Analyzing appropriate features of data for using in policy-making

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

PhD in Science and Technology Policy, Iranian research institute for information science and technology (IRANDOC), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Good data as one of the most effective evidence for policy-making is able to remove policy barriers and provide policy reforms. However, many policy makers face barriers for using data to formulate policy. So, the aim of this study is to identify barriers and appropriate features of data for using in policy-making. In this regard, the barriers facing policy makers for using data in policy-making are identified by interview, and then appropriate features of data to overcome barriers are presented in three categories as dimensions, elements, and indicators by using framework analysis approach. The results show that the most important dimensions of data quality for using in policy-making are: availability, reliability, relevance, and presentation quality. Also, the most important elements of data quality for using in policy-making are: accessibility, timeliness, accuracy, consistency, integrity, independency, transparency fitness, and readability.

Keywords


  1. حری، عباس (1369). «اطلاعات چیست؟» ماهنامۀ دانشمند، تهران: ویژه‌نامۀ اطلاعات، 8(5).
  2. دانایی‌فرد، حسن؛ آذر،‌ عادل؛ و ابراهیمی، سید عباس (1392). «بررسی راهکارهای ارتقای قابلیت‌پذیری سیاسی، اجتماعی، اداری و فنی خط‌مشی‌های عمومی کشور با استفاده از رویکرد خط‌مشی‌گذاری مبتنی بر شواهد»، فصلنامۀ مدیریت سازمان‌های دولتی، تهران: دانشگاه پیام نور، 1(3).
  3. مردوخی، بایزید (1367). نقش مراکز اطلاع‌رسانی در ارتقای برنامه‌ریزی و سیاستگذاری، تهران: برنامه و بودجه،1(1).

 

  1. AO, Gary Banks (2009). “Challenges of Evidence‑Based Policy‑Making”, Available at: http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/evidence-based-policy(Accessed on June 21, 2017).
  2. Adler, Patricia A., & Peter Adler (2011).The tender cut: Inside the hidden world of self-injury, New York: NYU Press.
  3. Bardach, Eugene (1984). “The dissemination of policy research to policymakers”, Knowledge, 6(2).
  4. Bessette, Joseph ) 1990.(“Deliberative Democracy. The Majoritarian Principle in Republican Government", Robert A. Goldwin & William A. Shambra. How Democratic Is the Constitution: 102-116.
  5. Bohman, James (1998). “Survey article: The coming of age of deliberative democracy”, Journal of political philosophy, 6(4).
  6. Booth, Tim (1990) “Researching Policy Research Issues of Utilization in Decision Making" , Science Communication, 12(1).
  7. Brand, Jack (1975). The politics of social indicators. The British Journal of Sociology, 26(1).
  8. Cabinet Office (1999). “Modernizing Government White Paper”, UK: The Stationery Office.
  9. Chambers, Simone (2003). “Deliberative democratic theory”, Annual review of political science, 6(1).
  10. Cai, Li, & Yangyong Zhu (2015). “The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era”, Data Science Journal, 14.
  11. Davies, P. (2004) “Is evidence-based government possible?” Jerry Lee Lecture presented at the 4th Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Washington DC.
  12. Elster, Jon (1998). Deliberation and constitution making. Deliberative democracy, England: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Englehart, Judith K. (2001). “The marriage between theory and practice”, Public Administration Review, 61(3)..
  14. Freeman, Samuel  (2000). “Deliberative democracy: A sympathetic comment”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(4).
  15. Höchtl, Johann, Parycek,  Peter, & Scholl hammer, Ralph (2016). “Big data in the policy cycle: Policy decision making in the digital era”, Journalof Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1-2).
  16. Howard, Keith, & Sharp, John A. (1985). “Social indicators and policy selection: An experiment in constructing a social objective function”, European Journal of Operational Research, 19(2). 
  17. Kingdon, John W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, Boston: Little Brown.
  18. Knott, Jack, & Wildavsky, Aaron (1980). “‌If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem?”, Knowledge, 1(4).
  19. Landry, Réjean, Lamari , Moktar, & Amara, Nabil (2003). “The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies”, Public Administration Review, 63(2).
  20. Lester, James P. (1993). “The utilization of policy analysis by state agency officials”, Knowledge, 14(3).
  21. Lindblom, Charles E. (1959). “The science of" muddling through”, Public administration review, 19(2).
  22. Lundberg, F.C. (2006). “Evaluation: definitions, methods and models. –An ITPS framework”, Available at:

https://www.tillvaxtanalys.se/download/18.1af15a1f152a3475a818975/1454505626167/Evaluation+definitions+methods+and+models-06.pdf(Accessed on June 21, 2017).

  1. Mandell, Marvin B., & Sauter, Vicki L. (1984). “Approaches to the study of information utilization in public agencies: problems and pitfalls”, Knowledge, 6(2).
  2. Marston, Greg, & Watts, Rob (2003). “Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence-based policy-making”, The Drawing Board: anAustralian Review of Public Affairs, 3(3).
  3. Nachmias, David, & Felbinger, Claire (1982). “Utilization in the policy cycle: Directions for research”, Review of Policy Research, 2(2).
  4. Reidy, Mairead (2003). Key Themes: Reflections from the Child Indicator Projects. Working paper, University of Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children.
  5. Tresch, Anke, Sciarini,  Pascal, & Varone, Frédéric (2011). “A policy cycle perspective on the media's political agenda-setting power”, In 6th ECPR General Conference, University of Iceland.
  6. Weitzman, Beth C., Silver, Diana, & Dillman, Keri-Nicole (2006). “Integrating a comparison group design into a theory of change evaluation: The case of the Urban Health Initiative”, American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4).

 

Volume 49, Issue 2
July 2019
Pages 515-534
  • Receive Date: 05 July 2017
  • Revise Date: 27 January 2018
  • Accept Date: 27 January 2018
  • First Publish Date: 22 June 2019