Transcript Creating an evidence-based framework to support

Gavin Stewart
Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation
University of Birmingham, UK
The Key Players in Evidence-Based
Practice
Talk overview
Three phases to the review process



Planning the review
Conducting the review
Disseminating the review
Planning the review

Policy input

Science input

Stakeholder input

Review team role
Policy input

Why do we need to know about this?

Review focus e.g. geographical scope

Unpacking elements e.g. access
Science input

Provides the raw material of an evidence base

Helps define elements e.g. blanket bog, wet-heath,
dry heath

Reasons for heterogeneity e.g. timing of grazing
Stakeholder input

Conflict resolution
Review Team role

Facilitate question formulation

Interact with policy formers and scientists to
generate question (protocol proforma)

Circulate question to stakeholders to identify
potential for conflict
Conducting the review






CEBC
Review team
External lead reviewer
Subject expert
Review guidance
Access to data
Review team

Either undertake the review, or:
Lead reviewer

Facilitate role of lead reviewer

Funding body assist in identifying independent lead
reviewer?

Subject expert is necessary in absence of lead reviewer
(for independence if nothing else)
Review guidance

Who from

What for
Who from

Lead reviewer or Subject expert

Wider scientific community

Review commissioners
What for

What kind of guidance do we need?
Access to data
Dissemination



Dissemination roles under development
Mechanisms: reviews available on open
access website, peer reviewed manuscripts,
policy briefs, practitioner information notes,
workshops.
Different information is required by different
target audiences
summary

collaborative
Funding bodies, Research
councils
Policy community
CEBC
Active practitioners
External review
team
Scientific community