analyse and even simple curiosity, except about immediate personal needs.</p>
<p>There are more than 1.1 million university students, both undergraduate and postgraduate (about 900,000 of them locals), <a href="http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/2014firsthalfyearstudentsummaryinfographics.pdf">currently at Australian universities</a>. </p>
<p>Australia also has about 4.5 million graduates (nearly 20% of the population), far more than the total numbers of traditional blue collar workers. Members of trade unions amount to about one million people: 18% of the total work force and about 12% of the private sector.</p>
<p>Inevitably, these numbers will shift our political culture, but the process is occurring slowly. </p>
<p>Australia, like the US, UK, Canada and much of Europe, has undergone a serious decline in the quality of debate on public policy. The British journalist Robert Fisk has called this “<a href="http://grittv.org/?video=the-deadly-infantilization-of-american-politics-robert-fisk-and-patricia-degennaro">the infantilisation of debate</a>”.</p>
<p>In the era of “spin”, when a complex issue is involved, leaders do not explain. They find a mantra (“stop the boats!”) and repeat it endlessly, “staying on message”, without explanation or qualification. The word “because” seems to have fallen out of the political lexicon. </p>
<p>Evidence-based policies and actions should be a central principle in the working of our system and reliance on populism and sloganeering should be rejected, but in reality they are not.</p>
<h2>Selling out science</h2>
<p>Complex problems demand complex solutions. Examples of such problems are refugees and climate change, which cannot be reduced to parroting a few simple slogans (“turn back the boats”, “stop this toxic tax”). </p>
<p>“Retail politics” – sometimes called “transactional politics” – where policies are adopted not because they are right but because they can be sold, is a dangerous development and should be rejected. We must maintain confidence that major problems can be addressed –- and act accordingly. </p>
<p>A voracious media looks for diversity and emotional engagement, weakening capacity for reflection and serious analysis, compounded by the rise of social media where users, typically, seek reinforcement of their views rather than being challenged by diversity.</p>
<p>Science and research generally are given disturbingly low priority in contemporary public life in Australia. Scientists, especially those involved with climate change or the environment, have come under unprecedented attack, especially in the media. </p>
<p>And the whole concept of the scientific method is discounted, even ridiculed. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gustav-nossal-3089">Gus Nossal</a> sometimes quotes me as saying that Australia must be the only country in the world where the word “academic” is treated as pejorative.</p>
<p>The role of science in policy development is a sensitive issue. I spent years – decades really – bashing my head against a brick wall trying to persuade colleagues to recognise the importance, even centrality, of science policy. </p>
<p>Many, probably most, of my political colleagues had no interest in science as an intellectual discipline, although they depended on science for their health, nutrition, transport, entertainment and communication.</p>
<p>We need to revive the process of dialogue: explain, explain, explain, rejecting mere sloganeering and populism. We need evidence-based policies, but often evidence lacks the psychological carrying power generated by appeals to prejudice or fear of disadvantage (“they are robbing you…”). </p>
<h2>Evidence vs. opinion</h2>
<p>There is a disturbing conflict between evidence and opinion (“you have evidence, but I have strong opinions”), and political processes are more likely to be driven by opinion rather than evidence in a short political cycle.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brian-schmidt-4963">Brian Schmidt</a>, our Nobel Laureate in astrophysics, wrote of his experience in this regard in <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/jury-in-on-climate-change-so-stop-using-arguments-of-convenience-and-listen-to-experts-20150215-13et0j.html">The Age</a> on February 16:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As a Nobel Prize winner, I travel the world meeting all kinds of people.</p>
<p>Most of the policy, business and political leaders I meet immediately apologise for their lack of knowledge of science.</p>
<p>Except when it comes to climate science. Whenever this subject comes up, it never ceases to amaze me how each person I meet suddenly becomes an expert.</p>
<p>Facts are then bandied to fit an argument for or against climate change, and on all sides, misconceptions abound.</p>
<p>The confusion is not surprising – climate science is a very broad and complicated subject with experts working on different aspects of it worldwide.</p>
<p>No single person knows everything about climate change. And for the average punter, it’s hard to keep up with all the latest research and what it means.</p>
<p>More surprising is the supreme confidence that non-experts (scientists and non-scientists alike) have in their own understanding of the subject.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I encourage you to read <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-book-review.html?pagewanted=all">Thinking, Fast and Slow</a>, a 2011 best seller by the psychologist Daniel Kahneman who, although not an economist, won the Nobel Prize for Economic Science in 2002 for his development of “<a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ekahneman/docs/Publications/prospect_theory.pdf">prospect theory</a>”.</p>
<p>Prospect theory analyses rational and irrational factors in decision making. He demonstrates, regrettably, the extent to which people like you and me use familiar short cuts – “heuristics” – to make intuitive judgements, and discount evidence or rationality in making decisions. </p>
<p>This can apply whether purchasing something, deciding where and how to like something, or taking a political stance on issues. Kahneman became the outstanding authority on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/behavioural-economics">behavioural economics</a> and social psychology.</p>
<p>Jonathan Haidt’s <a href="http://righteousmind.com/">The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion</a>, from 2012, is also an important book. I think Haidt could go much further with his thesis, which states that politics and religion tend to be centred on “values”, so people can pick and choose, and can sometimes be blinded to the facts because of their moral worldview. It is clear that many people say: “I reject these particular facts because I don’t trust where they come from.”</p>
<h2>Heuristics and confusion</h2>
<p>Psychologists confirm that we habitually engage in the <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm">cherry-picking of evidence</a> -– we choose the bits that we are emotionally, intuitively, attracted to and comfortable with.</p>
<p>The Cambridge political scientist, <a href="http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/Staff_and_Students/professor-david-runciman">David Runciman</a>, argues that “opinion, interest and knowledge are too divided, and no event, whether an election […] or a crisis is clear enough in its meaning to bring closure”.</p>
<p>For example, there is fierce opposition in some quarters to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/vaccination">vaccination</a> of children and the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent dental caries, even though the empirical evidence in support of both is overwhelming. But appeals to fear can be far more powerful than arguing on the basis of hard evidence.</p>
<p>There has been a sustained attack from some quarters – the News Corporation papers, the Institute of Public Affairs (<a href="http://www.ipa.org.au/">IPA</a>) and the Centre for Independent Studies (<a href="http://www.cis.org.au/">CIS</a>) to name only three – on scientific research and scientific method, even on rationality and the Enlightenment tradition. </p>
<p>The illusion was created that scientists are corrupt, while lobbyists are pure. One of the false assertions is that scientists who take the mainstream position are rewarded, while dissenters are punished (similar to Galileo and the Inquisition). </p>
<p>In Australia now, and the US until recently, the contrary could be argued. Galileo’s work was based on observation of data -– his opponents were operating from doctrine.</p>
