15. “Let’s Talk Numbers”: Parliamentary Research in Educational Affairs in Light of a Political Demand for Quantification—The Knesset in Comparative Perspective

Craft and Wilder (2017, 220); citing Gregory and Lonti (2008).

The term “evidence-based” is widely used in public policy literature, although the term “evidence-informed”, which is somewhat less used, may be more appropriate, since it is hard to imagine policy decisions which are determined solely according to research evidence, with no equal influence of any other dominant consideration. See conclusions for additional references on this matter.

See, for example, Desrosières (2016) and Rottenburg and Merry (2015).

See, for example, Weiss (1979) and Sabatier and Whiteman (1985).

See, for example, Loewenberg and Patterson (1979) and Hird (2005).

Alexander (2011), Labaree (2014), and Gorur (2013).

Münch (2014) and Gorur (2015).

Ball (2015).

World Bank (2003, 2008).

See, for example, UNESCO (2013).

Nash (2002). See also Malen and Knapp (1997).

Kogan (1975).

Weiss (1979).

Webber (1987) and Sabatier and Whiteman (1985).

Webber (1987, 612).

Sabatier and Whiteman (1985).

Hungarian National Assembly (2015).

Hird (2005).

Ibid.

Robinson (2001).

Ibid.

During the final editing of this contribution, the UK Houses of Parliament have published a new “Parliamentary Research Handbook”, which elaborates on these issues.

Uncommon Knowledge (2015), CRS (2010), Guston et al. (1997), and Weiss (1989).

Missingham (2011) and Robinson (2001).

Hird (2005, 98).

Ibid.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the term PRIS was first used in a post on the European Parliamentary Research Service Blog, “Parliamentary Research and the Plurality of Information Sources Available to MPs”, August 2013.

ECPRD, selected requests form the years 2015–2017.

It should also be noted that in 1998, the Estonian parliament commissioned a comparative study on the use of social information in the law-making process of parliaments. The study included 17 European countries, and it examined how (in which areas, with which functions) and when (during what stages of the process) social information has been used in law making. In the context of this study, the term “social information” was treated in its widest meaning and included three main categories of information: social statistics (for example, information about demographic situation); information about economic life (taxes, prices); and results of sociological research (results of surveys and public opinion polls). It was found that the practice of using social information in law-making is different among countries and its scope varies significantly, and that the information used in law-making is typically collected or obtained for some other reasons than for preparing a law.

According to the study results, the social information had mostly been used in preparing laws that have great economic or “socio-political” significance. Moreover, it was found that parliamentary committees use social information in their work in all participating countries, but it had been used most impressively in cases involving social security matters—pensions, family benefits, etc. (Chancellery of the Estonian Riigikogu 1998).

NDI (2013).

Datta and Jones (2011).

IPU and IFLA (2015).

Ness (2010) and Weiss (1989).

Sabatier and Whiteman (1985).

Canfield-Davis and Jain (2010) and Mooney (1991).

See Guston et al. (1997), who use the term “technical information and analysis” in the context of making decisions on technically complex issues, including education, yet they don’t specify exactly what the term includes.

König et al. (2006).

Howlett et al. (2014).

See Section “Comparative view” (ahead) for additional information on search definitions.

For the sake of full disclosure: the author has been serving as a research team leader and before that as a senior researcher at the RIC, and most of RIC’s reviewed papers (dealing with educational affairs) were either written or approved by him, within his position.

Lists and files of all the reviewed papers are available upon request from the author.

See the RIC homepage in English (few full-text papers only) and in Hebrew (all full-text papers).

For example, papers on “Violence towards teachers in Israel” or “Class size”.

For example, papers on “Selection for higher education institutions and the psychometric test” or on “Lifelong learning”.

As mentioned before, each of the three services has a variety of products and outputs. CRS, for example, provides many kinds of responses to enquiries by briefings given in person, by email and telephone, and even written products—many of which are considered “confidential memoranda” (or simply memos) and are not available to the public or for analysis of this kind, while other—more detailed papers—are classified as reports; see CRS (2015).

European Parliament “Think Tank” Website, Research by Policy Area by Theme: Education, July 1, 2013 (one study from May 2013 was also included)–June 30, 2016.

“Evaluation of Education at the European Level”, 27–28.

For example, “Language Teaching and Learning within EU Member States”, 2016.

United Kingdom Parliament Website, Research Briefings. Topic: Education, July 1, 2013–June 30, 2016 the Corpus Includes Mainly the House of Commons Library’s Research Outputs, but also a Few Papers from the House of Lords Library and from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST).

Briefing paper on “Converter Academies; Statistics”, October 2015; Standard Note, “HE in England from 2012: Student Numbers”, October 2014.

“Every School an Academy: The White Paper Proposals”, April 2016.

University of North Texas Digital Library, Congressional Research Service Reports; Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Website, Congressional Research Service [CRS] Reports, Miscellaneous Topics: Education, School, Teacher; Every CRS Website Topic Areas:​ Education Policy.

CRS “Charter School Programs Authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA Title V-B): A Primer”, by Rebecca R. Skinner, April 2014.

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

“The Changing Federal STEM Education Effort”, May 2015.

Howlett and Lundquist (2004, 231).

Desrosières (2016, 197).

Desrosières (2015, 333–335).

See also the section on the “Elements of the Good Governance of Evidence” in Parkhurst (2017, 163).

It should be mentioned again, though, that analysis included only official reports which were published. Review of additional content which is only distributed internally may produce different results.

Hargreaves (1999, 246).