Policy and decision science in research governance
Policy, institutional and decision science is the core discipline of this platform. It studies how research systems are governed: how mandates are assigned, how advisory bodies are designed, how funders and institutions set rules for integrity and collaboration, and how evidence enters public decisions. It turns comparative institutional practice into material that institutions can learn from.
What policy, institutional and decision science does here.
Policy, institutional and decision science studies how public decisions are made, implemented and evaluated. It examines how institutions coordinate across sectors and levels of government when facing shared risks. In research and evidence and governance and institutions, policy science identifies governance gaps where responsibility for cross-sector risk is unclear. It supports the design of mandates, coordination mechanisms and accountability. The canonical description is on the STEM Commons.
Comparing science advice systems
Advisory arrangements in several countries are compared on legal basis, appointment, independence, transparency and reporting lines, using statutes, terms of reference and published advice, with each system's context stated.
Mapping integrity procedures
National codes and institutional procedures are mapped step by step, from allegation to finding to correction, to show where responsibility passes between institutions, funders and journals and where cases stall.
Tracing evidence into a decision
One public decision is reconstructed from documents, minutes and interviews to trace which evidence was available, which was used and which was set aside, and the reasons given at each step.
03Monitor
Survey analysis.
The screen a team would use to follow this method: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Survey analysis
Research · Policy and decision science · Run R-2324
Estimates stableGRF · Research Nexus
Estimates
robust standard errors
Syntheses in progress
0.14
0.08
[−0.5, 0.3]
No
Studies screened
−0.26
0.09
[−0.3, 1.0]
No
Policy questions answered
0.44
0.15
[−0.5, 0.8]
Yes
Network members
0.39
0.12
[0.0, 0.8]
Yes
Method card
Method
Policy, institutional and decision science
Sample
6287 obs
Design
stratified, weighted
Label
MODELLED
Residuals by group
Survey analysis: the screen's structure, terms and states for Research.Example names and illustrative values; a design, not a record or a live system.
04Data
What the method consumes.
Datasets and records used by policy, institutional and decision science on this platform, with the role each plays and the label its values carry. Sources are listed in the source register.
Data
Role
Label
Statutes, charters and terms of reference
Mandates and legal basis of advisory and research bodies
Published statistics
Published advice, minutes and government responses
Tracing how evidence was used
Published statistics
Institutional integrity policies
Comparing procedures across institutions
DECLARED
Interviews and dialogue records
Practice that documents do not show
REPORTED
Funder award and agreement records
Collaboration and priority patterns
Published statistics
05Policy scenarios
Compare instruments: rules, incentives and information.
Three families of instruments side by side against the baseline, each with its own lag and adoption speed, under the coverage and compliance you set; effect sizes are teaching values to replace with evidence. Scenario: named assumptions about the future, not a forecast.
Controls
Baseline trend of the outcome
2.0% a year
Coverage of the instrument
70%
Compliance
75%
Effect size, against the teaching value
100%
Years ahead
20 years
Readouts
Largest reduction at the horizon
Regulation
Its reduction against the baseline
21%
Numbers, methods and sources
Year
Baseline
Regulation
Economic incentive
Information and capacity
0
100.0
99.5
98.8
99.1
1
102.0
101.2
100.1
99.8
2
104.0
102.5
101.1
99.9
3
106.1
103.5
101.6
100.0
4
108.2
103.7
101.8
100.7
5
110.4
103.2
101.7
102.1
6
112.6
102.0
101.6
103.9
7
114.9
100.4
101.6
105.9
8
117.2
99.2
102.1
108.0
9
119.5
98.6
102.9
110.1
10
121.9
98.9
104.2
112.3
11
124.3
99.7
105.7
114.5
12
126.8
101.1
107.4
116.8
13
129.4
102.7
109.4
119.2
14
131.9
104.5
111.4
121.6
15
134.6
106.5
113.5
124.0
16
137.3
108.5
115.7
126.5
17
140.0
110.7
118.0
129.0
18
142.8
112.9
120.4
131.6
19
145.7
115.1
122.8
134.2
20
148.6
117.4
125.2
136.9
Methods
Tools of government Hood (1983), The Tools of Government, Macmillan
Carrots, sticks and sermons Bemelmans-Videc, Rist and Vedung (1998), Transaction
Diffusion of innovations Rogers (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press
Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
The model runs on the teaching values set by the controls. To calibrate it for a place, read it against these admitted layers and series, which this page's map can draw:
Borders Natural Earth
Cities Natural Earth
Compare instruments: rules, incentives and information. Illustrative teaching model: it runs on the values set by the controls, not on measured data. Methods: Tools of government (Hood (1983), The Tools of Government, Macmillan); Carrots, sticks and sermons (Bemelmans-Videc, Rist and Vedung (1998), Transaction); Diffusion of innovations (Rogers (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press).