<p>Scientists arguing for the mainstream view have been subject to strong attack by <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/climate-change-denial">denialists</a> who assert that they are quasi-religious zealots who are missionaries for a green religion. </p>
<p>In reality, it was the denialist/confusionist position to rely on faith, the conviction that there were a diversity of complex reasons for climate change but only one could be confidently rejected: the role of human activity.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73545/original/image-20150302-15987-39engb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It might be nice to see ‘science’ in that list.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/takver/15091861855/in/photolist-bDMWut-nDzRTT-fFyoQN-u8JgB-eU3wND-iZsWW8-eXRmac-n5WddR-nWxmQW-fFxRVG-9taTCu-rbczdH-aXtPG-oZBJJK-kMWhhT-91PkDE-9Qtx2w-pHAy8x-4FkKAg-fwtmzh-6bxz33-gKoR68-4BTp93-feuRpN-gumgjA-dYqKLi-xWkAg-nMGeqQ-dPF3rg-kMVBGZ-cs3FYo-4ZbAJk-rc2z4j-ctTARQ-87PCG7-p1VDQG-5FigGb-fTDneL-5zR5P-91PA3V-c4yRJb-5rH9iW-4rVftw-mf1t6n-b936Un-87PDTL-arEkcn-5Vy5Ku-67wMBQ-8aaofb">Takver/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Three fronts</h2>
<p>There are three areas of attack against expertise and taking a long term, analytical view of the world: from the Right, the Left and the anxious Centre.</p>
<p>From the Right there have been systematic and well-financed attacks by lobbyists from the fossil fuels industry and electricity generators. This has been highly personal, often abusive, sometimes threatening. </p>
<p>The anxious Centre includes people working in particular industries and regions (such as Hunter Valley, La Trobe Valley, Tasmanian forests), understandably fearful of potential job losses, without much prospect of creating new jobs. The trade union movement is deeply divided on this –- as is the business community.</p>
<p>But from the Left, or some segments of the intellectual Left, a deconstructionist mind-set has partly undermined an evidence-based approach to policy making or problem solving.</p>
<p>The pluralist or deconstructionist or post-modern theory of knowledge is contemptuous of expertise, rejects the idea of hierarchies of knowledge and asserts the democratic mantra that –- as with votes in elections –- every opinion is of equal value, so that if you insist that the earth is flat, refuse vaccination for children or deny that HIV-AIDS is transmitted by virus, your view should be treated with respect. </p>
<p>Similarly, there has been a repudiation of expertise and or taste -– dismissing the idea of people like <a href="https://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/bloom/">Harold Bloom</a>, or myself, that there is a “Western canon” which sets benchmarks. “No,” say the deconstructionists, “the paintings of Banksy, the mysterious British graffiti artist, are just as good as Raphael, and hip-hop performances are just as valid as Beethoven’s Opus 131.” </p>
<p>The Welsh geneticist <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slms/people/show.php?personid=10687">Steve Jones</a> asks an important question: if there is a division of scientific opinion, with 999 on one side, and one on the other, how should the debate be handled? Should the one dissenter be given 500 opportunities to speak? </p>
<p>Yet Graham Lloyd, The Australian’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/having-it-both-ways-news-corps-climate-paradox-30024">environment editor</a> – perhaps more accurately described as the anti-environment editor – trawls the web, finds obscure and unsubstantiated critiques of mainstream science, then publishes them as front page attacks on professional integrity.</p>
<h2>Science and common-sense</h2>
<p>There are major problems when it comes to explaining some of issues in science, and there have been ever since science began. Some fundamental scientific discoveries seem to be counter-intuitive, challenging direct observation or our common-sense view of the world.</p>
<p>Common sense, and direct observation, tells us that the Earth is flat, that the sun (like the moon) rotates around the Earth and that forces don’t operate at a distance.</p>
<p>Aristotle with his encyclopedic –- but often erroneous –- grasp of natural phenomena, was a compelling authority in support of a geocentric universe, and that the seat of reason was in the heart, not the brain, and that females were deformed males. His views were dominant for 1,500 years. </p>
<p>The Greek astronomer Ptolemy, following Aristotle, provided ingenious proofs in support of geocentrism. Then along came Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler who said: “Your common sense observation is wrong. The orbits of sun and moon are completely different, although they appear to be similar.” (Our use of the terms “sunrise” and “sunset” preserves the Ptolemaic paradigm.) </p>
<p>By the 20th Century, electronics enabled us to apply force from a distance, to do thousands of things remotely, manipulating spacecraft and satellites, or receiving signals (radio, telephony, television), setting alarms, opening garage doors and, one of the great labour saving devices, the remote switch for television.</p>
<p>The most obvious disjunction between science and common sense is the question: “right now, are we at rest or in motion?” </p>
<p>Common sense and direct observation suggests that we are at rest. But science says, “wrong again”. We are moving very rapidly. The earth is spinning on its axis at a rate of 1,669 kmh at the equator, and in Melbourne (37.8°S) at 1,317 kmh. We are also orbiting round the sun even faster, at nearly 30 kms, or 107,200 kmh. There is a third motion, harder to measure, as the galaxy expands -– and it’s speeding up, as <a href="https://theconversation.com/brian-schmidt-in-conversation-8383">Brian Schmidt postulates</a>.</p>
<p>But, sitting here in Footscray, it is hard to grasp that we are in motion, kept in place by gravity. Psychology resists it. Essentially we have to accept the repudiation of common sense on trust, because somebody in a white coat says, “trust me, I’m a scientist”. I would challenge anyone to reconcile common sense and quantum theory or to satisfactorily explain the Higgs boson or -– hardest of all -– to define gravity.</p>
<p>The factors that limit the psychological carrying power of much science –- not all -– include these: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>its complexity, often requiring use of a language known only to initiates</p></li>
<li><p>outcomes are seen as too expensive</p></li>
<li><p>outcomes are seen as too slow</p></li>
<li><p>the history of science has been badly taught, often portrayed as an effortless success story, proceeding from triumph to triumph, instead of the passionate and dramatic reality.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Science at the core</h2>
<p>Scientists and learned societies have been punching below their weight in matters of public policy, and they are careful to avoid being involved in controversies outside their disciplines, possible threats to grants being among them. </p>
<p>Some distinguished scientists are outstanding advocates, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gustav-nossal-3089">Gus Nossal</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-c-doherty-169">Peter Doherty</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-chubb-5153">Ian Chubb</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fiona-stanley-16277">Fiona Stanley</a>, <a href="https://www.science.org.au/node/320923">Robert May</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brian-schmidt-4963">Brian Schmidt</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-frazer-10030">Ian Frazer</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mike-archer-am-5995">Mike Archer</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tim-flannery-11549">Tim Flannery</a> and <a href="http://www.unimelb.edu.au/unisec/calendar/honcausa/citation/denton.pdf">Dick Denton</a>. </p>
<p>Science must be at the core of our national endeavour and you are well placed to examine the evidence, evaluate it, then advocate and persuade. Our nation’s future depends on the quality of its thinking, and its leaders.</p>
<p>There is a wide-spread assumption by industry and government that Australia’s economic, social and technological future will be a mirror image of the past. We can be confident that this just won’t happen. We have not even begun to talk seriously about the threats and opportunities of a post-carbon economy.</p>
<p>I encourage you, whatever your political persuasion, or lack of it, to argue for higher recognition of the role that science must play in our future, and drive your MP mad unless or until he/ she does something about it.</p>
