@article{
 title = {Policy claims and problem frames: a cross-case comparison of evidence-based policy in an Australian context},
 type = {article},
 identifiers = {[object Object]},
 pages = {9-24},
 volume = {12},
 websites = {http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/ep/2016/00000012/00000001/art00002},
 id = {6f177313-fe06-3b81-8d73-dba89ab983a1},
 created = {2016-08-21T22:18:05.000Z},
 file_attached = {false},
 profile_id = {217ced55-4c79-38dc-838b-4b5ea8df5597},
 group_id = {408d37d9-5f1b-3398-a9f5-5c1a487116d4},
 last_modified = {2017-03-14T09:54:45.334Z},
 read = {false},
 starred = {false},
 authored = {false},
 confirmed = {true},
 hidden = {false},
 source_type = {JOUR},
 folder_uuids = {ec36662d-17c1-48e1-ba80-71a9f974e552},
 private_publication = {false},
 abstract = {This paper explores the signification of evidence-based policy as a new policy-making paradigm in Australia through a cross-case comparison of the role of evidence in two key areas: child protection and illicit drug policy. Although evidence makes certain courses of action appear valid and credible, quality evidence is not necessarily the critical factor in driving or explaining policy outcomes. Policy solutions are perceived more favourably and driven forward when the initial problem is viewed by actors through a common frame. Rather than a policy input or driver, evidence operates as a discursive tool for consolidation of particular frames and problem representations.},
 bibtype = {article},
 author = {van Toorn, Georgia and Dowse, Leanne},
 journal = {Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice},
 number = {1}
}

{"_id":"fhedZudWEuemzRGfK","bibbaseid":"vantoorn-dowse-policyclaimsandproblemframesacrosscasecomparisonofevidencebasedpolicyinanaustraliancontext","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2017-11-23T19:05:20.541Z","title":"Policy claims and problem frames: a cross-case comparison of evidence-based policy in an Australian context","author_short":["van Toorn, G.","Dowse, L."],"year":null,"bibtype":"article","biburl":null,"bibdata":{"title":"Policy claims and problem frames: a cross-case comparison of evidence-based policy in an Australian context","type":"article","identifiers":"[object Object]","pages":"9-24","volume":"12","websites":"http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/ep/2016/00000012/00000001/art00002","id":"6f177313-fe06-3b81-8d73-dba89ab983a1","created":"2016-08-21T22:18:05.000Z","file_attached":false,"profile_id":"217ced55-4c79-38dc-838b-4b5ea8df5597","group_id":"408d37d9-5f1b-3398-a9f5-5c1a487116d4","last_modified":"2017-03-14T09:54:45.334Z","read":false,"starred":false,"authored":false,"confirmed":"true","hidden":false,"source_type":"JOUR","folder_uuids":"ec36662d-17c1-48e1-ba80-71a9f974e552","private_publication":false,"abstract":"This paper explores the signification of evidence-based policy as a new policy-making paradigm in Australia through a cross-case comparison of the role of evidence in two key areas: child protection and illicit drug policy. Although evidence makes certain courses of action appear valid and credible, quality evidence is not necessarily the critical factor in driving or explaining policy outcomes. Policy solutions are perceived more favourably and driven forward when the initial problem is viewed by actors through a common frame. Rather than a policy input or driver, evidence operates as a discursive tool for consolidation of particular frames and problem representations.","bibtype":"article","author":"van Toorn, Georgia and Dowse, Leanne","journal":"Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice","number":"1","bibtex":"@article{\n title = {Policy claims and problem frames: a cross-case comparison of evidence-based policy in an Australian context},\n type = {article},\n identifiers = {[object Object]},\n pages = {9-24},\n volume = {12},\n websites = {http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/ep/2016/00000012/00000001/art00002},\n id = {6f177313-fe06-3b81-8d73-dba89ab983a1},\n created = {2016-08-21T22:18:05.000Z},\n file_attached = {false},\n profile_id = {217ced55-4c79-38dc-838b-4b5ea8df5597},\n group_id = {408d37d9-5f1b-3398-a9f5-5c1a487116d4},\n last_modified = {2017-03-14T09:54:45.334Z},\n read = {false},\n starred = {false},\n authored = {false},\n confirmed = {true},\n hidden = {false},\n source_type = {JOUR},\n folder_uuids = {ec36662d-17c1-48e1-ba80-71a9f974e552},\n private_publication = {false},\n abstract = {This paper explores the signification of evidence-based policy as a new policy-making paradigm in Australia through a cross-case comparison of the role of evidence in two key areas: child protection and illicit drug policy. Although evidence makes certain courses of action appear valid and credible, quality evidence is not necessarily the critical factor in driving or explaining policy outcomes. Policy solutions are perceived more favourably and driven forward when the initial problem is viewed by actors through a common frame. Rather than a policy input or driver, evidence operates as a discursive tool for consolidation of particular frames and problem representations.},\n bibtype = {article},\n author = {van Toorn, Georgia and Dowse, Leanne},\n journal = {Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice},\n number = {1}\n}","author_short":["van Toorn, G.","Dowse, L."],"urls":{"Website":"http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/ep/2016/00000012/00000001/art00002"},"bibbaseid":"vantoorn-dowse-policyclaimsandproblemframesacrosscasecomparisonofevidencebasedpolicyinanaustraliancontext","role":"author","downloads":0},"search_terms":["policy","claims","problem","frames","cross","case","comparison","evidence","based","policy","australian","context","van toorn","dowse"],"keywords":[],"authorIDs":[]}