Introduction
The world has transformed in many ways as modern technology and science advance. Despite the unprecedented success in solving pressing global problems, humans fall short of realizing most developmental goals, including poverty, inequality, increasing educated individuals, and climate change. As the world struggles to solve social problems, scholars have suggested using evidence-based research to inform public policies. New approaches to evaluation and monitoring are needed if researchers need to identify the problems in existing policies (Belita et al., 2020). However, evidence-informed decision-making is hampered by the political nature of policy implementation and making. Nonetheless, the approach focuses on effectively using scarce resources, maximizing good, and avoiding harm. Therefore, it is essential to explore evidence-informed decisions on moral, political, social, and economic cases in the South and North (Boaz et al., 2019). Ultimately, it is critical to examine evidence-based policymaking in terms of popular perspectives, the current evaluative thinking in Southern Africa and the world, and critical success factors that can improve its evaluation in Africa.
Critical Assessment of Perspectives
Evidence-based implementation and policy are currently framed using two limited perspectives. First, evidence-informed policy-making is considered an approach developed by Northern nations. Second, it is primarily theorized as a technical solution to various problems (Stewart et al., 2019). However, there is a shift in the visualization of the approach, moving from the assumption that it is implemented in the North to benefit Southern countries.
Influence Of the North
It is crucial to examine the two perspectives from a critical viewpoint. Specific initiatives in the South indeed adopt a Northern approach to evidence-informed decision-making. For instance, African policies, such as Mijumbi and Nabyonga-Orem, have gained momentum. Most of such programs are largely supported by Northern entities. In addition, the South receives investments for its country offices from several Northern bodies. Furthermore, the South has increasingly used evidence-informed decision-making in social policies (Stewart et al., 2019). For instance, the development of free healthcare for children below the age of five as well as women in Burkina Faso and the creation of Ugandan rapid response programs (Ridde & Yaméogo, 2018). Such initiatives use evidence-informed policy-making similar to that utilized by Northern nations.
Instead of thinking of Southern evidence-based decision-making as an approach that originated from the North, it is critical to consider it a practice strongly influenced by the North but not defined by Northern stimuli. The evidence-based approach is not new to Southern countries as it was affected by colonial history and its effect on thinking and current structures. Several movements, including the ‘Made in Africa’ have increased their popularity. Southern evidence-based decision-making focuses on local knowledge and goes beyond considering cultural or traditional perspectives in the approach. Southern evidence-informed decision-making rejects the notion that the South requires rescuing by Northern countries and aligns itself with strategies that respond to the desire to evolve using internal perspectives instead of outside ones (Stewart et al., 2019). Thus, it is unacceptable to generalize Southern evidence-based decision-making as a practice defined by Northern stimuli (Parkhurst, 2017). In contrast, Southern evidence-based decision-making is characterized by epistemic diversity.
Multiple Lens
Southern evidence-based decision-making cannot be conceptualized from a technical lens alone. Instead, it is significant for researchers and policy-makers to acknowledge that the approach can be used in political, technical, and social cases. The technical intervention assumption originates from the widespread use of evidence-based approaches in the medical field in recent decades and its tendency to solve practical problems. However, evidence-based decision-making can be applied in different fields and settings. For example, evidence-based research can justify political decisions such as free healthcare (Lwin & Beltrano, 2022).
In addition, it can be used to inform social policies such as increasing awareness of deadly diseases. Thus, the focus of evidence-based decision-making in the South shifts from a technical lens to broader applications to social and political issues (Stewart et al., 2019). Evidence-based research (EBP) has improved governance through political decision-making. The public must explicitly consider what constitutes a better decision from alternatives to social outcomes to enhance the use of evidence-informed decision-making (Gaotlhobogwe et al., 2018). Social concerns that can be informed by evidence-informed decision-making include inequality, poverty, as well as unemployment.