<p>Remember Archimedes and his lever. But first you have to find a fulcrum, then you push the lever.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37924/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barry Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Our nation’s future depends on the quality of its thinking and its leaders. As such, science must be at the core of our national discourse.Barry Jones, Professorial Fellow, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/352652014-12-10T09:45:11Z2014-12-10T09:45:11ZTo stop violence against women, we need to get men to help change social norms<p>A series of research projects is to take place in countries including Afghanistan, Palestine and South Africa to address our significant lack of knowledge about how to prevent physical and sexual violence against women.</p>
<p>A total of <a href="http://www.svri.org/WhatWorks.htm">18 projects</a> will be funded by the UK government, it has been announced. While awareness about violence against women is growing, we still lack good evidence about what actually stops it from happenening and these projects aim to contribute to filling that gap. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.genderjustice.org.za/one-man-can/">One Man Can</a> project in South Africa, for example, will engage men and boys to challenge traditional models of masculinity. Another in the Democratic Republic of Congo will work with faith leaders to change the social norms that enable violence to continue, and in Afghanistan, boys and girls will work together on peace programmes in schools. Male leaders and families will also be involved in projects that aim to promote an understanding of women’s rights, and build healthy relationship skills based on peaceful conflict resolution.</p>
<p>Another project will link international buyers and their supplier factories in Bangladesh with local NGOs to address sexual harassment in garment factories and a national media campaign will be rolled out across the Occupied Palestinian Territories to challenge the acceptability of violence against women.</p>
<h2>Wrong target?</h2>
<p>In recent years, attention has turned to engaging men and boys rather than talking to women about how to avoid violence. This approach started with programmes that focused on perpetrators of violence against women. But many women’s rights activists were sceptical. Some were concerned that projects like these would divert limited resources away from women’s programmes and others warned that they have the potential to further reassert male power, framing men as the protectors and saviours of women.</p>
<p>Now The UN’s high-profile <a href="http://www.heforshe.org/">He For She</a> campaign is just one example of the projects emerging that call on all men – not just those who are violent – to be part of the solution. They are asked to stand in solidarity with women and make equality one of their own personal missions.</p>
<p>Other projects include lectures and workshops for men to help them redefine what it means to be a man and to have non-violent, egalitarian relationships. Others engage men as bystanders – encouraging them to intervene when they witness other men being aggressive or sexist.</p>
<p>But for all these, the evidence about whether they actually work is limited.</p>
<h2>New ground</h2>
<p>It is being increasingly recognised that violence against women and girls is not just about individually violent men. It is a much larger systemic issue. Violence is caused by gender inequality and related to ideas about men needing to be strong and in control.</p>
<p>That means we can’t work with men and boys in isolation from the realities of the wider world. To stop violence against women, we need to change the norms and structural gender inequalities in society.</p>
<p>This may include work to change social norms in villages and societies, therapeutic interventions for boys and men who have themselves experienced violence or school programmes about healthy, equal relationships. It might even mean marketing and media campaigns to promote new models of masculinity.</p>
<p>The point is we don’t know which stands a chance of having an impact and which wouldn’t. These 18 projects can’t answer all the questions but they could give us a better idea about what works to bring down rates of violence – and indeed what doesn’t. </p>
<p>Through these projects and others we can start to learn more about what works to prevent violence, so that the work to engage men and boys, along with women and girls, can be driven by rigorous evidence. We will all benefit from that.</p>
<p><em>Emma Fulu also contributed to this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35265/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lori Heise receives funding from UK AID as part of the What Works to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls global programme. </span></em></p>A series of research projects is to take place in countries including Afghanistan, Palestine and South Africa to address our significant lack of knowledge about how to prevent physical and sexual violence…Lori Heise, Senior Lecturer in Social Epidemiology and Co-Research Director of STRIVE, London School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/347872014-12-05T06:14:24Z2014-12-05T06:14:24ZHow to improve the chances of poor children at school<p>Overcoming educational disadvantage is not easy. Even before they enter the school gates for the first time, a variety of factors including inheritance, social class, parenting style and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-cognitive-development-of-11-year-olds-depends-on-their-parents-fortunes-34788">family income</a> are related to children’s capacity to learn in formal education. </p>
<p>On average, children who are entitled to free school meals start school in England with lower scores in reading and maths than their peers. And this trend persists to the end of primary school. This poverty gap may even widen with age. At 16, the gap between children eligible for free school meals and others achieving five or more high passes in GCSE or equivalent, <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/ataleoftwoclassrooms1">has widened to 26%</a>.</p>
<h2>Little progress</h2>
<p>Recent attempts to address this issue do not seem to have been successful, as we set out with colleagues in <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/ataleoftwoclassrooms1">a new collection of research</a> in collaboration with the Demos think tank. Between 2000 and 2007, the differences in performance between children entitled to free school meals and their peers has remained consistent for both maths and English.</p>
<p>The lack of progress reminds us that this is not only an educational issue. Schools and teachers cannot be held solely responsible for addressing the effects of income inequality or other social problems. Nor can we blame neglectful parents, or lack of aspiration among young people. It is at least partly a political issue, with political and economic solutions. Until it is solved, schools and educators must seek to address the educational inequality that currently exists, to enable their pupils to have as fair a chance of educational success as possible.</p>
<h2>Where’s the evidence?</h2>
<p>A recent reassuring trend has been the cross-party consensus about the need to create and use evidence in education policy and practice. A number of initiatives and institutions have been launched to support this work, such as the What Works centres – the <a href="http://www.eif.org.uk/">Early Intervention Foundation</a> and <a href="http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/">Education Endowment Foundation</a> (EEF).</p>
<p>The <a href="http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/">Teaching and Learning Toolkit</a> produced by the EEF and the Sutton Trust is one example of what has emerged. It provides accessible evidence on which educational interventions have been tested and shown to be effective in improving attainment, and has shown roughly how much these cost. This is now consulted by about half of the schools in England when deciding how to spend their <a href="https://www.gov.uk/pupil-premium-information-for-schools-and-alternative-provision-settings">pupil premium funding</a> – additional money given to schools for each child entitled to free school meals.</p>
<h2>Not such a Sure Start</h2>
<p>But knowing what has been found to work in the past, and in well-funded and controlled trials, is only part of the solution. For example, the early education initiative <a href="https://www.gov.uk/find-sure-start-childrens-centre">Sure Start</a> was based on evidence indicating that, on average, early years interventions have tended to be successful in improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged children. </p>
