Trying to Do More Good than Harm in Policy and Practice
Trying to Do More Good than Harm in Policy and Practice
The central thesis of this article looks to survey research and evaluation assessment of a systematic high proportion in order to give reason and resolution to the uncertainties towards the effects of policies and practices, through a public and professional prompt of reason and truth against conflicting opinions. Ultimately these uncertainties are composed by the commonality of professionals generally “doing more harm than good when they intervene in the lives of other people, whereas their policies and practices should be informed by rigorous, transparent, up-to-date evaluations (Chalmers, 2003). The article speaks of a specific form of research analysis which is called “meta-analysis” that can most-possibly be used for the broad evaluation assessment of public/professional uncertainties towards policies and practices; however it is not specifically conducted within the article, only suggested.
The meta-analysis must be judged appropriately and foremost analysed as to whether even applicable to be used for such an evaluation; however if deemed acceptable, the article states that the evaluation can indeed reveal “reconcilable differences” among studies and its overall impact on the subject and field (Chalmers, 2003). Ultimately it can be said that whether or not this meta-analysis had been completed on the effects of policies and practices, or any grand evaluation assessment for that matter, primary results of the study in a broader sense will always prove uncertainty and questionable, as quandaries as such “will always remain a matter of judgement” (Chalmers, 2003). I believe that the argument is indeed a valid one; however it would have been much more credible if the author himself would have conducted means of a meta-analysis within the particular field and find out himself as to whether or not the form of evaluation assessment proved indeed, successful and subversive. Conclusively the author put great weight on the preparation of systematic reviews strictly designed to minimize bias and drawing on research studies designed to minimize bias, as implications of correctional policy. Furthermore, the author amplifies this principle of the minimization of bias in accordance to the entire field of science, most specifically of health and social sciences, “because of the impact research may have on policies and practices” (Chalmers, 2003).
References:
Chalmers, I. (2003). Trying to Do More Good than Harm in Policy and Practice: The Role of Rigorous, Transparent, Up-to-Date Evaluations. American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 22-40. Retrieved March 27, 2016.
