Justice Canada chops research budget by $1.2-million – The Globe and Mail

Worrisome. Not the decision itself to cut research funding as much as the reason: not liking the results, and wanting to align research to government policy, rather than understanding of society. While public service research sometimes was less neutral and impartial than it should have been (had my experience in multiculturalism research in this regard), this change abandons any claim to independent and objective research.

Abdication of “fearless advice” role of public service. Hopefully this will provoke more serious reflection among senior ranks of the public service rather than the rather shallow Destination 2020 initiative:

The result is a diminished research capacity, which now must be better controlled from the top to ensure it supports the government policies, says the report.

“The review confirmed that there have been examples of work that was not aligned with government or departmental priorities,” says the October 2013 document, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

Some past projects have “at times left the impression that research is undermining government decisions.”

The report did not cite specific studies, but a department report last year on public confidence in the justice system appeared to be at odds with the Conservative government’s agenda.

Researcher Charlotte Fraser found many Canadians lacked confidence in the courts and prison system, but suggested it was the result of misunderstanding rather than any failures in the system, and that education could rectify the problem.

Justice Canada chops research budget by $1.2-million – The Globe and Mail.

Le budget de la recherche en droit fond de 1,2 million (La Presse)

Book Review: The Myth of Research-Based Policy and Practice | LSE Review of Books

An interesting mini-review of an interesting book, The Myth of Research-Based Policy and Practice, by Martyn Hammersly, questioning the limits of evidence-based policy. I like the conclusion of the review, as in the end, still better than the alternatives:

In the end, I find myself describing evidence-based policy as Churchill described democracy – the worst option excepting all others. Although this book dispelled some of the mythology, when it comes to evidence-based policy, to borrow a phrase from The X-Files, “I want to believe.”

Book Review: The Myth of Research-Based Policy and Practice | LSE Review of Books.

What We Don’t Know Can’t Hurt Us (Right?) | The Census Project Blog

A bit tongue-in-cheek on the US Census debates. Orwellian “ignorance is strength”.

What We Don’t Know Can’t Hurt Us (Right?) | The Census Project Blog.

Column: What’s the evidence for evidence-based policy?

William Watson raises some valid and important points about evidence-based policy and the limits. While some data and evidence is largely neutral and firm (e.g., Census data) other evidence can be subject to confirmation and other biases, in addition to the limits of our understanding of the complexity of society and behaviour. Evidence is still better than anecdote, but it limits also need to be understood. #W2P #GOC

Column: What’s the evidence for evidence-based policy?.