<p>But Sure Start <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/ataleoftwoclassrooms1">has not been successful</a> in closing the poverty gap for young children. One reason is that it can be difficult to roll out initiatives at a larger scale, often with less funding per person. When projects like this expand, the impact can dissipate as the intervention involves “conscripted” participants rather than just the volunteers taking part in the initial trial.</p>
<p>It also may be that the typical Sure Start intervention did not have the most important ingredients which produced the effects found in the initial research. Or it is possible that those who designed the policy looked at the most successful examples of early years intervention and assumed – or hoped – that these would simply be replicated. </p>
<h2>Good bets, but not the only answer</h2>
<p>Although some ideas are typically effective – such as providing feedback to pupils or developing their skills and confidence in planning, monitoring and evaluating their own learning – they do not always have these effects. They are “good bets” on average, but they also have a wide spread of impact, including negative, harmful results in some cases. </p>
<p>More than 90 large-scale randomised trials commissioned by the EEF should add to the evidence in the toolkit and help us understand how to scale-up successful interventions. We should not underestimate the challenge here. It will be important to try to improve things which are less successful, as well as replicate those which have been shown to work. </p>
<p>A recent example concerns the contribution of teaching assistants. The <a href="https://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6022071">evidence a few years ago</a> indicated that, on average, they made very little difference to the attainment of the pupils in the classes they supported. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.3157/abstract">Recent evidence from trials</a>, including two funded by the EEF, showed that where teaching assistants are trained and supported to provide intensive support to pupils in small groups or one-to-one, pupils can make an additional three months progress in reading or mathematics. If this knowledge could be applied across the country, the benefit would be considerable.</p>
<p>Evidence of what has worked in other contexts is a necessary condition for reform. Our best guesses are not good enough. But such evidence on its own is still not good enough. Those in charge of policy still tend to cherry-pick evidence to suit an agenda. </p>
<p>We must not get into the trap of generalising from success stories alone: we need to take a cold hard look at the evidence of what has and has not been successful. We need to apply this critically and rigorously across the system, evaluating as initiatives are scaled-up to ensure that we are successful in improving educational outcomes for those in our schools currently disadvantaged by their economic circumstances.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34787/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Durham University received funding from the Sutton Trust to produce the Pupil Premium Toolkit. This has subsequently been developed into an online resource, the Teaching and Learning Toolkit, by the Education Endowment Foundation who provide funding to Durham University to support a research review team, led by Steve Higgins.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Coe has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, Sutton Trust, Education Endowment Foundation, Pearson, and many individual schools and local authorities.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Gorard receives funding from the Nuffield Foundation, EU, Education Endowment Foundation and the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p>Overcoming educational disadvantage is not easy. Even before they enter the school gates for the first time, a variety of factors including inheritance, social class, parenting style and family income…Steve Higgins, Professor of Education, Durham UniversityRobert Coe, Professor, School of Education and Director, Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring, Durham UniversityStephen Gorard, Professor of Education and Public Policy, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/328982014-10-31T03:29:16Z2014-10-31T03:29:16ZChild protection: how to keep vulnerable kids with their families<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63274/original/9kmngzrt-1414644577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Social workers can successfully work with most families that find themselves in trouble without taking their children away.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-210400726/stock-photo-father-and-son-fixing-bike-in-summer-park.html?src=arvTCrurT8hEeA9Tm5z1tA-1-25">Nadezhda1906/Flickr</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After a long period of expansion in the number of children living in out-of-home care, most modern child protection systems around the world have been labouring to prevent such placements. Instead, they’re choosing to work more closely with families to safely maintain children in their own homes. </p>
<p>There are many reasons for this shift. First, taking someone’s children away from them has to rank as one of the most drastic, costly and intrusive acts a government can carry out. This is recognised by each state’s substantial protection of family rights. </p>
<p>Second, maltreatment takes many different forms, which can occur with differing frequency and severity. This ranges from relatively minor “one-offs” to repeated, severe and escalating instances of horrific abuse. The vast majority of cases investigated by child protection services would fall somewhere in between. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, except in the most obvious cases, methods for assessing the extent and severity of child maltreatment are <a href="https://theconversation.com/risky-business-how-protection-workers-decide-to-remove-children-from-their-parents-32679">fairly limited</a>. They can require substantial forensic skills that are not present in our workforce, and even these are prone to high rates of error. </p>
<p>Third, and most importantly, while placement in foster care might benefit some children, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-remove-kids-from-abuse-and-neglect-but-are-they-better-off-in-the-long-run-32686">overall outcomes</a> for children placed in care tend to be uniformly poor when compared to their peers. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/ChapinHallDocument_1.pdf">Research from the United States</a> shows that children transitioning from out-of-home care into adulthood have high rates of homelessness, teen pregnancy, unemployment, justice system involvement and crime victimisation, while having lower rates of educational attainment. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63283/original/hqhc5qpp-1414646429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63283/original/hqhc5qpp-1414646429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63283/original/hqhc5qpp-1414646429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63283/original/hqhc5qpp-1414646429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63283/original/hqhc5qpp-1414646429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63283/original/hqhc5qpp-1414646429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63283/original/hqhc5qpp-1414646429.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The child protection system isn’t very good at addressing individual families’ vulnerabilities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-215551318/stock-photo-beautiful-mother-and-daughter-walking-to-school.html?src=wyj_2mTqbAQfgfrdudcAiw-1-10">Joana Lopes/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although these outcomes cannot be attributed entirely to the foster care experience, it is probably safe to say that placing more children in out-of-home care is not a good idea.</p>
<p>That said, we’re not very good at supporting families that find themselves in trouble, particularly when their difficulties are related to conditions that are not of their own making. </p>
<p>Vulnerabilities related to poverty, social isolation, inter-generational issues around parenting skills, limited access to education, and mental and physical health issues top the list, as does the extensively documented, long-standing history of mistreatment of Aboriginal people whose children are now disproportionately placed in out-of-home care. </p>
