Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Science, Numbers and Politics pp 331–364Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

“Let’s Talk Numbers”: Parliamentary Research in Educational Affairs in Light of a Political Demand for Quantification—The Knesset in Comparative Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 326 Accesses

Abstract

Increasing demand for quantified data in the field of education, as well as prevailing concepts of desirable quantified policy advice to parliamentarians, raise questions concerning the role of (relatively unstudied) Parliamentary Research and Information Services (PRIS) within this field. This chapter focuses on the outputs of the Knesset’s (Israeli Parliament) research services dealing with educational affairs, while reviewing similar outputs of three other PRIS, European and non-European, in order to discover the ways in which quantified data is used and presented. Findings suggest that although there is no uniformity among different PRIS and different types of outputs, most papers submitted to parliaments handle quantified indicators with care and integrate it with additional sources of policy information that enable critical analysis and better contextual understanding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Craft and Wilder (2017, 220); citing Gregory and Lonti (2008).

  2. 2.

    The term “evidence-based” is widely used in public policy literature, although the term “evidence-informed”, which is somewhat less used, may be more appropriate, since it is hard to imagine policy decisions which are determined solely according to research evidence, with no equal influence of any other dominant consideration. See conclusions for additional references on this matter.

  3. 3.

    See, for example, Desrosières (2016) and Rottenburg and Merry (2015).

  4. 4.

    See, for example, Weiss (1979) and Sabatier and Whiteman (1985).

  5. 5.

    See, for example, Loewenberg and Patterson (1979) and Hird (2005).

  6. 6.

    Alexander (2011), Labaree (2014), and Gorur (2013).

  7. 7.

    Münch (2014) and Gorur (2015).

  8. 8.

    Ball (2015).

  9. 9.

    World Bank (2003, 2008).

  10. 10.

    See, for example, UNESCO (2013).

  11. 11.

    Nash (2002). See also Malen and Knapp (1997).

  12. 12.

    Kogan (1975).

  13. 13.

    Weiss (1979).

  14. 14.

    Webber (1987) and Sabatier and Whiteman (1985).

  15. 15.

    Webber (1987, 612).

  16. 16.

    Sabatier and Whiteman (1985).

  17. 17.

    Hungarian National Assembly (2015).

  18. 18.

    Hird (2005).

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    Robinson (2001).

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    During the final editing of this contribution, the UK Houses of Parliament have published a new “Parliamentary Research Handbook”, which elaborates on these issues.

  23. 23.

    Uncommon Knowledge (2015), CRS (2010), Guston et al. (1997), and Weiss (1989).

  24. 24.

    Missingham (2011) and Robinson (2001).

  25. 25.

    Hird (2005, 98).

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the term PRIS was first used in a post on the European Parliamentary Research Service Blog, “Parliamentary Research and the Plurality of Information Sources Available to MPs”, August 2013.

  28. 28.

    ECPRD, selected requests form the years 2015–2017.

    It should also be noted that in 1998, the Estonian parliament commissioned a comparative study on the use of social information in the law-making process of parliaments. The study included 17 European countries, and it examined how (in which areas, with which functions) and when (during what stages of the process) social information has been used in law making. In the context of this study, the term “social information” was treated in its widest meaning and included three main categories of information: social statistics (for example, information about demographic situation); information about economic life (taxes, prices); and results of sociological research (results of surveys and public opinion polls). It was found that the practice of using social information in law-making is different among countries and its scope varies significantly, and that the information used in law-making is typically collected or obtained for some other reasons than for preparing a law.

    According to the study results, the social information had mostly been used in preparing laws that have great economic or “socio-political” significance. Moreover, it was found that parliamentary committees use social information in their work in all participating countries, but it had been used most impressively in cases involving social security matters—pensions, family benefits, etc. (Chancellery of the Estonian Riigikogu 1998).

  29. 29.

    NDI (2013).

  30. 30.

    Datta and Jones (2011).

  31. 31.

    IPU and IFLA (2015).

  32. 32.

