This is a very interesting talk! Overall, I disagree with much of the premise (although I believe I am probably in the minority). Policy makers should be people that should have certain skills in terms of the areas they are making policy in. For example, a policy maker who forms policies related to medical or health care should have an understanding of medical or health care. A cursory understanding of the subject matter is unacceptable. Interpretation of research-based evidence and the ability to process this evidence into decisions is something that I expect from policy makers as a tax payer and as someone who works with a very vulnerable population and is legally obligated to follow polices that are formed. Since public policy making that involves vulnerable people usually tackles important issues (i.e. the use of medical and psychological interventions) which can literally impact the health, safety, and overall well-being of vulnerable people, policy makers have an obligation to be connected to world of research in a more direct manner in this specific area (among others). When people cannot speak for themselves, we must rely on the least biased form of evidence. Other forms of "evidence" as described in the talk (i.e. advocacy-based evidence, or political factors) should not interfere with the use of research-based evidence to generate policy in certain realms of policy. We have a very poor track record in Ontario in terms of services and supports for vulnerable people. I would argue that gaps between research and policy making are acceptable in some areas, i.e. policies that indicate how often you need to renew your license plate sticker for example. But for policies that can mean the difference between life and death (especially for vulnerable people), policy makers have a moral obligation to know and understand the research-based evidence and consider it more influential than other forms of "evidence". In terms of a more specific example, I would argue that in terms of policies applying to people with developmental disabilities receiving supports, the research based evidence and its careful scrutiny, analysis, and interpretation must be considered more relevant than the other factors described in the policy-making world. In these areas, the gap must be minimal, if not non-existent.
This is a very interesting talk! Overall, I disagree with much of the premise (although I believe I am probably in the minority). Policy makers should be people that should have certain skills in terms of the areas they are making policy in. For example, a policy maker who forms policies related to medical or health care should have an understanding of medical or health care. A cursory understanding of the subject matter is unacceptable. Interpretation of research-based evidence and the ability to process this evidence into decisions is something that I expect from policy makers as a tax payer and as someone who works with a very vulnerable population and is legally obligated to follow polices that are formed. Since public policy making that involves vulnerable people usually tackles important issues (i.e. the use of medical and psychological interventions) which can literally impact the health, safety, and overall well-being of vulnerable people, policy makers have an obligation to be connected to world of research in a more direct manner in this specific area (among others). When people cannot speak for themselves, we must rely on the least biased form of evidence. Other forms of "evidence" as described in the talk (i.e. advocacy-based evidence, or political factors) should not interfere with the use of research-based evidence to generate policy in certain realms of policy. We have a very poor track record in Ontario in terms of services and supports for vulnerable people. I would argue that gaps between research and policy making are acceptable in some areas, i.e. policies that indicate how often you need to renew your license plate sticker for example. But for policies that can mean the difference between life and death (especially for vulnerable people), policy makers have a moral obligation to know and understand the research-based evidence and consider it more influential than other forms of "evidence". In terms of a more specific example, I would argue that in terms of policies applying to people with developmental disabilities receiving supports, the research based evidence and its careful scrutiny, analysis, and interpretation must be considered more relevant than the other factors described in the policy-making world. In these areas, the gap must be minimal, if not non-existent.
see #TEDxYorkUSpectrum for full playlist of the Salon event