<p>The next wicked problem for our taxpayer-funded system is how to move beyond the identification of child maltreatment to the prevention of government-funded out-of-home care. We have every reason to believe we can successfully work with most families, without taking their children away.</p>
<h2>Case model: SafeCare</h2>
<p>It’s important to note there are no magic bullets. But there are some good bets. These tend to come in the form of behaviourally focused, manualised programs that focus on specific and changeable features of child maltreatment. </p>
<p>One example from the US is <a href="https://www.childwelfare.gov/preventing/programs/types/safe_care.cfm">SafeCare</a>, an in-home parenting program for families with children aged up to five years who are involved with the child protection system for reasons of child neglect. </p>
<p>SafeCare’s 18 to 20 sessions employ a combination of training, modelling and behavioural rehearsal to help parents build the necessary skills for managing difficult child behaviour. This includes how to plan and execute daily activities, reduce hazards in the home and employ steps to prevent injury, and make appropriate health-care decisions. </p>
<p>SafeCare is one of the few programs that has been rigorously tested against normal, high-quality family services. The investigators observed significant and substantial gains in parenting skills as well as the prevention of subsequent substantiated child maltreatment reports, especially for first-time mothers. </p>
<p>A sub-group analysis of Native American families receiving the service showed similar gains up to six years after intervention – an encouraging finding for Australian Aboriginal families. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63282/original/tsynfr8t-1414646112.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63282/original/tsynfr8t-1414646112.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63282/original/tsynfr8t-1414646112.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63282/original/tsynfr8t-1414646112.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63282/original/tsynfr8t-1414646112.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63282/original/tsynfr8t-1414646112.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63282/original/tsynfr8t-1414646112.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Except in the most obvious cases, our methods for assessing the extent and severity of child maltreatment are fairly limited.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-195617255/stock-photo-red-headed-girl-with-red-haired-dog-eating-dog-biscuits.html?src=n1WB65E07z5x06N6K0O2_Q-6-45">S Curtis/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It also happens to be highly economical. The non-partisan <a href="http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/">Washington State Institute for Public Policy</a> uses a set of complex statistical analyses to rank the benefit-to-cost ratio of a wide range of public services. It ranks SafeCare highest among all effective child welfare services, with more than US$16 benefit for every dollar spent. </p>
<p>Although it is not clear from this publication exactly what makes SafeCare more cost-effective than the others, we can speculate. The program focus – child neglect – is expensive in the long run if not successfully resolved. SafeCare is also a structured, time-limited approach with a clear beginning and an end, so it’s not open-ended. </p>
<p>The approach also has a strong focus on supporting families through implementation of the program. </p>
<h2>Improving existing services</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, implementing new services isn’t enough; we also need to better align our child protection and family services systems. This requires breaking down existing barriers to implementing new approaches and modifying existing ones. </p>
<p>Impediments range from negative staff attitudes and limited experience with new approaches, to inflexible service models, perhaps tied to specific funding streams. There is also a lack of comprehensive, in-field support for the workforce, which is needed to build competence in the types of effective, behaviourally based strategies contained in SafeCare. </p>
<p>We need to re-create our child protection systems and infrastructure to meet the needs, circumstances and challenges of families coming through the child protection gateway. To do this, we must translate the best evidence into practice, routinely monitor outcomes and use this information to continuously improve service content and delivery. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63285/original/s9gx3hfm-1414646662.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63285/original/s9gx3hfm-1414646662.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63285/original/s9gx3hfm-1414646662.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63285/original/s9gx3hfm-1414646662.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63285/original/s9gx3hfm-1414646662.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=950&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63285/original/s9gx3hfm-1414646662.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=950&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63285/original/s9gx3hfm-1414646662.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=950&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Better understanding the problems will help drive evidence-based solutions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-157889258/stock-photo-boy-drawing-on-the-paper.html?src=9DI9VzUeD7Hb0cLzZeuw_A-1-7">jeep5d/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Individual states have begun to mine their vast stores of services data in an effort to understand the pathways that children and families take through the system. While still fairly limited, these data can be used to figure out what separates children who come into care from those who can safely remain with their parents. </p>
<p>Is it drug and alcohol use? Domestic violence? Harsh and coercive parenting? Insufficient economic support? Are they mostly very young children? Teenagers? </p>
<p>Gauging the extent of the problem allows us to better choose the focus and number of services needed within specific neighbourhoods or regions. It is far from easy to do this on a massive scale. </p>
<p>For now, we have to work hard while also being patient – not reaching out for the first program or idea – but investigating more fully the evidence for each problem that exists from international and Australian research studies, and how this fits within our various state and local systems. </p>
<p>This requires that we all – policymakers, practitioners, researchers, consumers and community members – come together to improve the system. We have the roadmap. We now need sustained, bipartisan support to make it happen.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is the ninth and final part of The Conversation’s series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/child-protection-in-australia">Child Protection in Australia</a>. Click on the links below to read the other instalments:</em></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/infographic-a-snapshot-of-australias-child-protection-services-33090">Infographic: a snapshot of Australia’s child protection services</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/abuse-and-neglect-australias-child-protection-crisis-32664">Abuse and neglect: Australia’s child protection ‘crisis’</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/risky-business-how-protection-workers-decide-to-remove-children-from-their-parents-32679">Risky business: how protection workers decide to remove children from their parents</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/we-all-have-a-role-in-protecting-children-end-the-silence-on-abuse-31281">We all have a role in protecting children: end the silence on abuse</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/we-remove-kids-from-abuse-and-neglect-but-are-they-better-off-in-the-long-run-32686">We remove kids from abuse and neglect, but are they better off in the long run?