Skip to main content

Home/ ActionResearch/ Muir, H. (2008) Science Rules OK: Running societies the rational way.
Julie Johnstone

Muir, H. (2008) Science Rules OK: Running societies the rational way. - 11 views

research_trials policy_makers 693itemC

started by Julie Johnstone on 16 Nov 10
  • Julie Johnstone
    #1 Julie Johnstone on 16 Nov 10
     
    This article discusses the use of large-scale randomized trials to evaluate social policy. For decades, policy makers have rolled out changes without taking the time to conduct research to determine if the idea would be effective. One reason policy makers shun trials is the reality that the trials and experiments do not always support the ideas or policies. Rather than taking the time to conduct trials, policy makers prefer to "act swiftly" and propose policy.

    The article references the efforts of abstinence education, Scared straight programs, drug testing in prison populations, and school driving programs as examples of policies that have not worked--the research and data suggest the programs are not effective, yet policy makers continue to support the efforts.
  • Nichole Verissimo
    #2 Nichole Verissimo on 16 Nov 10
     
    (Continued from above)
    Another reason that evidence based policy does not take effect is due to stubborn ideology. When trials prove an intervention to be effective that is controversial, usually for religious reasons, there is strong opposition. Therefore, social practice often remains in place even if it is proven to be ineffective to suit popular thought.

    The author uses the example that, even though there is strong evidence that washing hands reduces the spread of infection, death still occurs in hospitals due to doctors failing to wash there hands. If scientific evidence doesn't even get doctors, it will be very difficult to convince policy makers and citizens to change their ways with just data alone. There has been some progress in the criminology field. There is even a Journal of Experimental Criminology to spread the information throughout the field. There is hope that if a little money is spent on randomized trials, social policy will have a better effect on reducing crime and other dangerous behaviors.
  • Mary McGurn
    #3 Mary McGurn on 17 Nov 10
     
    (Continued form above)
    The article references various extraneous factors within the study's such as misleading information or exaggerated information regarding the risk of pregnancy or HIV transmission when condoms are being used in the study. It reminds me of the rediculous food labels we have to look at when we grocery shop ...unfortunately.

    Too bad politicians feel that they cannot renege on a policy that has been proven ineffective for the well being and sake of others. Policy makers need to connect with peer reviewed evidence- based research and see what was effective before rushing the policy into place.
  • Aimee Blaquiere
    #4 Aimee Blaquiere on 18 Nov 10
     
    While it does make sense to me that social policies should be effectively evaluated, as is the case with medical/scientific controlled trials, it is interesting to think more about the appropriateness of these trials in social policies. Are there some types of studies that cannot be completely random or objective because of the assumptions and ideologies of the researchers as well? Politicians should have an open dialogue with researchers about the evaluation of these policies, not just getting researchers to justify the policy that the politicians want put in place.

    I can see the struggle for politicians to prove that they have accomplished something in a short amount of time, and how a long trial wouldn't be seen as impressive... however, a lot of people today want to see proper evaluation and justification for policies, and would rather have a politician back out of a policy after it is proven to be ineffective, rather than continue it regardless.
  • Ann Leary
    #5 Ann Leary on 28 Nov 10
     
    This article deals with social policies and implementing strategies with no information to prove it will work or research to support the process. Just an idea that more sponsers are needed for 3rd party observation and unbias opinions to see if something will work properly before implementing it. It seems that the process is rushed to get something implemented quickly that may not work. Politicians have done this strategy for years. It it important to gather the facts before rolling something good.

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the ActionResearch group