How Policy Appetites Shape, and Are Shaped by Evidence Production and Use

Abstract

Despite long-standing critiques, the rationalist model—which describes a simple, linear process by which evidence should inform policy decision-making—remains dominant in the minds of many researchers and policymakers. Why is this the case, and does it matter? I argue that in addition to its intuitive, simple appeal, the rationalist model has been bolstered by repeated appeals from the public health research community for policymakers to rely (often solely) on the ‘best’ evidence. The insistence on an evidence hierarchy creates the idea that some forms of evidence are of more value than others, and that research design can be used as a way to quickly identify ‘best’ evidence. I argue this enables misuse of evidence and reduces the scope for effective dialogue between those who make and those who use evidence. A more useful approach would be to explore how knowledge and policy interact at a more systemic level, to help us understand who is involved in evidence production, valuing, codification, and use. Conceptualising the political economy of knowledge in this way offers a new way to begin thinking about how to creatively shape a more helpful environment for both policy and evidence.

Policy diffusion theory, evidence-informed public health, and public health political science: a scoping review

“…In the case of policy learning, for example, instead of engaging directly with scientific evidence, governments may look for other indicators of policy success, such as widespread policy adoption without subsequent abandonment across other jurisdictions (Shipan & Volden, 2008). Thus, there is a need for public health research to consider what constitutes appropriate and relevant evidence in the policy diffusion process, and in relation to each of the diffusion mechanisms, as opposed to what "should" inform policymaking based on established hierarchies that favour certain types of scientific evidence (e.g., systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials) and their accompanying epistemological perspectives (Oliver, 2022;Parkhurst, 2016).…”

“…Although scientific evidence can help to reduce uncertainty (i.e., lacking information on a policy problem), it does little to reduce ambiguity (i.e., lacking agreement on how to define/frame a policy problem) (Cairney, 2016;Cairney et al, 2022). To resolve ambiguity, policymakers draw upon different forms of "evidence" (e.g., value judgements, public opinion, "expert" consultation, emotions) to legitimize how policy problems are framed or prioritized (Cairney, 2016;Cairney & Oliver, 2017;Cairney et al, 2016;Oliver, 2022). Moreover, although often perceived as apolitical, the production, interpretation, and use of scientific evidence are value-based, contested, and influenced by structures of politics and power (Cassola et al, 2022;Parkhurst, 2017).…”

Assessing the impact of an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission in German schools on decision-making processes: a multi-component qualitative analysis

“…The rationalist model of evidence-based policy-making assumes a linear process from evidence production—favouring randomized controlled designs and systematic reviews of such trials according to the prevailing heuristic of the evidence hierarchy—to its direct uptake in the policy-making process [ 47 ]. However, a view on political decision-making as a rather technical search for solutions to any given problem falls short of the realities of decision-makers who negotiate what is socially desirable in complex systems of governance.…”

Understanding Transdisciplinary Engineering in Public Policy: A Survey of Policy Actors’ Perceptions of Engineering Expertise

“…In the UK -as in most OECD countries -the emphasis is on the use of impact assessments, which themselves typically use cost-benefit analysis from micro-economics. While it is possible to see this practice as little more than a performative practice of analysis to legitimise political decision-making [13], it nevertheless frames the way in -and perhaps the disciplinary source of -which policy is analysed, that is with economic modes of thought -what Oliver has recently termed the 'appetite' for evidence and expertise [14]. Opening up the approved means by which problems can be analysed and choices made using tools of engineering could potentially provide a means to open the door to engineering practice in policy domains that may not otherwise see it as relevant.…”