Evaluation Thinking in Southern Africa and The World
The North or the outside world has its evaluation method that considers academic data collection methods in empirical research. Researchers and evaluators from Africa and the West monitor and evaluate African communities using Eurocentric paradigms. Western lenses are often used to evaluate research on African communities. Evaluation thinking in Southern Africa must incorporate cultures and the lived experiences of the communities. In addition, it must be informed by many realities that Africans face (Vo & Archibald, 2018). Researchers in Southern Africa can use different approaches to evaluation thinking.
Types of Evaluation Thinking
Existing scholarship identifies evaluation frameworks shaped by African philosophies, including the least indigenous, integrative, predominantly indigenous, and third space methodology. The least indigenized evaluation framework utilizes prevailing Western theories and limited Indigenous approaches. African realities, worldviews, epistemologies, and values are not considered in the framework. The least Indigenous evaluation approach is Western-oriented and lacks cultural validity and relevance (Patton, 2018). The approach is unsuitable for African contexts as communities may not benefit from the research.
The integrative evaluation framework entails a process that chooses Western methodologies and integrates them with African evaluation techniques. Evaluators bring African and Western knowledge systems together during data collection and analysis. The integrative framework involves adapting, contextualizing, and making Western instruments, theories, and models culturally inclusive and relevant to local stakeholders (Vo & Archibald, 2018). It improves the usefulness and validity of the outcomes as African communities are active participants in the process.
The predominantly Indigenous framework is focused on the idea that various value systems and ways of knowing should inform evaluation and research. The evaluation must include other ways of knowing. For instance, African research should be governed by Afrikology, which recognizes that all knowledge sources are valid from their social, cultural, and historical perspectives. Africology seeks to engage in dialogues that create better knowledge for everybody. The predominantly Indigenous framework recognizes people’s traditions as a significant pillar that creates cross-cultural understandings where Africans culturally stand out (Vo et al., 2018). Evaluation and research under the predominantly Indigenous approach advocate for the value and need of creating a balanced atmosphere by appreciating different ways of knowing, realities, and values during the evaluation process.
Finally, the third space methodology is an evaluation framework informed by geocentric approaches. It depends on the contributions of cultural and local adaptations and applications instead of relying on elements imported from other cultures. The third space methodology recognizes all value systems and ways of knowing. In addition, the best evaluation framework is the African evaluation framework model (Vo & Archibald, 2018). It refers to a multiapproach method that acknowledges the role of non-African and African evaluation strategies to protect Indigenous values and cultures.
The framework is intended to restore African lost value systems and ways of knowing. It is focused on repairing past injustices and transforming the Indigenous persons from previously excluded historical evaluations. During an evaluation, communities should actively participate in the construction of evaluation objectives that consider cultural norms and values. A partnership between communities and evaluators must be established during the original stage under the framework. Indigenous language allows participants to express their feelings and emotions better through proverbs, idioms, folklore, and songs. Furthermore, the model enables evaluation using a community language, giving communities a sense of pride. Ultimately, adopting Western evaluation methods has restricted the incorporation and acknowledgment of the cultural values of various communities, thus failing to sufficiently address society’s needs (Vo & Archibald, 2018). It is important to harmonize both Western and African evaluation frameworks to maintain strong conscientiousness and allow African evaluators to be a part of the world during evaluation activities.
Critical Success Factors
Corruption Reduction and Efficient Use of Resources
South Africa has used evidence-based decision-making to inform policy changes. However, various constraints remain that hinder the development of a strong and resilient evidence ecosystem. Thus, it is crucial to explore various factors that can increase the impact of the changes brought about by evidence-informed decision-making (Poot et al., 2018). Unlike the West, South Africa has limited resources. As a result, increasing efficiency and avoiding the wastage of scarce resources can accelerate the development impact of evidence-informed decision-making in various sectors of the South African economy. Public officials and the government must ensure that resources are not wasted on inefficient programs in contexts where the opportunity costs of wasting money cause irreparable damage to social welfare (Stewart et al., 2019). Eradicating poverty and inequality is critical to Southern governments because millions of vulnerable groups depend on public services to survive.
