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

  • Yuval Vurgan


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.


Education policy Parliaments The Knesset Parliamentary research Policy information Quantified data 


  1. Alexander, Robin. 2011. “Evidence, Rhetoric and Collateral Damage: The Problematic Pursuit of ‘World Class’ Standards.” Cambridge Journal of Education 41 (3): 265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, Stephen J. 2015. “Education, Governance and the Tyranny of Numbers.” Journal of Education Policy 30 (3): 299–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Craft, Jonathan, and Matt Wilder. 2017. “Catching a Second Wave: Context and Compatability in Advisory System Dynamics.” Policy Studies Journal 45 (1): 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Gorur, Radhika. 2013. “The Struggle to Technicise in Education Policy.” Australian Education Researcher 40: 633–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gorur, Radhika. 2015. “Producing Calculable Worlds: Education at a Glance.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 36 (4): 578–595.Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, Robert, and Zsuzanna Lonti. 2008. “Chasing Shadows? Performance Measurement of Policy Advice in New Zealand Government Departments.” Public Administration 86 (3): 837–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hargreaves, David. 1999. “Revitalizing Educational Research: Lessons from the Past and Proposals for the Future.” Cambridge Journal of Education 29 (2): 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hird, John A. 2005. “Policy Analysis for What? The Effectiveness of Nonpartisan Policy Research Organizations.” Policy Studies Journal 33 (1): 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. IPU. 2007. Tools for Parliamentary Oversight: A Comparative Study of 88 National Parliaments. Edited by Hironori Yamamoto.Google Scholar
  21. IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union) and IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions). 2015. Guidelines for Parliamentary Research Services.Google Scholar
  22. Kogan, Maurice. 1975. “Parliament and Education.” Educational Policy Making: A Study of Interest Groups and Parliament, 149–184. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  23. König, Thomas, Brooke Luetgert, and Tanja Dannwolf. 2006. “Quantifying European Legislative Research.” European Union Politics 7 (4): 553–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Loewenberg, Gerhard and Samuel C. Patterson. 1979. “Executive-Legislative Relations.” Comparing Legislatures, 231–279. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Missingham, Roxanne. 2011. “Parliamentary Library and Research Services in the 21st Century: A Delphi Study.” IFLA Journal 37 (1): 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mooney, Christopher Z. 1991. “Information Sources in State Legislative Decision Making.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (3): 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Nash, Roy. 2002. “Numbers and Narratives: Further Reflections in the Sociology of Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 23 (3), 397–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Democratic Institute—NDI. (2013). Development of Parliamentary Research Services in Central Europe and the Western Balkans.
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Parkhurst, Justin O. 2017. The Politics of Evidence: From Evidence-Based Policy to the Good Governance of Evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Robinson, William H. 2001. “Legislative Research: Essential Roles and Standards of Excellence.” International Journal of Legal Information 29 (3): 560–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Sabatier, Paul, and David Whiteman. 1985. “Legislative Decision Making and Substantive Policy Information: Models of Information Flow.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 10 (3): 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Uncommon Knowledge. 2015. Australian Parliamentary Library—Client Service Evaluation 2015. Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliament of Australia.Google Scholar
  42. UK Houses of Parliament. 2017. Parliamentary Research Handbook.Google Scholar
  43. UNESCO. 2013. UNESCO Handbook on Education Policy Analysis and Programming.Google Scholar
  44. Webber, David J. 1987. “Legislators’ Use of Policy Information.” The American Behavioral Scientist 30 (6): 612–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weiss, Carol H. 1979. “The Many Meanings of Research Utilization.” Public Administration Review 39 (5): 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weiss, Carol H. 1989. “Congressional Committees as Users of Analysis.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8 (3): 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. World Bank. 2003. Tools for Education Policy Analysis by Alain Mingat and Jee-Peng Tan with Shobhana Sosale.Google Scholar
  48. 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

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuval Vurgan
    • 1
  1. 1.The Knesset Research and Information CenterJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations