Research Interests:
The evidence-based policy movement claims that more research evidence should influence policymaking. It is not clear how evidence is found or whether it influences decision making in public health, although it is known that personal... more
The evidence-based policy movement claims that more research evidence should influence policymaking. It is not clear how evidence is found or whether it influences decision making in public health, although it is known that personal relationships between evidence users and producers facilitates use of evidence. Current perspectives in the literature fail to address relational aspects of finding evidence and influencing policy.
In this study, social network analysis is used to study the relationships between perceived power, influence, and sources of evidence. Network and qualitative data about were gathered from a policy community in a large urban area in the UK. Powerful and influential people were initially identified using centrality scores. Their characteristics were compared with themes from the qualitative interview, including a narrative about insiders and outsiders in the policy process. Hubs and Authorities analyses were used to test these idea in the network data. Authorities tended to correspond to formal hierarchy, but the Hubs were mainly mid-level managers in the NHS and local councils.
These findings were then compared with a evidence network to see (1) where powerful and influential people got their information and (2) whether there was a relationship between being a source of information and being influential. The results showed that evidence-producers are not influential or powerful in this policy network. Powerful and influential actors are in some cases also considered source of evidence; more frequently these individuals were described in terms of roles (e.g. gatekeeping, brokerage) or personal characteristics. An additional analysis of roles (Gould-Fernandez roles) was therefore carried out to explore what roles were played by different actors in the networks with respect to evidence-brokerage and the policy process.
The results show that occupying advantageous network positions is dependent on both structural circumstance and individual characteristics; in other words, having the right person in the right place. To be effective, these individuals are able to identify important relationships, create and maintain them. Their ability to influence depends on having personal skills explicitly manage network structure. Although not a new conclusion for the business or organisational theory fields, it is new in the field of evidence-based policy.
In this study, social network analysis is used to study the relationships between perceived power, influence, and sources of evidence. Network and qualitative data about were gathered from a policy community in a large urban area in the UK. Powerful and influential people were initially identified using centrality scores. Their characteristics were compared with themes from the qualitative interview, including a narrative about insiders and outsiders in the policy process. Hubs and Authorities analyses were used to test these idea in the network data. Authorities tended to correspond to formal hierarchy, but the Hubs were mainly mid-level managers in the NHS and local councils.
These findings were then compared with a evidence network to see (1) where powerful and influential people got their information and (2) whether there was a relationship between being a source of information and being influential. The results showed that evidence-producers are not influential or powerful in this policy network. Powerful and influential actors are in some cases also considered source of evidence; more frequently these individuals were described in terms of roles (e.g. gatekeeping, brokerage) or personal characteristics. An additional analysis of roles (Gould-Fernandez roles) was therefore carried out to explore what roles were played by different actors in the networks with respect to evidence-brokerage and the policy process.
The results show that occupying advantageous network positions is dependent on both structural circumstance and individual characteristics; in other words, having the right person in the right place. To be effective, these individuals are able to identify important relationships, create and maintain them. Their ability to influence depends on having personal skills explicitly manage network structure. Although not a new conclusion for the business or organisational theory fields, it is new in the field of evidence-based policy.
IntroductionPublic health policy-making activities are currently split between local authority and NHS organisations. Despite an increasing body of research on evidence-based policy (EBP), few studies explore the process of policy-making.... more
IntroductionPublic health policy-making activities are currently split between local authority and NHS organisations. Despite an increasing body of research on evidence-based policy (EBP), few studies explore the process of policy-making. Little is known about how policies are made in a local context, or how (scientific) evidence is used. Previous research has ignored the ‘human element’ in EBP. Social network analysis (SNA) techniques are becoming increasingly important in the health sector, and have been used in policy analysis elsewhere. This paper describes an innovative study giving a fresh perspective on policy-making processes in public health.Methods• A social network analysis of public health policy making networks in Greater Manchester based on publicly available data (documents, websites and meeting papers) and an electronic survey • Observation of local authority and NHS decision-makers at key policy meetings 2010-11 in the Greater Manchester areaResultsThese data indicate the importance of collaboration and good relationships between researchers and policy-makers, but few academic researchers with a direct impact on health policy were identified within the networks. Some overlap was found between NHS and local authority networks, with bridging organisations acting as sites of contact between the two. Additional assessment of the data the key meetings indicated differences in decision-making, evidence-seeking and evidence-using behaviour between NHS and local authority policy-makers. ConclusionsNHS and local authorities function as distinct cultures with separate decision-making and evidence-using behaviours. Network analyses indicate the existence of some links between the two, but these were largely centred on individuals instead of formal structures. The importance of individual effectiveness, authority and activity are discussed. Additional research will be conducted to assess changes due to future reorganisations