Background
Evidence-based policy-making has been cited as important in several countries and for a variety of different issues
To optimize a two-way transfer of knowledge (researchers – policy makers), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and a consortium of federal agencies and departments in Canada created the
All research undertaken under the aegis of the Canadian National
In these assessment exercises,
In a more recent assessment using detailed interviews about the
Areas recently defined as priority by federal partners include: (1) citizenship and social, cultural and civic integration; (2) economic and labour market integration; (3) family, children and youth; (4) housing and neighbourhoods; (5) justice, policing, and security; and (6) welcoming communities in attracting, integrating, and retaining newcomers and minorities. Six national Priority Leaders, drawn from the Centres, ensure that their priority areas are more visible across
Health was purposely not labelled as a separate priority because as a signatory to the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986)
Senior Canadian policy makers see immigration and diversity as of critical and growing importance for Canada's future
Table 1: Detailed Policy Priority Questions and their Priority Themes. This table outlines specific priority questions and themes.
Click here for file
Methods
Study outcomes
Any outcomes of works related to families, children and youth were of interest.
Type of exposure and study population
Being a newcomer was the exposure of interest. Therefore, any academic work of families, children, or youth who had migrated to Canada from any other country was included.
Type of study designs
We included all research design types.
Search strategy
Annual reports produced in the context of the five centres of excellence between 1996–2006 were culled.
Appropriateness of works assembled
Duplicate works and those that were clearly off-topic were eliminated. A list was created for works identified in annual reports but which could not be located for review.
Data coding
Data were extracted on year of academic work, language of work, journal of publication, type of academic work (abstract, journal article, unpublished review, major research paper, thesis, national
The study populations were categorized by age based on Statistics Canada's population breakdown
Several migration labels may have been named in the same work thus we decided to code only those used in reporting results. These were classified into general categories (based on frequency of occurrence) defined as follows: (1) country of birth/foreign-born: any label which required data on country of birth to define it; (2) ethnicity: a commonly undefined term used by authors, which could include ethnicity, ethnic group, ethnic mix, race; (3) nationality: a commonly undefined term used by authors, which could include national origin, citizen, citizenship; (4) language: any label which required data on language to define it; (5) refugee: the term as used by authors may include those who left home unwillingly and/or having been to resettlement camps; and (6) immigrant status: the term as categorized by the authors and may include labels such as "first generation", "second generation", "third generation", "fourth generation", "visible minority", "family class", "landed", "economic", or "undocumented" 'immigrant'.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and Citizenship and Immigration Canada for research to be conducted within the
Results from each academic work were categorized under the appropriate priority theme(s). If works addressed issues unrelated to a specific policy question but related to the priority theme, they were categorized as 'other' within the theme. A single study could have had results that were categorized under more than one theme. If no priority themes were addressed the academic work was classified as "other".
Outcome results for each work were subsequently coded as 'worse', 'better', 'mixed' or 'not different', as reported by authors for newcomer compared to Canadian-born. For results that did not compare newcomer to Canadian-born, outcomes were coded as descriptive comparative (if comparing amongst newcomer populations) or descriptive. The coding 'absent' indicated academic works that did not report results (e.g. research in process, certain abstracts). 'Worse' and 'better' categories could have included 'not different' on certain outcomes but those that were different, were either all worse or all better, respectively. Only the 'mixed' category included one or more outcomes benefiting newcomers and one or more benefiting non-newcomers in the same work (and may have included outcomes that were not different). These results were coded within the federal priority categories listed above.
Data management
Data abstracted from each work were entered into an Excel database; categorization of all outcomes into priority themes and questions was repeated for verification. Multiple works presenting data from the same study were combined into a single row of data in order to avoid over-weighting any particular study within the overall results.
Assessment of heterogeneity
We assumed the studies included in this review to be heterogeneous. Our inclusion and exclusion criteria were broad to include works of newcomers from a range of source countries worldwide. We classified data into categories of exposure, outcome, and data sources to be as inclusive as possible. The extent of heterogeneity was assessed by examining the methods, outcomes and populations included in the works.
Study sample
139 works met our inclusion criteria; 119 others could not be located (87% were "project" descriptions).
