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 CEBC External review team Scientific communityPolicy community Active practitioners Funding bodies, Research councils