IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v5y2019i1d10.1057_s41599-019-0303-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The evidence ecosystem in South Africa: growing resilience and institutionalisation of evidence use

Author

Listed:
  • Ruth Stewart

    (University of Johannesburg
    UCL: Institute of Education)

  • Harsha Dayal

    (University of Johannesburg
    National Government)

  • Laurenz Langer

    (University of Johannesburg)

  • Carina van Rooyen

    (University of Johannesburg)

Abstract

The evidence-informed approach to policy-making and implementation is, at its core, about better decisions for a better future. It is focused on the effective use of scarce resources, on avoiding harm and maximising good. It is grounded in principles of equity and equality, of accountability and transparency. Given these characteristics, for those of us who work in this field, there is arguably a moral, economic, social and political case for paying closer attention to evidence-informed decision-making ecosystems in the South. Evidence-based policy and implementation, or evidence-informed decision-making in line with the most recent thinking, is often framed from two inter-related but limited perspectives: first, it is viewed as an approach that has originated from ‘developed’ Northern countries, and second, it is conceptualised as a technical intervention. However, there has been a shift in how the approach is conceived, moving away from assumptions that it is an intervention implemented from outside, from the North, for the benefit of the South. As part of this shift, certain initiatives in Africa have gained greater momentum. It is in acknowledging that there are different ways to think (epistemic diversity) about Southern evidence-informed decision-making, that this work has arisen. It seizes on the opportunity to view evidence-informed decision-making in a new light, exploring the evidence ecosystems in the South as systems strongly influenced by, but not defined by, Northern stimuli, including, but not limited to, technical interventions. This work set out to describe the evidence ecosystem in South Africa. In doing so, it finds that the ecosystem is increasingly resilient despite some limitations. It has strong structural foundations, includes many diverse organisations, is supported by not inconsiderable investment, is enabled by growing and significant capacity, contains iterations and innovations, and last but not least, incorporates complexity that gives the ecosystem resilience. The work demonstrates, through its focus on South Africa’s evidence ecosystem, that the global movement has much to learn from the South.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruth Stewart & Harsha Dayal & Laurenz Langer & Carina van Rooyen, 2019. "The evidence ecosystem in South Africa: growing resilience and institutionalisation of evidence use," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0303-0
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-019-0303-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-019-0303-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-019-0303-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Howard White, 2019. "The twenty-first century experimenting society: the four waves of the evidence revolution," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-7, December.
    2. Julian H Elliott & Tari Turner & Ornella Clavisi & James Thomas & Julian P T Higgins & Chris Mavergames & Russell L Gruen, 2014. "Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-6, February.
    3. Valéry Ridde & Pierre Yaméogo, 2018. "How Burkina Faso used evidence in deciding to launch its policy of free healthcare for children under five and women in 2016," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Huw T. O. Davies & Sandra M. Nutley & Peter C. Smith, 1999. "Viewpoint: Editorial: What Works? The Role of Evidence in Public Sector Policy and Practice," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 3-5, January.
    5. Ruth Stewart, 2018. "Do evidence networks make a difference?," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 171-178, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard Manning & Ian Goldman & Gonzalo Hernández Licona, 2020. "The impact of impact evaluation: Are impact evaluation and impact evaluation synthesis contributing to evidence generation and use in low- and middle-income countries?," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2020-20, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. Ruth Stewart, 2023. "How evidence, implementation, policy, and politics come together within evidence systems: Lessons from South Africa," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(2), March.
    3. Ruth Stewart & Harsha Dayal & Laurenz Langer & Carina van Rooyen, 2022. "Transforming evidence for policy: do we have the evidence generation house in order?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-5, December.
    4. Thoto, Frejus & Mas Aparisi, Alban & Derlagen, Christian, 2023. "An ecosystemic framework for analysing evidence-informed policy systems for agricultural transformation – Case study of Benin," ESA Working Papers 330800, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    5. Acuto, Michele & Dickey, Ariana & Butcher, Stephanie & Washbourne, Carla-Leanne, 2021. "Mobilising urban knowledge in an infodemic: Urban observatories, sustainable development and the COVID-19 crisis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruth Stewart, 2023. "How evidence, implementation, policy, and politics come together within evidence systems: Lessons from South Africa," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(2), March.