Conclusions are tested through comparative cases, counterfactual evaluation and peer review. Implementation outcomes are monitored against stated objectives.
Check
How it is done
Case selection stated
The reasons for choosing each case are given, so readers can judge what the comparison can and cannot generalise to
Source triangulation
Claims about practice rest on more than one kind of source, at least documents and interviews
Context conditions
Each lesson is stated with the institutional conditions under which it held
Institution review
Descriptions of an institution's practice are checked with that institution before publication
Findings are often context specific and difficult to transfer. Political dynamics can override technically preferred options.
07Implementation
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar.
The steps an instrument takes from mandate to evaluation, each with the pillar that runs it, and the decisions that stay with the authority. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.
Mandate and problem framingCompetent authority (outside the programme) A competent authority frames the problem and the mandate under its own rules. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Evidence and system modelFoundry The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2
Options appraised with scenariosFoundry Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983)
Exercise with stakeholdersUniverse The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3
Standard or guidance draftedNexus Standards What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process
Decision by the authorityCompetent authority (outside the programme) The authority decides, outside the programme, with the evidence on record. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Capacity and trainingRisk Academy Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2
Monitoring and public reportReports Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5
Evaluation and revisionNexus Standards Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Methods
Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar: the steps as recorded, each with its pillar; sources as cited on each step.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Policy instrument matrix
The kinds of instrument available on policy and decision science in research governance, by level of government and cooperation.
Instrument type
Local
National
Regional
Global
Regulatory
Zoning, building codes
Laws, standards, licensing
Harmonised rules
Conventions and treaties
Economic
Local levies, grants
Budget lines, taxes, insurance schemes
Risk pools, regional funds
Financing mechanisms
Information
Local warnings
Disclosure, early warning, statistics
Data sharing arrangements
Global monitoring and reporting
Institutional
Local committees
Lead agencies, coordination councils
Regional bodies and secretariats
Multilateral mandates
Cooperative
Community agreements
Partnership compacts
Memoranda and joint programmes
Agreements and joint commitments
A typology after the OECD Recommendation on the Governance of Critical Risks; examples of instrument types, not an inventory of any country's measures.
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction · UNDRRParis Agreement · UNFCCC2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals · United NationsInternational Health Regulations · WHO
10Stewardship
Who maintains the method.
Policy Nexus stewards policy, institutional and decision science for the Consortium and reviews how it is applied across platforms.
What are the limits of policy, institutional and decision science in this field?
Findings are often context specific and difficult to transfer. Political dynamics can override technically preferred options.
How are results checked?
Conclusions are tested through comparative cases, counterfactual evaluation and peer review. Implementation outcomes are monitored against stated objectives.
Are the values on this page real?
The data names, roles and checks are real descriptions of practice. The canvas shows a design of the method's use, not a run; no result is reported here.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
Global Risks ForumResearch NexusEvidence BriefUniverse Annual Synthesis
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Research Nexus
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.
Editors and the expert reviewers named on each article decide what we publish. Funders and partners do not review or approve articles before publication.
This site uses only strictly necessary cookies to work and to remember your privacy choices. Nothing loads from other companies, and we never sell or share your personal information.
Details
This site uses only strictly necessary cookies to work and to remember your privacy choices. Nothing loads from other companies, and we never sell or share your personal information. We run no advertising. You can review your choices at any time through Privacy choices at the foot of every page.
