Unconventional evidence: How empty reviews and alternative mapping techniques can be useful to EIDM
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•226 views
Oral poster (pod) at Evidence2016, the bi-annual conference of the Africa Evidence Network at the CSIR in Pretoria, 20-22 September 2016.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (15)
Similar to Unconventional evidence: How empty reviews and alternative mapping techniques can be useful to EIDM
Similar to Unconventional evidence: How empty reviews and alternative mapping techniques can be useful to EIDM (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Unconventional evidence: How empty reviews and alternative mapping techniques can be useful to EIDM
- 1. Unconventional evidence: how empty reviews and alternative mapping techniques can be useful to EIDM Q53 Microfinance cover.indd 10 04/09/2012 15:25:48 CEE Joburg @Africa Centre for Evidence University of Johannesburg | ceejoburg@uj.ac.za | @ceejoburg | ww.ceejoburg.com Natalie Rebelo Da Silva, Carina van Rooyen CEE Joburg at the Africa Centre for Evidence, UJ “…seeks to synthesise evidence on issues of greatest concern to environmental policy and practice” CEE Joburg •Urban agriculture systematic review •Changing climate evidence map
- 2. CEE Joburg @Africa Centre for Evidence University of Johannesburg | ceejoburg@uj.ac.za | @ceejoburg | ww.ceejoburg.com Q53 Microfinance cover.indd 10 04/09/2012 15:25:48
- 3. CEE Joburg @Africa Centre for Evidence University of Johannesburg | ceejoburg@uj.ac.za | @ceejoburg | ww.ceejoburg.com So even though we couldn’t synthesise the research, here’s everything we found. I’ll be back with a search and rescue team if I don’t hear from you in 24 hours. Good luck! Q53 Microfinance cover.indd 10 04/09/2012 15:25:48
Editor's Notes
- Slide 1 – three minutes Greet everyone. Introduce myself as Natalie from CEE Joburg. The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence An open community of scientists and managers working towards a sustainable global environment and the conservation of biodiversity. Specialises in evidence synthesis and training, with regional offices [centres] across the globe in the UK, [SA], Canada, Sweden, France, and Australia. The South Africa centre is called CEE Joburg and is based at the Africa Centre for Evidence that houses a team of evidence specialists. There are two examples emanating from this team of evidence specialists and their associates that will be discussed briefly: a systematic review on the impact of urban agriculture on food security in low- and middle-income countries, and an evidence map of social science research on changing climate in South Africa. These two evidence syntheses are unconventional pieces of evidence, in the sense that they differ from the usual systematic review or evidence map outputs. The urban agriculture review was what is called an empty review: no relevant studies of sufficient quality were found to conduct a synthesis of their findings. The evidence map currently under production is attempting to map social science research on a natural phenomenon and is made up of highly heterogenous studies, [having very diverse conceptualisation of ‘climate change’. Further, this map is not conducted with the idea of a follow-up SR, as a typical, and neither is there a focus at this stage on engaging stakeholders and informing policy. Rather, the map is the first phase in a mixed-methods research project, and is to especially inform the last phase in the project, where there will be stakeholder engagement.] By the end of the next ten minutes, you’ll hopefully have a different view on the use of unconventional evidence.
- Slide 2: four minutes The CEE Joburg has two experiences with ‘unconventional’ evidence: one is our urban agriculture review that was empty, and the other is an evidence map of all social science research [in SA] on climate change. Here you can see a number of features of how these two pieces of work were still useful to either researchers or decision-makers from our experience. For example, the UA review was useful to researchers in that it provides motivation to undertake preliminary steps in the systematic review process in order to make the most of limited resources. For instance, had we done a review of reviews or an evidence map prior to the full review, we may have avoided ending up with an empty review as we may have picked up earlier that there was no research to synthesise. In terms of decision-makers, the empty review was still valuable in that it allows decision-makers to retain a critical perspective on any urban agriculture policies that claim to be evidence-informed: knowing what the research doesn’t say is as important as knowing what the research does say in EIDM. The map of social sciences on climate change is useful to researchers because, among other things, it’ll allow researchers to talk across disciplines: that is, it will showcase the perspectives of social scientists on a phenomenon typically studied by natural scientists. A tool that accomplishes this is particularly valuable in the context of a challenge such as climate change that cannot be looked at from a single academic perspective. Likewise, the map will allow for a multi-sectoral discussion on climate change to happen. Especially valuable is that because of the nature of social science studies on climate change, having a map of this work will ensure that decision-makers include a consideration of local people’s knowledge and / or perspectives on the issue. These are only a few examples of how these unconventional types of evidence can be useful to EIDM. I’m happy to talk through the others after this session.
- Slide three: three minutes As useful and valuable as unconventional evidence can be, no research is infallible or without challenges when it comes to using it for EIDM. Undoubtedly the largest critique against ‘[un]conventional’ evidence would be that it does not achieve what it set out to: that is, it doesn’t synthesise the available evidence (either because there is not enough evidence to be synthesised or because the evidence is too hetereogenous to be aggregated). Often in international development contexts – the very contexts where we engage with decision-makers around difficult questions – the evidence is unconventional. The take-away here is that this is something to be embraced and worked with if we’re to assist in generating primary research that addresses questions of importance in EIDM. Additionally, the challenge here is that unconventional evidence can be seen as a site for engagement with stakeholders where skills in EIDM can be enhanced and supported. Thank you.