April 2014 – Heather E. Lanthorn

have evidence, will… um, erm (5 of 6, revisibility)

this is part of a series of joint posts with suvojit. it is also cross-posted at people, spaces, deliberation. throughout this series of posts (1, 2, 3, 4), we have considered two main issues. first, how can evidence and evaluation be shaped to be made more useful – that is, directly useable – in guidingContinue reading “have evidence, will… um, erm (5 of 6, revisibility)”

Allowing ‘revisibility’ in decisionmaking

Originally posted on Suvojit Chattopadhyay:
This is a joint post with Heather – fifth in our series on decisionmaking *** Throughout this series of posts (1, 2, 3, 4), we have considered two main issues. First, how can evidence and evaluation be shaped to be made more useful – that is, directly useable – in guiding decision-makers to…

i’m not sure that means what you think it means (gold standard)

some thoughts, from peter byass, here, for the next time you want to refer to a technique as the ‘gold standard’ and what may be behind such a guarantee: The verbal autopsy literature has extensively used and abused the concept of “gold standards” for validating cause of death determination. Metallurgists would say that 100% pureContinue reading “i’m not sure that means what you think it means (gold standard)”

have evidence, will… um, erm? (4 of 6, going public)

this is a joint post with suvojit. it is also posted on people, spaces, deliberation. in our last post, we discussed how establishing “relevant reasons” for decision-making ex ante may enhance the legitimacy and fairness of deliberations on resource allocation. we also highlight that setting relevant decision-making criteria can inform evaluation design by highlighting whatContinue reading “have evidence, will… um, erm? (4 of 6, going public)”