Click here to download

Ontologies, methods and evidences: fostering the use of mixed-methods with accuracy
Journal Title: RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione 
Author/s:  Giancarlo Vecchi 
Year:  2017 Issue: 69 Language: English 
Pages:  16 Pg. 154-169 FullText PDF:  418 KB
DOI:  10.3280/RIV2017-069009
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


The debate on Evidence-Based Policy Making deals with the role of evaluation, and of social sciences, in influencing the design of public programs. The reflection of many scholars mostly involves methodological issues and the preference for RCT designs is quite often the result. Indeed, the author sustains a wider pluralism in the use of methods in evaluation, considering the different meanings that the term ‘evidence’ could have if we consider both the complexity of policies and the needs of policy makers. Moreover, the author suggests strategies to improve the relevance of the evaluators role in the policy making.
Keywords: Evidence-Based Policy Making; Ontologies; Methods

  1. Majone, G. 1989. Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
  2. Maxwell, S. and D. Stone. Eds. 2005. Global Knowledge Networks and International Development: Bridges Across Boundaries. Abingdon (UK): Routledge.
  3. Bagshaw, S. M. and R. Bellomo. 2008. “The need to reform our assessment of evidence from clinical trials: A commentary.” Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 3:23.
  4. Barzelay, M. 2007. “Learning from Second-Hand Experience: Methodology for Extrapolation-Oriented Case Research.” Governance 20(3): 521-543.
  5. Bastow, S., P. Dunleavy and J. Tinkler. 2014a. Measuring the Impact of Social Science Research in UK Central Government Policy Making. Political Studies Association Annual Conference, Manchester.
  6. Bastow, S., P. Dunleavy and J. Tinkler. 2014b. The Impact of Social Science. How Academics and their Research Make a Difference. London: Sage.
  7. Beach, D. and R. B. Pedersen. 2013. Process-Tracing Methods. Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  8. Bevir, M. and R.A.W. Rhodes. 2016. “Interpretive Political Science. Mapping the Field.” In M. Bevir and R.A.W. Rhodes (eds.). Routledge Handbook of Interpretive Political Science. London: Routledge, pp. 4-27.
  9. Booth, W. C., G. G. Colomb and J. M. Williams. 2008. The Craft of Research. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  10. Cartwright, N. and J. Hardie. 2012. Evidence-Based Policy. A Practical Guide to Doing It Better. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Chaterjee, A. 2011. “Ontology, Epistemology, and Multimethod Research in Political Science.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 43(1): 73-99.
  12. Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.
  13. Davis, H. T.O., S. M. Nutley and P. C. Smith. Eds. 2000. What Works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: The Policy Press.
  14. Goertz, G. and J. Mahoney. 2012a. “Concepts and Measurement: Ontology and Epistemology.” Social Science Information 51(2): 205-2016.
  15. Goertz, G. and J. Mahoney. 2012b. A Tale of Two Culture. Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  16. Grimmer, J. 2015. “We're All Social Scientists Now: How Big Data, Machine Learning, and Causal Inference Work Together.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 48(1): 80-83.
  17. Guba, E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park (CA): Sage.
  18. Fisher, F. 1995. Evaluating Public Policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
  19. Foster, I., R. Ghani, R. S. Jarmin, F. Kreuter, J. Lane. Eds. 2017. Big data and Social Science. A Practical Guide to Methods and Tools. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.
  20. Furlong, P. and D. Marsh. 2010 (3d Ed.). “A Skin Not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science.” In D. Marsh and G. Stoker. (Eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 184-211.
  21. Hall, P. 2003. “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Politics.” In J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer. Eds. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 373-404.
  22. Heckman, J.J. 2005. “The Scientific Model of Causality.” Sociological Methodology 35(1): 1-97.
  23. Hedström, P. and R. Swedberg, eds. [1998] 2005. Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Johnson, R. B. and A. J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.” Educational Researcher 33(7): 14-26.
  25. King, G., R. O. Kehoane and S. Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University press.
  26. Lazer, D. et al. 2009. “Computational Social Science.” Science, 323(5915): 721-723.
  27. Lindblom, Ch. E. and D. K. Cohen. 1979. Usable Knowledge. Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven (Conn): Yale University Press.