    2. Piers Steel & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Herman Aguinis, 2021. "The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(1), pages 23-44, February.
    3. Manh-Toan Ho & Ngoc-Thang B. Le & Manh-Tung Ho & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2022. "A bibliometric review on development economics research in Vietnam from 2008 to 2020," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 2939-2969, October.
    4. Guillaume Cabanac & Theodora Oikonomidi & Isabelle Boutron, 2021. "Day-to-day discovery of preprint–publication links," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5285-5304, June.
    5. Chris Painter & Emma Clarence, 2001. "UK Local Action Zones and Changing Urban Governance," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 38(8), pages 1215-1232, July.
    6. Maurizio Sajeva & Marjo Maidell & Jonne Kotta, 2020. "A Participatory Geospatial Toolkit for Science Integration and Knowledge Transfer Informing SDGs Based Governance and Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, September.
    7. Boutin, Delphine & Petifour, Laurene & Allard, Yvonne & Kontoubré, Souleymane & Ridde, Valéry, 2024. "Comprehensive Assessment of the Impact of Mandatory Community-Based Health Insurance in Burkina Faso," IZA Discussion Papers 17094, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Radoslaw Panczak & Elin Charles-Edwards & Jonathan Corcoran, 2020. "Estimating temporary populations: a systematic review of the empirical literature," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10, June.
    9. Sheila Keay & Zvonimir Poljak & Mackenzie Klapwyk & Annette O’Connor & Robert M Friendship & Terri L O’Sullivan & Jan M Sargeant, 2020. "Influenza A virus vaccine research conducted in swine from 1990 to May 2018: A scoping review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-27, July.
    10. Andres Carvallo & Denis Parra & Hans Lobel & Alvaro Soto, 2020. "Automatic document screening of medical literature using word and text embeddings in an active learning setting," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 3047-3084, December.
    11. Kaplan, Lennart & Kuhnt, Jana & Steinert, Janina I., 2020. "Do no harm? Field research in the Global South: Ethical challenges faced by research staff," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    12. Steven Kwasi Korang & Elena von Rohden & Areti Angeliki Veroniki & Giok Ong & Owen Ngalamika & Faiza Siddiqui & Sophie Juul & Emil Eik Nielsen & Joshua Buron Feinberg & Johanne Juul Petersen & Christi, 2022. "Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.
    13. Prachi Pundir & Ashrita Saran & Howard White & Ramya Subrahmanian & Jill Adona, 2020. "Interventions for reducing violence against children in low‐ and middle‐income countries: An evidence and gap map," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), December.
    14. Christopher Mikton & Marie Beaulieu & Yongjie Yon & Julien Cadieux Genesse & Kevin St‐Martin & Mark Byrne & Amanda Phelan & Jennifer Storey & Michaela Rogers & Fiona Campbell & Parveen Ali & David Bur, 2022. "PROTOCOL: Global elder abuse: A mega‐map of systematic reviews on prevalence, consequences, risk and protective factors and interventions," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    15. Richard Manning & Ian Goldman & Gonzalo Hernández Licona, 2020. "The impact of impact evaluation: Are impact evaluation and impact evaluation synthesis contributing to evidence generation and use in low- and middle-income countries?," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2020-20, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    16. Julia H. Littell & Sarah Young & Therese D. Pigott & M. Antonia Biggs & Trine Munk‐Olsen & Julia R. Steinberg, 2024. "PROTOCOL: Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), June.
    17. Falko T. Buschke & Christine Estreguil & Lucia Mancini & Fabrice Mathieux & Hugh Eva & Luca Battistella & Stephen Peedell, 2023. "Digital Storytelling Through the European Commission’s Africa Knowledge Platform to Bridge the Science-Policy Interface for Raw Materials," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 1141-1154, June.
    18. Ruth Stewart & Harsha Dayal & Laurenz Langer & Carina van Rooyen, 2022. "Transforming evidence for policy: do we have the evidence generation house in order?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-5, December.
    19. Yvonne Beaugé & Manuela De Allegri & Samiratou Ouédraogo & Emmanuel Bonnet & Naasegnibe Kuunibe & Valéry Ridde, 2020. "Do Targeted User Fee Exemptions Reach the Ultra-Poor and Increase their Healthcare Utilisation? A Panel Study from Burkina Faso," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-21, September.
    20. Jesper Dahl Kelstrup & Jonas Videbæk Jørgensen, 2024. "Explaining differences in research utilization in evidence-based government ministries," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 257-280, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0303-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.