Increasing Trust Levels
In addition, buildings high trust levels in various institutions can help amplify the development effect of evidence-informed decision-making. Poorer countries in the South with extremely high-income inequality face low levels of trust in their public institutions. Such suspicions arise from the relative age of public organizations in South Africa (Cairney & Wellstead, 2021). The major problem that reduces trust and credibility in the public sector is corruption, which significantly affects how citizens perceive the impact of such programs. Thus, building trust in the government through open evidence use and transparency can result in many spill-over effects (Boulianne, 2019). For instance, the use of evidence-informed decision-making will be widely accepted.
Strong Evidence Systems
Furthermore, building strong evidence ecosystems in South Africa can increase the impact of evidence-informed decision-making on public policies. Robust evidence ecosystems can create fresh incentives for investors to fund local research. When policymakers acknowledge that evidence ecosystems produce worthy research, they will likely fund local research. Such policy-makers are incentivized by the lack of locally relevant data, which compels them to invest in finding local knowledge (Stewart et al., 2019). Building robust evidence ecosystems allows policy-makers to transform accessible and available evidence into knowledge through local interpretations and experiences of solutions to practical problems.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is essential to review evidence-informed decision-making regarding critical success factors, evaluative thinking, and popular perspectives to improve African evaluation outcomes. Evidence-informed decision-making has shifted from its origins in the North to a practice influenced by Northern stimuli but not defined by them. In addition, it conceptualizes social, technical, and political causes. Several evaluative frameworks can be used in Southern Africa, including the least indigenous, integrative, predominantly indigenous, and third space methodology approaches. Avoiding wastage of resources, building trust levels, and robust evidence systems can increase the development impact of evidence-informed decision-making. Ultimately, evidence-informed decision-making must consider all cultural elements of a particular region to reflect local communities’ needs better.
References
Belita, E., Squires, J. E., Yost, J., Ganann, R., Burnett, T., & Dobbins, M. (2020). Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: A psychometric systematic review. BMC nursing, 19(1), 1-28.
Boaz, A., Davies, H., Fraser, A., & Nutley, S. (Eds.). (2019). What works now?: Evidence-informed policy and practice. Policy Press.
Boulianne, S. (2019). Building faith in democracy: Deliberative events, political trust and efficacy. Political Studies, 67(1), 4-30.
Cairney, P., & Wellstead, A. (2021). COVID-19: effective policymaking depends on trust in experts, politicians, and the public. Policy Design and Practice, 4(1), 1-14.
Gaotlhobogwe, M., Major, T. E., Koloi-Keaikitse, S., & Chilisa, B. (2018). Conceptualizing evaluation in African contexts. In F. Cram, K. A. Tibbetts, & J. LaFrance (Eds.), Indigenous Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 159, 47–62.
Lwin, K., & Beltrano, N. (2022). Rethinking evidence-based and evidence-informed practice: A call for evidence-informed decision making in social work education and child welfare practice. Social Work Education, 41(2), 166-174.
Parkhurst, J. (2017). The politics of evidence: From evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Taylor & Francis.
Patton, M. Q. (2018). A historical perspective on the evolution of evaluative thinking. New Directions for Evaluation, 2018(158), 11-28.
Poot, C. C., Van Der Kleij, R. M., Brakema, E. A., Vermond, D., Williams, S., Cragg, L., van den Broek, J.M., & Chavannes, N. H. (2018). From research to evidence-informed decision making: A systematic approach. Journal of Public Health, 40(suppl_1), i3-i12.
Ridde, V., & Yaméogo, P. (2018). How Burkina Faso used evidence in deciding to launch its policy of free healthcare for children under five and women in 2016. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1-9.
Stewart, R., Dayal, H., Langer, L., & van Rooyen, C. (2019). The evidence ecosystem in South Africa: growing resilience and institutionalization of evidence use. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1-12.
Vo, A. T., & Archibald, T. (2018). New directions for evaluative thinking. New directions for evaluation, 2018(158), 139-147.
Vo, A. T., Schreiber, J. S., & Martin, A. (2018). Toward a conceptual understanding of evaluative thinking. New Directions for Evaluation, 2018(158), 29-47.