How much evidence is in evidence-based policymaking: a case study of an expert group of the European Commission

Abstract

Knowledge co-production is a solution-oriented approach to analysing real-life problems such as making the right decision in a given scenario. The most popular examples come from evidence-based policymaking contexts. Political decisions made in this way rely on specialist expertise co-produced in organisations that can be characterised as Hybrid Fora. However, despite the rise in popularity of Hybrid Fora and evidence-based policymaking processes, there are only a few studies that analyse the influencing factors of knowledge co-production in these contexts. The case study presented here addresses this new area of research through a documentary analysis and 11 expert interviews, both analysed via qualitative content analysis. First, the study reconstructs how knowledge is produced within an Expert Group of the European Commission. Second, it reflects how the produced knowledge is de facto included as “evidence” into the decision-making processes of the relevant policy area. The results of this study show that in this expert group, pragmatic and extra-scientific criteria such as specific stakes and interests as well as the group hierarchy controlled the process of knowledge co-production. Moreover, it also seems that knowledge produced by the interaction of experts within the examined Expert Group has a more symbolic, policy-orientated function, rather than being specifically used as decision-making evidence.

Loops and Building Blocks: a Knowledge co-Production Framework for Equitable Urban Health

“…The aim should be to maximize inclusion of diverse and weak voices, and to challenge the dominance of specific perspectives, increasing epistemic diversity. This is in line with most recent literature which places weight on systemic changes in the governance of knowledge production [28][29][30].…”

“…The production of knowledge, its appropriation, use, and misuse are processes set in gradients of power between organizations and people. New forms of information and knowledge governance acknowledging power relations are needed that mediate such challenges to existing systems of knowledge production [ 29 ].…”

“…Organized framing, analysis, and option generation that happens within a project (loops and building blocks) is always against a background of on-going framing, analysis, and experimentation elsewhere. Decision-makers and practitioners draw on a stream of competing knowledge claims in making choices and judgements [ 29 ].…”

The Politics of Being an "Expert": A Critical Realist Auto-Ethnography of Drug Policy Advisory Panels in the UK

“…In these experiences in the field, I confirmed in practice what many analyses of evidence and policymaking have suggested in print. Information is more likely to become evidence by being accepted into the making of advice and policy if its content and purveyors fit with pre-existing bureaucratic and cognitive structures and interests (Ailsa et al, 2011;Cairney, 2016;Décieux, 2020;Kelly, 2018;Lancaster, Seear, Treloar, & Ritter, 2017;MacGregor, 2017;Masood et al, 2020;Monaghan, 2011;Monaghan et al, 2018;Nutley, Boaz, Davies, & Fraser, 2019;Oliver & de Vocht, 2015;Ritter & Bammer, 2010;Roberts, Petticrew, Liabo, & Macintyre, 2012;Smith & Joyce, 2012;Stevens, 2007Stevens, , 2011c. This is not some random, natural or wholly unconscious process.…”

Combating misinformation online: re-imagining social media for policy-making

“…Their approach is, at least at the surface level, aligned with the criteria suggested by Vraga and Bode (2020), and acknowledges that, on many occasions, they need to check in with experts, such as scientists or fact-checkers, in order to ascertain if something is indeed misinformation. Even though they do not discuss the dynamic and contextualised nature of misinformation, the need to triangulate their assessments, and reach evidence-based decisions is an important element of policy-making (Décieux, 2020).…”