Analyses
Works were described with respect to the variables defined previously. Each of the outcome categories were classified by the number of works reporting results as being worse, better, not different, mixed, absent, descriptive or descriptive comparative.
Results
Table 2 [see additional file
Table 2. Characteristics of Academic Works of Families, Children, and Youth Newcomers to Canada. Characteristics of other studies regarding families, children, and youth newcomers to Canada.
Click here for file
Figure
Family, Youth, and Children Priority Themes
Family, Youth, and Children Priority Themes. This pie-chart details the breakdown of priority themes
Tables 3 and 4 [see additional file
Table 3. Family, Children and Youth Priorities Examined in Qualitative Works. Characteristics of qualitative studies on family, children, and youth priorities.
Click here for file
Table 4. Family, Children and Youth Priorities Examined in Quantitative Works. Characteristics of quantitative studies on family, children, and youth priorities.
Click here for file
Quantitative works may offer an estimate of the prevalence of an issue or the relative importance of it in newcomer versus non-newcomer groups and hence offer a perspective on equity
Discussion
Principal findings
All federal priority themes but few specific policy questions were addressed in the works produced within the
Strengths and weaknesses
We sought to gather information on existing evidence available to inform recently defined federal priorities for newcomer family, children, and youth in Canada within a research-policy partnership. We directly assessed the link between work produced over a 10-year period and specifically defined federal policy themes and questions. A broad search for academic works produced within the partnership was undertaken using annual reports, centre web sites, and direct contact. No exclusion criteria were applied and any relevant work was included in this review.
This review was not exempt of possible bias, especially given the large number of academic works that could not be located, although the majority of these appear to have been ongoing projects.
Relationship to other studies
Reports have described models for research utilization
Implications and future research
This review of 10 years' of academic output to inform recently defined federal policies concerning aspects of newcomer family, children, and youth suggests that although some research evidence is already available, several priority questions are unanswered. In discussions of these results with policy-makers, they felt that the specific priority question was less important than the priority theme, that the questions serve to exemplify what might be examined under each theme (especially given the fluid nature of policy priorities at any one point in time), and that as long as the priority theme is being examined, responses to specific questions would be useful but are not required. For researchers who may want to use these questions to guide their research programs, the questions may be too specific and there may be too many of them (n = 58); using them as examples may serve researchers best. More frequent direct contact between researchers and policy-makers (already in play under Metropolis Phase 3) can be expected to facilitate a greater depth of understanding by researchers of the kinds of questions that can inform policy; and by policy-makers of inherent time and other constraints in conducting research. Together, researchers and policy-makers can more narrowly define specific priority policy questions within the general priority area of migrant family, children, and youth, which will, over the intermediate-term, offer the policy-maker a greater volume of research in selected areas rather than a smaller number of projects in many areas which makes drawing conclusions much more difficult.
This review clearly shows the heavy use of qualitative designs in academic work in this field. Researchers applying this methodology will need to determine how best to transmit the knowledge gained by this approach to policy-makers since policy-makers are likely more familiar with the use of representative population-based quantitative data (e.g. census data) to inform their policies. In contrast, research related to migration (perhaps because of its link to ethnicity) has often been addressed within disciplines that commonly use qualitative methodologies such as in-depth interviews and ethnographies to answer their research questions. The goals of these design types have often been to try to understand why or how from that individual's or community's perspective rather than what or how much. Policy-makers will need to be clear on which type of answer they are seeking and qualitative researchers will need to explain to policy-makers how this type of information can help policy-makers create better policy.
Conclusion
Research conducted within a research-policy partnership over the last 10 years is already available to inform certain, not all, Canadian federal policy questions related to Family, Children, and Youth. Further specification of federal priority questions can be expected to more clearly direct future research in this area.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
AG led the conceptualization of the project and analysis and interpretation of data, as well as the drafting and the critical revision of the manuscript. MPJ performed statistical analyses and interpreted the data, and drafted and edited parts of the manuscript. JB was involved in the conception of the database, the study design and the editing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Authors' informations
Anita Gagnon is the Priority Leader for Family, Children, and Youth for the Metropolis Project