System disruptions
There are recurring service disruptions on some of the search portals due to high traffic. We are working to resolve the issue, you may temporarily encounter an error message.
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Five blindspots in reform studies of early childhood education and care (ECEC) policy
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Swedish Institute for Social Research (SOFI).ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6138-0463
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology.ORCID iD: 0009-0001-2701-7510
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Swedish Institute for Social Research (SOFI).ORCID iD: 0009-0003-9120-5983
Number of Authors: 42026 (English)In: Acta Sociologica, ISSN 0001-6993, E-ISSN 1502-3869, Vol. 69, no 3, p. 481-492Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Policy reform evaluations are an important source of knowledge regarding the (in)effectiveness of policies and have become increasingly influential in informing policymaking. A key advantage of these studies lies in their careful description of a single reform, observing outcomes before and after the reform was implemented, and making precise statements about the effectiveness of the policy reform among its beneficiaries. However, the very nature of reform studies also entails a number of limitations that are important to reflect on – particularly given their popularity in the context of evidence-based policymaking. We highlight five blind spots relevant to evidence-based policymaking, by critically reflecting on a focused literature review of reform studies of early childhood education and care (ECEC) policies published between 2000 and 2021, conducted by the authors and commissioned by the European Commission. The critical reflection highlights: (a) the context-specific nature of reform studies; (b) the limited focus on reducing inequality in the use and benefits of ECEC; (c) a focus on short-term outcomes; (d) a focus on individual-level rather than macro-level outcomes; and (e) various forms of publication bias.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2026. Vol. 69, no 3, p. 481-492
Keywords [en]
Barcelona targets, ECEC policy, evidence-based policymaking, gender equality, reform studies
National Category
Sociology (Excluding Social Work, Social Anthropology, Demography and Criminology)
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-247461DOI: 10.1177/00016993251372316ISI: 001564538000001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-105015156903OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-247461DiVA, id: diva2:2001050
Available from: 2025-09-25 Created: 2025-09-25 Last updated: 2026-09-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Nieuwenhuis, RenseBackman, LovisaStrigén, Jakob

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nieuwenhuis, RenseBackman, LovisaStrigén, Jakob
By organisation
The Swedish Institute for Social Research (SOFI)Department of Sociology
In the same journal
Acta Sociologica
Sociology (Excluding Social Work, Social Anthropology, Demography and Criminology)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 105 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf