Sources of evidence

Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) Escola Paulista de MedicinaUNIFESP, EPMSciEL

Lines-of-inquiry and sources of evidence in work-based research

There is synergy between the investigative practices of police detectives and social scientists, including work-based researchers. They both develop lines-of-inquiry and draw on multiple sources of evidence in order to make inferences about people, trends and phenomena. However, the principles associated with lines-of-inquiry and sources of evidence have not so far been examined in relation to work-based research methods, which are often unexplored or ill-defined in the published literature. We explore this gap by examining the various direct and indirect lines-of-inquiry and the main sources of primary and secondary evidence used in work-based research, which is especially relevant because some work-based researchers are also police detectives. Clearer understanding of these intersections will be useful in emerging professional contexts where the work-based researcher, the detective, and the social scientist cohere in the one person and their research project. The case we examined was a Professional Studies programme at a university in Australia, which has many police detectives doing work-based research, and from their experience we conclude there is synergy between work-based research and lines of enquiry. Specifically, in the context of research methods, we identify seven sources of evidence: 1) creative, unstructured, and semi-structured interviews; 2) structured interviews; 3) consensus group methods; 4) surveys; 5) documentation and archives; 6) direct observations and participant observations; and 7) physical or cultural artefacts, and show their methodological features related to data and method type, reliability, validity, and types of analysis, along with their respective advantages and disadvantages. This study thereby unpacks and isolates those characteristics of work-based research which are relevant to a growing body of literature related to the messy, co-produced and wicked problems of private companies, government agencies, and non-government organisations and the research methods used to investigate them

Title VII - Litigation Concerning Sources of Evidence

There are two operative provisions of title VII, both of which mitigate previous judicially imposed restrictions on governmental collection and presentation of evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States.” The first purports to set aside the Supreme Court\u27s holding in the 1968 case of Alderman v. United States, in which the Court held that, in cases involving unlawful electronic surveillance, the government must make full disclosure to the defendant of all records in its possession which contain any of his conversation or involving conversations which took place on premises owned by him. In so ruling, the Court specifically rejected the Government\u27s contention that once a defendant has established his standing to contest admission of the evidence and the illegality of the Government\u27s action, a court should then screen the Government\u27s files in camera and deliver to the defendant only material which might prove arguably relevant in establishing the causal relationship between the unlawful surveillance and the evidence being challenged. The purpose of the second provision is to establish a rule of law that no court may consider any claim that evidence offered to prove a crime is inadmissible on the ground that it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act if the alleged unlawful act occurred more than five years prior to the crime being proved. Title VII is one of the more controversial sections of the Act. These provisions represent congressional unwillingness to abide the protracted procedural delays which have resulted primarily from motions to suppress evidence obtained by the Government via alleged illegal electronic surveillance. The Senate Committee Report on S. 30 noted that when an organized crime leader is brought into court, an alternative to tampering with the witnesses as a means of avoiding or delaying prosecution is to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. Motions to suppress evidence generally entail a long and costly process, especially so in cases involving alleged illegal electronic surveillance.” The Senate Committee referred to a procedural crisis caused by the filing of motions to suppress, which was worsened by the Alderman requirement for full disclosure. Furthermore, where such disclosure is made, it is claimed that several undesirable results are possible, including the chilling effect it may have on other pending investigations and prosecutions, the damage which the reputations of innocent third parties may suffer, and the difficulty it may create in recruitment of confidential informants

Evidence-based commissioning in the English NHS : who uses which sources of evidence? A survey 2010/2011

Objectives: To investigate types of evidence used by healthcare commissioners when making decisions and whether decisions were influenced by commissioners’ experience, personal characteristics or role at work. Design: Cross-sectional survey of 345 National Health Service (NHS) staff members. Setting: The study was conducted across 11 English Primary Care Trusts between 2010 and 2011. Participants: A total of 440 staff involved in commissioning decisions and employed at NHS band 7 or above were invited to participate in the study. Of those, 345 (78%) completed all or a part of the survey. Main outcome measures: Participants were asked to rate how important different sources of evidence (empirical or practical) were in a recent decision that had been made. Backwards stepwise logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess the contributions of age, gender and professional background, as well as the years of experience in NHS commissioning, pay grade and work role. Results: The extent to which empirical evidence was used for commissioning decisions in the NHS varied according to the professional background. Only 50% of respondents stated that clinical guidelines and cost-effectiveness evidence were important for healthcare decisions. Respondents were more likely to report use of empirical evidence if they worked in Public Health in comparison to other departments (p<0.0005, commissioning and contracts OR 0.32, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.57, finance OR 0.19, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.78, other departments OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.71) or if they were female (OR 1.8 95% CI 1.01 to 3.1) rather than male. Respondents were more likely to report use of practical evidence if they were more senior within the organisation (pay grade 8b or higher OR 2.7, 95%CI 1.4 to 5.3, p=0.004 in comparison to lower pay grades). Conclusions: Those trained in Public Health appeared more likely to use external empirical evidence while those at higher pay scales were more likely to use practical evidence when making commissioning decisions. Clearly, National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance and government publications (eg, National Service Frameworks) are important for decision-making, but practical sources of evidence such as local intelligence, benchmarking data and expert advice are also influential

Draft guidance for providers on the inspection of adult and community learning : interpreting the Common Inspection Framework

"These guidelines aim to help interpret the questions in the Common Inspection Framework as they apply to inspections of adult and community learning. The Common Inspection Framework, these guidance notes and the suggested sources of evidence do not constitute a checklist. The Common Inspection Framework remains paramount in defining the standards against which inspection judgements are made. Inspectors consider the context of the work of each provider, and draw on evidence from an appropriate range of sources to substantiate their judgements" -- page 2

Brain matters…in social sciences

Here we offer a general introduction to cognitive neuroscience and provide examples relevant to psychology, healthcare and bioethics, law and criminology, information studies, of how brain studies have influenced, are influencing or show the potential to influence the social sciences. We argue that social scientists should read, and be enabled to understand, primary sources of evidence in cognitive neuroscience. We encourage cognitive neuroscientists to reflect upon the resonance that their work may have across the social sciences and to facilitate a mutually enriching interdisciplinary dialogue

Essay 1 : integrating multiple sources of evidence : a Bayesian perspective

Policies and interventions in the health-care system may have a wide range of effects on multiple patient outcomes and operate through many clinical processes. This presents a challenge for their evaluation, especially when the effect on any one patient is small. In this essay, we explore the nature of the health-care system and discuss how the empirical evidence produced within it relates to the underlying processes governing patient outcomes. We argue for an evidence synthesis framework that first models the underlying phenomena common across different health-care settings and then makes inferences regarding these phenomena from data. Bayesian methods are recommended. We provide the examples of electronic prescribing and increased consultant provision at the weekend

Pale Glares of Dark Matter in Quantum Spacetime

A U(1) gauge theory turns, on physically motivated models of Quantum Spacetime, into a U($\infty$) gauge theory, hence free classical electrodynamics is no longer free and neutral fields may have electromagnetic interactions. We discuss the last point for scalar fields, possibly describing dark matter; we have in mind the gravitational collapse of binary systems or future applications to self gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates as possible sources of evidence of quantum gravitational phenomena. The effects so far considered, however, seem too faint to be detectable at present.Comment: 14 page