    Ness (2010) and Weiss (1989).

  33. 33.

    Sabatier and Whiteman (1985).

  34. 34.

    Canfield-Davis and Jain (2010) and Mooney (1991).

  35. 35.

    See Guston et al. (1997), who use the term “technical information and analysis” in the context of making decisions on technically complex issues, including education, yet they don’t specify exactly what the term includes.

  36. 36.

    König et al. (2006).

  37. 37.

    Howlett et al. (2014).

  38. 38.

    See Section “Comparative view” (ahead) for additional information on search definitions.

  39. 39.

    For the sake of full disclosure: the author has been serving as a research team leader and before that as a senior researcher at the RIC, and most of RIC’s reviewed papers (dealing with educational affairs) were either written or approved by him, within his position.

  40. 40.

    Lists and files of all the reviewed papers are available upon request from the author.

  41. 41.

    See the RIC homepage in English (few full-text papers only) and in Hebrew (all full-text papers).

  42. 42.

    For example, papers on “Violence towards teachers in Israel” or “Class size”.

  43. 43.

    For example, papers on “Selection for higher education institutions and the psychometric test” or on “Lifelong learning”.

  44. 44.

    As mentioned before, each of the three services has a variety of products and outputs. CRS, for example, provides many kinds of responses to enquiries by briefings given in person, by email and telephone, and even written products—many of which are considered “confidential memoranda” (or simply memos) and are not available to the public or for analysis of this kind, while other—more detailed papers—are classified as reports; see CRS (2015).

  45. 45.

    European Parliament “Think Tank” Website, Research by Policy Area by Theme: Education, July 1, 2013 (one study from May 2013 was also included)–June 30, 2016.

  46. 46.

    “Evaluation of Education at the European Level”, 27–28.

  47. 47.

    For example, “Language Teaching and Learning within EU Member States”, 2016.

  48. 48.

    Briefings are also used by Policy Departments to present summaries of longer studies that were completed. For example, Policy Department B, “Focus On: Dual Education: A Bridge Over Troubled Waters?” by Ana Maria Nogueira, February 2015.

  49. 49.

    United Kingdom Parliament Website, Research Briefings. Topic: Education, July 1, 2013–June 30, 2016 the Corpus Includes Mainly the House of Commons Library’s Research Outputs, but also a Few Papers from the House of Lords Library and from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST).

  50. 50.

    Briefing paper on “Converter Academies; Statistics”, October 2015; Standard Note, “HE in England from 2012: Student Numbers”, October 2014.

  51. 51.

    Briefing Papers on “Faith Schools: FAQs”, October 2015 and “Initial Teacher Training in England”, May 2016.

  52. 52.

    “Every School an Academy: The White Paper Proposals”, April 2016.

  53. 53.

    University of North Texas Digital Library, Congressional Research Service Reports; Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Website, Congressional Research Service [CRS] Reports, Miscellaneous Topics: Education, School, Teacher; Every CRS Website Topic Areas: Education Policy.

  54. 54.

    CRS “Charter School Programs Authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA Title V-B): A Primer”, by Rebecca R. Skinner, April 2014.

  55. 55.

    Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

  56. 56.

    “The Changing Federal STEM Education Effort”, May 2015.

  57. 57.

    Howlett and Lundquist (2004, 231).

  58. 58.

    Desrosières (2016, 197).

  59. 59.

    Desrosières (2015, 333–335).

  60. 60.

    See also the section on the “Elements of the Good Governance of Evidence” in Parkhurst (2017, 163).

  61. 61.

    It should be mentioned again, though, that analysis included only official reports which were published. Review of additional content which is only distributed internally may produce different results.

  62. 62.

    Hargreaves (1999, 246).

