Blog Post
“The Government is committed to an evidence-based approach to decision-making.”
— Budget 2017
Like many of our readers, I was delighted that the Government of Canada made clear its commitment to developing policy informed by what is known. If I’m honest, I was also pleased that those words seemed to be speaking directly to the CCA’s business model: we respond to requests from sponsors to assess evidence to inform decisions. Our expert panel members roll up their sleeves, dive into the literature, and examine what is known, how it is known, and how confident they are in the evidence they find.
Simple, right? Find the evidence, review the evidence, assess the evidence, and draw conclusions from it (or lack thereof).
Maybe not that simple. As Ian Boyd, Chief Scientific Advisor, U.K. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently suggested, people don’t even think about data in the same way:
“When I think of data I think of binary or hexadecimal numbers. This betrays something of my background, but it was a surprise to me when in Defra, the UK Department of State with responsibility for food and the environment, we started to talk about data and I found that other people saw data very differently. Everybody had different preconceptions about data. Some seemed to be very confused. It had become trendy to talk about data, but few people appeared to think about data.”
I think Boyd is onto something. His observation is reminiscent of Mary Poovey’s fascinating book A History of the Modern Fact, which argues that even this basic unit of knowledge — the fact — is not as “objective” as one might first think, having arisen from the political and economic necessity of double-entry bookkeeping. Facts, data, and evidence are not synonyms but have separate cultural, legal, and moral meanings. Data may be the most basic bit of measurable experience, but it doesn’t mean much without being organized into information, interpreted and assessed. And transitioning from information to knowledge is a further epistemic branch on the tree of truth.
I touched on this in my previous President’s Message in the context of our assessment on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID). Since then, the 43-member Expert Panel has taken a broad approach to evidence, mining data (surveys), social science studies of practices, professional standards, statements, and related literature. The MAID Panel is also reviewing domestic and international legislation, where it exists, and has issued a Call for Input to encourage organizations affected by MAID to share what they know. The Panel is making every effort to understand MAID’s implications for society and to consider other types of knowledge where needed and appropriate.
Other CCA assessments are challenging us to think more broadly about what we mean by evidence. Our assessment on Indigenous policing includes other “ways of knowing,” while our assessment on the transportation needs of an aging population examines methodologies outside of traditional science-based approaches. Similarly, our project on integrated natural resource management looks at traditional knowledge and considers the ways in which the moral, legal, and cultural rights and values of Indigenous Peoples are implicated in resource management.
It’s a good time for evidence to make its return to Canada’s policy stage. And with the recent appointment of Dr. Mona Nemer as Canada’s new Chief Science Advisor, I’m hopeful we will continue to hear Canada’s voice speak loudly about the value and importance of evidence to inform decisions.