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/complex-trauma-how-abuse-and-neglect-can-have-life-long-effects-32329">Complex trauma: how abuse and neglect can have life-long effects</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/foster-parents-need-more-support-to-care-for-vulnerable-children-32680">Foster parents need more support to care for vulnerable children</a></li>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/empowering-indigenous-communities-to-prevent-child-abuse-and-neglect-32875">Empowering Indigenous communities to prevent child abuse and neglect</a></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32898/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aron Shlonsky receives funding from a number of government contracts and council grants, but does not benefit financially or personally from any programs or services described in this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>The organisation Robyn Mildon works for receives funding from a number of government contracts and council grants, but she does not benefit financially or personally from any programs or services described in this article.</span></em></p>After a long period of expansion in the number of children living in out-of-home care, most modern child protection systems around the world have been labouring to prevent such placements. Instead, they’re…Aron Shlonsky, Professor of Evidence-Informed Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of MelbourneRobyn Mildon, Director , Parenting Research CentreLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/314352014-09-09T05:32:48Z2014-09-09T05:32:48ZBritish government on the badger cull: ask scientists for help then ignore them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58456/original/v9xnkfsy-1410176626.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">All your fault.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/11561957@N06/10317142804">b/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bovine tuberculosis (TB) is expected to cost British taxpayers nearly <a href="http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/a-z/bovine-tb/about-bovine-tb/">£100m in 2014</a>. Scientific evidence is a vital weapon in the fight to protect cattle from TB. Why, then, has the government just fought and won a legal battle to avoid consulting independent scientists on its most high-profile TB control effort?</p>
<p>Wild badgers play a role in transmitting TB to cattle, and culling badgers seems an obvious solution. A new round of badger culls is about to start, but it is <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/badger-cull">risky</a> . A complex interaction between badger behaviour and TB transmission means that the results of culling could, depending on various factors, increase TB levels, instead of reducing them. To add to that, badger culling is expensive. </p>
<p>This is why, in 2013, the government started a pilot that it hoped would be give them a cheap and effective way to control cattle TB. Farmers, rather than government, would pay for the culling. And, rather than being cage-trapped, badgers would be shot in the wild. </p>
<p>This pilot was started in just two areas – and for good reason: the whole approach was untested, and the stakes were high. Marksmen shooting at night might endanger public safety. Shooting free-ranging badgers might cause suffering. And, worst of all for the aims of the approach, failing to kill enough badgers, fast enough, would worsen the cattle TB situation that the culls were intended to control.</p>
<p>In the face of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/13/badger-cull-mindless">such uncertainty</a>, the government adopted a commonly used approach. It <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pilot-badger-culls-in-somerset-and-gloucestershire-report-by-the-independent-expert-panel">appointed</a> an Independent Expert Panel to assess the safety, humaneness and effectiveness of the pilot project. The expectation was that this panel’s conclusions would reflect scientific evidence, whether or not they supported government policy.</p>
<h2>Bring in the experts</h2>
<p>The Independent Expert Panel <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pilot-badger-culls-in-somerset-and-gloucestershire-report-by-the-independent-expert-panel">found</a> that farmer-led culling was far from effective. Tasked with killing at least 70% of the local badgers within a six-week period, cull teams only managed to kill between 28% and 48%. Culling periods were extended, but still the total kill rose to only something between 31% and 56%, according to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300385/ahvla-extension-efficacy.pdf">government figures</a>. Unless more badgers could be killed, and faster, farmer-led culling risked worsening the problem it was intended to solve.</p>
<p>The 2013 culls also failed to meet their <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300382/independent-expert-panel-report.pdf">targets for animal welfare</a>. Between 7.4% and 22.8% of badgers were still alive five minutes after being shot and were assumed to have experienced “marked pain”.</p>
<p>Despite facing these failures, the government decided to repeat culls in the same areas in 2014. If effectiveness and humaneness could be improved sufficiently, culling might be extended to more areas in 2015. If not, the government might need to reconsider their policy. One would think, then, that measuring effectiveness and humaneness would be a central goal of 2014’s culls.</p>
<h2>Then ignore their advice</h2>
<p>The Independent Expert Panel, together with government scientists, selected the most accurate and precise ways to estimate the effectiveness and humaneness of the 2013 culls. Measuring effectiveness is challenging because – being nocturnal and shy – badgers are hard to count. The panel overcame this problem by using genetic “fingerprints” to identify badgers from hair snagged on barbed wire. They measured humaneness primarily through independent observers recording the time that shot badgers took to die.</p>
<p>The panel recommended that the same approaches be used for subsequent culls. But the government rejected this <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300424/pb14158-defra-response-independent-expert-panel.pdf">recommendation</a>. This year there will be no attempt to count badgers in the cull areas, either before or after the culls. The time badgers take to die will not be recorded. There will be no oversight by independent scientists.</p>
<p>Instead, the effectiveness of the culls which start tonight will be judged using a method so utterly inadequate it was barely considered in 2013. Key data will be collected by marksmen themselves: people with a vested interest in the cull being designated “effective” and “humane”, who in 2013 collected data so unreliable it was considered unusable by the panel. Available information suggests that any future claim that the 2014 culls have reduced badger numbers sufficiently to control TB will be completely baseless.</p>
<p>Why the change in approach? Government cites cost, and hired some expensive lawyers to defend its position when the Badger Trust sought, and eventually lost, a judicial review of the decision to scrap independent scientific oversight of this year’s culls. Yet the cost of pushing forward with an ineffective culling policy would far outweigh the cost of properly assessing effectiveness and humaneness.</p>
<p>Government has repeatedly referred to its programme of badger culling as “<a href="http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/a-z/bovine-tb/badgers/culling/">science-led</a>”. One would expect a science-led policy to entail gathering reliable information on management outcomes, and using this and other evidence to inform future decisions. Choosing – against formal expert advice – to collect inconsistent, inadequate and potentially biased data is an insult to evidence-based policymaking. When ineffective culling can make a bad situation worse, failing to collect the evidence needed to evaluate future policy fails farmers, taxpayers and wildlife.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Next, read this: <a href="https://theconversation.com/cattle-herd-model-reveals-best-ways-to-halt-spread-of-tb-and-a-badger-cull-isnt-one-of-them-28640">Cattle herd model reveals best ways to halt spread of TB – and a badger cull isn’t one of them</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31435/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosie Woodroffe gratefully acknowledges research funding from Defra.</span></em></p>Bovine tuberculosis (TB) is expected to cost British taxpayers nearly £100m in 2014. Scientific evidence is a vital weapon in the fight to protect cattle from TB. Why, then, has the government just fought…Rosie Woodroffe, Senior Research Fellow, Zoological Society of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/288682014-08-04T10:13:15Z2014-08-04T10:13:15ZPhonics is not a fix-all drug that will get all children reading<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54250/original/tz5xqfbh-1405681497.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Phonics is not the only way. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pearlsofjannah/2379288154/sizes/l">Pearls of Jannah</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How can there be such high profile disagreement about an issue as extensively researched and important as the teaching of reading to young children? In July, a group of teachers and phonics consultants <a href="http://news.tes.co.uk/b/opinion/2014/07/30/open-letter-to-nicky-morgan-39-why-the-year-1-phonics-check-must-stay-39.aspx">wrote to the Times Educational Supplement</a>, defending the Year One phonics check – a test given to all five year olds to examine their ability to decode unfamiliar words. This was in a response to <a href="http://news.tes.co.uk/b/opinion/2014/06/26/open-letter-to-michael-gove-why-the-y1-phonics-check-must-go.aspx">an earlier letter</a> from teachers, academics and representatives of teaching unions who had called for its abolition. </p>