Bibliography

  • Alexander, Robin. 2011. “Evidence, Rhetoric and Collateral Damage: The Problematic Pursuit of ‘World Class’ Standards.” Cambridge Journal of Education 41 (3): 265–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, Stephen J. 2015. “Education, Governance and the Tyranny of Numbers.” Journal of Education Policy 30 (3): 299–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canfield-Davis, Kathy and Sachin Jain. 2010. “Legislative Decision-Making on Education Issues: A Qualitative Study.” The Qualitative Report 15 (3): 600–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chancellery of the Estonian Riigikogu, Economic and Social Information Department. 1998. Use of Social Information in the Law-Making Process of Parliaments: A Comparative Study. University of Tartu, Tartu Society of Legal Psychologists and Sociologists, Research Group: Dr. Jaan Ginter, Dr. Paul Kenkmann, and Mr. Aare Kasemets.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Research Service—CRS. 2010/2015. Annual Report of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress for Fiscal Year 2010 and Annual Report of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress for the Fiscal Year 2015. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craft, Jonathan, and Matt Wilder. 2017. “Catching a Second Wave: Context and Compatability in Advisory System Dynamics.” Policy Studies Journal 45 (1): 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datta, Ajoy and Nicola Jones. 2011. Linkages Between Researchers and Legislators in Developing Countries—A Scoping Study. Working Paper 332, Overseas Development Institute, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desrosières, Alain. 2015. “Retroaction: How Indicators Feed Back onto Quantified Actors.” In The World of Indicators: The Making of Governmental Knowledge Through Quantification, edited by Richard Rottenburg, Sally E. Merry, Sung-Joon Park, and Johanna Mugler, 329–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desrosières, Alain. 2016. “The Quantification of the Social Sciences: An Historical Comparison.” In The Social Sciences of Quantification: From Politics of Large Numbers to Target-Driven Policies, edited by Isabelle Bruno, Florence Jany-Catrice, and Bèatrice Touchelay, 183–204. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Center for Parliamentary Research and Documentation—ECPRD. 2017. Replies to ECPRD Request 3290 from the Russian Council of the Federation on “Analytical Service of the Parliament”, January 2017, and Replies to ECPRD Request 3314 from the Parliament of Georgia on “Parliamentary Research Services”, February 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorur, Radhika. 2013. “The Struggle to Technicise in Education Policy.” Australian Education Researcher 40: 633–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorur, Radhika. 2015. “Producing Calculable Worlds: Education at a Glance.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 36 (4): 578–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, Robert, and Zsuzanna Lonti. 2008. “Chasing Shadows? Performance Measurement of Policy Advice in New Zealand Government Departments.” Public Administration 86 (3): 837–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H., Jones Megan, and Lewis M. Branscomb. 1997. “The Demand and Supply of Technical Information and Analysis in State Legislatures.” Policy Studies Journal 25 (3): 451–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, David. 1999. “Revitalizing Educational Research: Lessons from the Past and Proposals for the Future.” Cambridge Journal of Education 29 (2): 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hird, John A. 2005. “Policy Analysis for What? The Effectiveness of Nonpartisan Policy Research Organizations.” Policy Studies Journal 33 (1): 83–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, Michael, and Evert Lindquist. 2004. “Policy Analysis and Governance: Analytical and Policy Styles in Canada.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 6 (3): 225–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, Michael, Seck L. Tan, Andrea Migone, Adam Wellstead, Brian Evans. 2014. “The Distribution of Analytical Techniques in Policy Advisory Systems: Policy Formulation and the Tools of Policy Appraisal.” Public Policy and Administration 29 (4): 271–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hungarian National Assembly. 2015. Libraries and Research Services Serving Openness and Transparency of Parliament. Final Summary of Replies to ECPRD (European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation) Request No. 2855.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPU. 2007. Tools for Parliamentary Oversight: A Comparative Study of 88 National Parliaments. Edited by Hironori Yamamoto.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union) and IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions). 2015. Guidelines for Parliamentary Research Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, Maurice. 1975. “Parliament and Education.” Educational Policy Making: A Study of Interest Groups and Parliament, 149–184. London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • König, Thomas, Brooke Luetgert, and Tanja Dannwolf. 2006. “Quantifying European Legislative Research.” European Union Politics 7 (4): 553–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labaree, David F. 2014. “Let’s Measure What No One Teaches: PISA, NCLB, and the Shrinking Aims of Education.” Teachers College Record 116, September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenberg, Gerhard and Samuel C. Patterson. 1979. “Executive-Legislative Relations.” Comparing Legislatures, 231–279. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malen, Betty, and Michael Knapp. 1997. “Rethinking the Multiple Perspectives Approach to Education Policy Analysis: Implications for Policy Practice Connections.” Journal of Education Policy 12 (5): 419–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malito, Debora V., and Gaby Umbach. 2015. Governance by Indicators: Opportunities for Democracy? Paper Prepared for the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops 2015, Warsaw.

