Gavin StewartCentre for Evidence-Based ConservationUniversity of Birmingham, UK

The Key Players in Evidence-BasedPractice

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