<p>The reason for this disagreement lies not so much in the difficulty or inaccessibility of the research but in some widespread assumptions about the kind of evidence that should inform teaching. </p>
<p>The department for education <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-randomised-controlled-trials-will-drive-forward-evidence-based-research">currently promotes a model of “rigorous” educational research</a> that draws on the use of evidence to inform practice in other sectors, most notably medicine. But rather than helping to select the best possible educational methods, this search for evidence forces educational activity to follow the model of the medical “intervention”. </p>
<p>There are <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2048-416X.2013.12000.x/abstract">many critics</a> of the department for education’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/phonics">guidance on teaching phonics</a>. None of them denies that some of the advice has a place in the early teaching of reading.</p>
<p>Teaching the regular “phonic” correspondence between letters or groups of letters and particular sounds, as well as the process of blending these sounds from left to right to form whole word units, has <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100526143644/http:/standards.dcsf.gov.uk/phonics/report.pdf">been acknowledged</a> as part of good educational practice. </p>
<p>But viewed as one of a range of approaches to learning to read, phonics cannot be pinpointed as a discrete “intervention”, and therefore as the “best” reading intervention from a range of options. </p>
<h2>Teachers go off script</h2>
<p>An intervention has distinct properties which can be reproduced across contexts. It can be given to one group and withheld from another – the core principle of the “control” in the randomised control trial. It has a beginning and an end so that its effects can be measured. The obvious example is a course of a drug, which has a particular quantity, regularity, and chemical composition. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/55515/original/t6j6s64d-1406889574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/55515/original/t6j6s64d-1406889574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/55515/original/t6j6s64d-1406889574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/55515/original/t6j6s64d-1406889574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/55515/original/t6j6s64d-1406889574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/55515/original/t6j6s64d-1406889574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/55515/original/t6j6s64d-1406889574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Education isn’t as simple as a course of drugs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-208307662/stock-photo-yellow-pills-pouring-out-of-the-brown-bottle.html?src=0a2P82AF5FuERgTK5+zcYQ-1-24">Pills by kamontad999/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the problem with transferring evidence-based practice to the educational context is that teachers do not teach through interventions. The interactions between teachers and pupils cannot be broken up into the kinds of discrete activities tested through a randomised control trial. </p>
<p>The only way an educational activity could be given to one group and withheld from another, have a beginning and an end so that its effects could be measured, and then be effectively reproduced, is if the activity could be restricted to a script or reduced to a resource (such as a book or a film). The teacher would have to stick heavily to the script in order for the intervention’s effects to be measured against those pupils who didn’t get taught that way. </p>
<p>But any teacher who has tried to follow a lesson plan knows that classroom interaction cannot be captured in scripted activity. A teacher’s duty to continually monitor the progress of students as they learn means they will be constantly be making decisions in the moment about how to re-phrase questions, encourage particular individuals in their learning, or make use of additional examples. They need to go off script.</p>
<h2>Too many eggs in one basket</h2>
<p>The government’s guidance on phonics is a case in point. It emphasises the introduction of the “first and fast” principle – that in the earliest stages, phonics is to be taught exclusively as the way children read. The introduction of other reading strategies, such as inferring the word from narrative context, or using other clues such as pictures, are determined to be counter-productive to the aim of developing phonic knowledge. </p>
<p>Schools are encouraged to select from a range of available commercial programmes, each of which adhere to core phonic principles set out by the department for education. The guidance implies these programmes will have most value if, like a course of antibiotics, they are seen through to completion without detrimental interaction with other programmes. </p>
<p>Building on this, the year one phonics check is designed – with its incorporation of nonsense-words and words out of meaningful context – to explicitly rule out the possibility that students are employing other strategies. </p>
<p>The result of this, as <a href="http://news.tes.co.uk/b/opinion/2014/06/26/open-letter-to-michael-gove-why-the-y1-phonics-check-must-go.aspx">the first open letter</a> claimed, is that the phonics check tests the application of the intervention rather than its intended result: literacy. </p>
<p>It is easy to see how interventions like these are attractive at a policy level – particularly for those who see widespread problems with poor literacy as an epidemic that governments should be able to cure. But the question remains whether evidence has supported the identification of the best method to teach reading, or whether the desire for an evidence-based solution has forced that solution to take on the character of an intervention. </p>
<p>I believe that teachers are rarely concerned with employing an intervention, far less the “best” one. They are more often concerned with judging how to go on with a particular student, or what to do with a particular student at a particular time. </p>
<p>This is not to say that a teacher’s practice and the learning of his or her students are not enriched through a career-long interaction with the educational research community, as found by a <a href="http://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BERA-RSA-Research-Teaching-Profession-FULL-REPORT-for-web.pdf">recent enquiry</a>. </p>
<p>The department for education has a responsibility to ensure <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-still-dont-know-what-works-in-education-24382">education research is directed to areas of pressing concern</a> and that this research is made available to teachers. But, the result of identifying and endorsing particular interventions through policy, in the manner of the phonics check, is the homogenisation of teachers, students and their classroom situations. </p>