    Google Scholar 

  • Missingham, Roxanne. 2011. “Parliamentary Library and Research Services in the 21st Century: A Delphi Study.” IFLA Journal 37 (1): 52–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, Christopher Z. 1991. “Information Sources in State Legislative Decision Making.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (3): 445–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Münch, Richard. 2014. “Education Under the Regime of PISA & Co.: Global Standards and Local Traditions in Conflict—The Case of Germany.” Teachers College Record 116, September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, Roy. 2002. “Numbers and Narratives: Further Reflections in the Sociology of Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 23 (3), 397–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Democratic Institute—NDI. (2013). Development of Parliamentary Research Services in Central Europe and the Western Balkans. https://www.ndi.org/node/23737.

  • National Research Council. 2012. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy. Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy, edited by K. Prewitt, T. A. Schwandt, and M. L. Straf. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ness, Erik C. 2010. “The Role of Information in the Policy Process: Implications for the Examination of Research Utilization in Higher Education Policy.” Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, edited by John C. Smart, vol. 25, 1–49. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkhurst, Justin O. 2017. The Politics of Evidence: From Evidence-Based Policy to the Good Governance of Evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, William H. 2001. “Legislative Research: Essential Roles and Standards of Excellence.” International Journal of Legal Information 29 (3): 560–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, William H. 2002. Knowledge & Power—The Essential Connection Between Research and the Work of Legislature. Brussels: European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (EPCRD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottenburg, Richard and Sally Engle Merry. 2015. “World of Indicators: The Making of Governmental Knowledge Through Quantification.” The World of Indicators: The Making of Governmental Knowledge Through Quantification, edited by Richard Rottenburg, Sally E. Merry, Sung-Joon Park, and Johanna Mugler, 1–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, Paul, and David Whiteman. 1985. “Legislative Decision Making and Substantive Policy Information: Models of Information Flow.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 10 (3): 395–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundquist, James L. 1978. “Research Brokerage: The Weak Link.” In Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection, edited by Laurence E. Lynn Jr., 126–145. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uncommon Knowledge. 2015. Australian Parliamentary Library—Client Service Evaluation 2015. Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliament of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Houses of Parliament. 2017. Parliamentary Research Handbook.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. 2013. UNESCO Handbook on Education Policy Analysis and Programming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber, David J. 1987. “Legislators’ Use of Policy Information.” The American Behavioral Scientist 30 (6): 612–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, Carol H. 1979. “The Many Meanings of Research Utilization.” Public Administration Review 39 (5): 426–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, Carol H. 1989. “Congressional Committees as Users of Analysis.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8 (3): 411–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2003. Tools for Education Policy Analysis by Alain Mingat and Jee-Peng Tan with Shobhana Sosale.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2008. Can Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide Education Policy in Developing Countries? Policy Research Working Paper 4568, by Emmanuel Jimenez and Harry Anthony Patrinos.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Knesset Research and Information Center, Jerusalem, Israel

    Yuval Vurgan

Authors
  1. Yuval Vurgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Heidelberg, Germany

    Markus J. Prutsch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vurgan, Y. (2019). “Let’s Talk Numbers”: Parliamentary Research in Educational Affairs in Light of a Political Demand for Quantification—The Knesset in Comparative Perspective. In: Prutsch, M. (eds) Science, Numbers and Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11208-0_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation