Cited by 403Evaluation and Performance AssessmentMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Evidence-based Policy: In Search of a Method

Pawson, Ray·2002·Evaluation

Abstract

Evaluation research is tortured by time constraints. The policy cycle revolves quicker than the research cycle, with the result that `real time' evaluations often have little influence on policy making. As a result, the quest for evidence-based policy has turned increasingly to systematic reviews of the results of previous inquiries in the relevant policy domain. However, this shifting of the temporal frame for evaluation is in itself no guarantee of success. Evidence, whether new or old, never speaks for itself. Accordingly, there is debate about the best strategy of marshalling bygone research results into the policy process. This article joins the imbroglio by examining the logic of the two main strategies of systematic review: `meta-analysis' and `narrative review'. Whilst they are often presented as diametrically opposed perspectives, this article argues that they share common limitations in their understanding of how to provide a template for impending policy decisions. This review provides the background for Part II of the article (to be published in the next issue, Evaluation 8[3]), which considers the merits of a new model for evidence-based policy, namely `realist synthesis'.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1358902002008002512

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The scoping study's charting approach was akin to a narrative review.

    “Our charting approach was akin to a 'narrative review' (Pawson 2002: 171)”

    From Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005) · cites this paper as Pawson 2002: 171

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Hunt, M., 1997, How Science Takes Stock
  2. McGuire, J.B., 1997, Children and Society, 11, 89
  3. Moore, B., 1966, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy
  4. Pawson, R., 1997, Realistic Evaluation
  5. Ragin, C., 1987, The Comparative Method
  6. Shadish, W., 1991, Foundations of Program Evaluation
  7. Towner, E., 1996, Reducing Childhood Accidents - The Effectiveness of Health Promotion Interventions: A Literature Review

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pawson, R.
Affiliations
Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Pawson, Ray
Venue
Evaluation
Published
2002-04
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
157-181
ISSN
  • 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7153
OpenAlex
W2073020593
Cited by
403
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 22
FWCI
17.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Evaluation (publishedVersion)
  • OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
evidence-based policy, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, realist synthesis, policy cycle, science-policy interface, policy decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review