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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evidence-based Policy: In Search of a Method

Pawson, Ray·2002·Evaluation
DOI 10.1177/1358902002008002512
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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'.

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

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

Items 401–403 of 403

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Pawson, R.
Affiliations
Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Pawson, Ray
ORCID
Pawson, Ray
Venue
Evaluation
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2002-04
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
157-181
ISSN
  • 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7153
DOI
10.1177/1358902002008002512
OpenAlex
W2073020593
Semantic Scholar
0a46f8e2fe3872100f441ff87ecd471f3fcf7e09
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
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Evaluation (publishedVersion)
  • OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › 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