  28. Mahoney J. and G. Goertz. 2006. “A Tales of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research.” Political Analysis 14:227-249.
  29. Maggetti, M., F. Gilardi and C. Radaelli. 2013. “Social Sciences and Research Design.” In M. Maggetti, F. Gilardi and C. Radaelli. Designing Research in the Social Sciences. London: Sage, pp. 1-20.
  30. Majone, G. 1980. “The Uses of Policy Analysis.” Policy Studies Review Annual n. 34, Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 161-181.
  31. Nutley, S. M., I. Walte and H. T.O. Davis. 2007. Using Evidence. How Research Can Inform Public Services. Bristol: The Policy Press.
  32. Nutley, S. M., A. Powell and H. Davies. 2012. “What Counts as Good Evidence?” -- https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/what_counts_as_good_evidence_provocation_paper.pdf accessed May 2d 2017.
  33. Parsons, C. 2010. “Constructivism and Interpretive Theory.” In David Marsh and Gerry Stoker. (Eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 80-98.
  34. Pawson, R. 2013. The Science of Evaluation. A Realist Manifesto. London: Sage.
  35. Pawson, R. and N. Tilley. 1997. Realist Evaluation. London: Sage.
  36. Petticrew, M. and H. Roberts. 2003. “Evidence, hierarchies and typologies: Horses for Courses.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 57: 527–9.
  37. Petticrew, M. 2015. “Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from ’what works’ to ’what happens’.” Systematic Review 4(36): 1-6.
  38. Radaelli, C. 2017. “Reflecting on the impact agenda to draw lessons for the ‘relevance’ of public policy analysis.” Address at the Seminar: The Future of Public Policy 2, Milan, Politecnico di Milano, March 17th 2017.
  39. Sartori, G. 1991. “Comparing and Miscomparing.” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3(3): 243-257.
  40. Sayer, A. 2000. Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.
  41. Schram, S. S. and B. Caterino. Eds. 2006. Making Political Science Matter. Debating Knowledge, Research and Method. New York: New York university Press.
  42. Shadish, W. R. Jr., T. D. Cook and L. C. Leviton. 1991. Foundations of Program Evaluation. Theories of Practice. Newbury Park (CA): Sage.
  43. Stame, N. 2016. Valutazione Pluralista. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  44. Stern, E., N. Stame, J. Mayne, K. Forss, R. Davies and B. Befani. 2012. Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluations. Report of a Study commissioned by the Department for International Development. London: DID.
  45. Stoker, G. 2015. “Challenging three blockages to relevance and political science: the obvious, the avoidable and the thorny.” In Gerry Stoker, B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre. (Eds). The Relevance of Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2015, pp. 19-35.
  46. Stoker, G. and M. Evans. 2016a. “Evidence-Based Policy Making and Social Science.” In Gerry Stoker and Mark Evans. (Eds.). Evidence-Based Policy Making in the Social Sciences. Methods that Matters. Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 15-27.
  47. Stoker, G. and M. Evans. 2016b. “Crafting Public Policy: Choosing the Right Social Science Method.” In Gerry Stoker and Mark Evans. (Eds.). Evidence-Based Policy Making in the Social Sciences. Methods that Matters. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 29-40.
  48. Stone, D., S. Maxwell and M. Keating. 2001. Bridging Research and Policy. (An International Workshop Funded by the UK Department for International Development Radcliffe House, Warwick University 16-17 July 2001).
  49. Tenbensel, T. 2006. “Does More Evidence Lead to Better Policy?” Policy Studies 25(3): 189-207.
  50. Vecchi, G. 2013. “Studying Good Practices to Lesson-Drawing and Transfer: Introduction to the Causal Mechanisms Approach. A proposal for Exchanges Among European Networks on Time-oriented Policies”, in Dietrich Henkel et al. Space-Design of the Public City. Berlin: Springer, pp. 255-288.
  51. Weiss, C. H. 1988. “Evaluation for Decisions: Is Anybody There? Does Anybody Care?” Evaluation Practice, 9(1): 5-19.
  52. Williams, A. 2010. “Is Evidence-Based Policy Making Really Possible? Reflections for Policy Makers and Academics on Making Use of Research in the Work of Policy.” In Hal K. Colebatch, Robert Hoppe and Mirko Noordegraaf. Eds. Working for Policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 195-209.
  53. Young, K., D. Ashby, A. Boaz and L. Grayson. 2002. “Social Science and the Evidence-Based Policy Movement.” Social Policy and Society 1(3): 215-224.

Giancarlo Vecchi, in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 69/2017, pp. 154-169, DOI:10.3280/RIV2017-069009

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content