<p>This will come at the expense of teachers’ freedom to use their practical and professional wisdom to make informed decisions about the best ways to respond to the needs of individual students.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28868/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Aldridge does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How can there be such high profile disagreement about an issue as extensively researched and important as the teaching of reading to young children? In July, a group of teachers and phonics consultants…David Aldridge, Principal Lecturer in Philosophy of Education, Oxford Brookes UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/288762014-07-08T05:09:02Z2014-07-08T05:09:02ZThe seven excuses teachers give for not being able to teach<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53195/original/w4ys9htp-1404742613.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53195/original/w4ys9htp-1404742613.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53195/original/w4ys9htp-1404742613.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53195/original/w4ys9htp-1404742613.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53195/original/w4ys9htp-1404742613.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53195/original/w4ys9htp-1404742613.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53195/original/w4ys9htp-1404742613.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s Govephobia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-203078785/stock-photo-teacher-sits-in-classroom-setting-head-on-hands.html?src=kGlCnuJ2ojoVt-J0ZwnOMw-1-4">Teacher with head in hands - Jelena Aloskina/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As another <a href="http://www.teachers.org.uk/campaigns/protect-teachers">teachers’ strike</a> looms on July 10 it is worth setting out the reasons that teachers are unhappy with their profession. It’s not just because of conditions of service, pay, and pensions. Teaching has become a demoralised profession because teachers, teacher trainers, unions, policy wonks and politicians have forgotten what teaching is about. It is about the <a href="https://theconversation.com/on-the-subject-of-subjects-27035">teaching of clearly defined subjects</a> such as maths, English and chemistry, and the professional autonomy and the proper pay and conditions that follow from this. </p>
<p>If teachers are going to regain this autonomy they have to return to the teaching of their subjects, and not get distracted by passing fads and policy preoccupations. Often, these are used as ammunition by those who want to explain why teachers just can’t get on with their jobs. I’ve set out seven excuses below that are often used by teachers and those in the education sector for the reasons why teachers can’t do their jobs properly. Teachers need to reject them. </p>
<p><strong>1. We can’t teach because of <a href="http://www.suttontrust.com/news/news/40-of-children-miss-out-on-the-parenting-needed-to-succeed-in/">parents</a></strong></p>
<p>This is the idea that it’s no use trying to teach because parents aren’t capable of supporting teachers. The new low in contempt for parents is most clearly expressed by the head of Ofsted, Michael Wilshaw who suggested that “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/17/schools-fine-parents-ofsted-michael-wilshaw">bad parents</a>” who don’t support their children by reading to them or not coming to open days should be fined. Good teachers can teach irrespective of the parental, social or cultural background of their pupils. </p>
<p><strong>2. There is no evidence base about what works</strong></p>
<p>The teaching of subjects requires professional judgement and not academic research into what works or <a href="http://www.ebtn.org.uk/">networks of teachers</a> looking for “evidence”. If you know your subject you have all you need to know about the logical process of teaching. All the talk about making teaching an “evidence-based profession” undermines teachers, sending them the message: “You don’t know what you are doing.”</p>
<p><strong>3. Neuroscience determines what children learn</strong></p>
<p>Millions are being spent on research into the supposed classroom implications of <a href="http://news.tes.co.uk/b/news/2014/01/07/millions-for-neuroscience-research-in-uk-classrooms.aspx">neuroscience</a> and a major teaching union has asked for more <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/may/16/atl-motion-neuroscience-teaching-education-brain-gym">information</a> about the applications of neuroscience to teaching. But it would be wiser to save money and time: we are not reducible to our brains and teaching is a social and cultural activity. </p>
<p>Neuroscience, or rather ignorance about neuroscience, provides three excuses not to teach. One is that because of our brains we cannot expect some children to achieve. A second is that we must wait for evidence from the research to show us what and how to teach. A third is that neuroscience might give us a shortcut to educational success by plugging the pupils into some device. Forget these excuses. Excellent teaching has gone on for thousands of years without neuroscience and teachers should continue in their professional tradition. </p>
<p><strong>4. Because of the bad behaviour of pupils</strong></p>
<p>This is the whine of every fearful new teacher; many never lose their fears and turn them into a two-stage theory of teaching. Pupils are so badly behaved that we have to “control” or “motivate” them before they can learn. The result is that other activities take a chronological priority over teaching subjects. </p>
<p>The result is never a swift movement forward but a well-intentioned but mistaken stranding of pupils at the “motivational” level. “Motivated” pupils want more and more “motivation” or edutainment. If teachers want to motivate pupils they should simply teach them. The obsession with “motivation” puts the educational cart before the horse. </p>
<p><strong>5. We can’t teach because of the children’s <a href="http://www.healthybrainforlife.com/articles/school-health-and-nutrition/feeding-the-brain-for-academic-success-how">diet</a></strong></p>
<p>Whether it’s hyperactive kids who have drunk too many sugary cans of cola or obese children who are too sluggish and sleepy to learn, poor diet is a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2014/feb/25/do-children-really-get-sugar-rush-hyperactivity">lame excuse</a> for not teaching. Becoming over-involved in saving children from chips and pop wastes time and gives teachers an opportunity to blame the greedy pupils, the parents who feed junk food to kids, the retailers and the capitalist manufacturers who are making teaching impossible. When did it become the teachers’ job to police lunch boxes? </p>
<p><strong>6. Because new technology is making our role redundant</strong></p>
<p>The fear is that children can now get all the knowledge they need by using their iPhone. All we can do is assist them. This belief, promoted by the self-styled gurus of the new technologies who celebrate everything from simple apps to MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), is a result of intellectual laziness that confuses information with knowledge and understanding. Only teachers can give their pupils or their students the knowledge and understanding of subjects and there are no technological replacements or shortcuts to teaching.</p>
<p><strong>7. We can’t teach because of … Michael Gove</strong></p>
<p>If you can’t teach because of the above or any other reason – blame the secretary of state for education. Govephobia seems to have infected the teaching profession. There are reasons to dislike many of his policies, but not all. Gove is right about one thing at least: education should be subject-based. This belief is not based on his own “elite” education experience. It is based on his understanding of what education means. Govephobia can be explained because of it. Gove’s very presence as education secretary is a constant reminder to teachers of their duty to teach.</p>
<p>It is not surprising that among the <a href="http://www.teachers.org.uk/files/strike-a5-6pp--9548-.pdf">reasons</a> the unions have set out for why they are striking on July 10, two of the calls to action are about Gove: “Labour, the Liberal Democrats and former advisers are all turning against Gove” and “Michael Gove is increasingly unpopular with parents and teachers”, say the National Union of Teachers.</p>
<p>These seven reasons not to teach are presented in a variety of forms – sometimes in a positive way. They can be used to encourage parents to be partners in learning, base teaching on “evidence”, learn from neuroscience, create “motivational teachers”, save children from future illness and enhance learning through new technologies. Govephobia is the one and most telling exception.</p>
<p>But even if these positive presentations makes them palatable, used as excuses for not teaching, they ultimately leave teachers without a role. That is the danger. Because the role of the teacher today is what it always was: to teach.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28876/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
As another teachers’ strike looms on July 10 it is worth setting out the reasons that teachers are unhappy with their profession. It’s not just because of conditions of service, pay, and pensions. Teaching…Dennis Hayes, Professor of Education, University of DerbyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.