Mapping the use of knowledge in policymaking: barriers and facilitators from a subjectivist perspective (1990–2020)

Abstract

The use of knowledge and evidence in policymaking is a recurrent topic of research due to its scientific and policy relevance. The existing and expansive body of literature has been scrutinised in various ways to grasp the dimensions of knowledge utilisation in policymaking, although most of this research has a monosectoral focus and is based on very general criteria of analysis that do not completely account for the complexity of policy making. This paper overcomes this limitation by enlightening the epistemological divide in the field between an objectivist and a subjectivist perspective and by distinguishing two different focuses in this literature: a focus on knowledge for policy making and a focus on knowledge in policy making. Based on this analytical distinction, the paper presents an original and unprecedented systematic, intersectoral metareview by considering the thirty-year period between 1990 and 2020 (approximately 1,400 were selected for fine-grained analysis). This metareview offers a broader and more detailed map with a clear idea of the distribution of interest in the topic among the different policy fields, a better classification of the theoretical/empirical content and research goals that scholars adopt and a novel and, above all, more fine-grained perspective on the types of conditions that favour or disfavour a significant role of knowledge in policymaking. Ultimately, and above all, this metareview identifies three highly relevant components of policy making that can facilitate or constrain the use of knowledge in policymaking more than others: values/ideology/beliefs, actors’ relationships, and policy capacities.

The Sendai Framework Eight Years On: Whither the “Science–Policy Interface”?

“…To summarize, knowledge must either be for or in policymaking. 4 The existence of this debate indicates two fundamental and connected concepts whose understanding may prove useful to the disaster research community. These concepts are that knowledge has a "shape," and that policymakers are human and sensitive to the shape of knowledge.…”

“…Unfortunately, evidence type seems to have little effect on its acceptance compared to policymakers' ideations. 4 Even so, we should continue trying to communicate knowledge, so how? What shape should disaster research take to facilitate its application to policy?…”

“…This approach depended upon parliamentarian altruism to "foster development of multi-sector scientific, academic and technical agencies and institutions to provide knowledge, advice, oversight and innovation for DRR priorities and initiatives." 20 (p. 16) Capano and Malandrino's review, 4 however, suggests this approach was limited because personal beliefs and ideologies strongly influence policy decisions over and above scientific evidence. In other words, proposals endorsed by science have little purchase with policymakers uncomfortable with science or heavily influenced by certain economic interests.…”

Three years of COVID‐19 pandemic: Coping with crisis governance in the long term

“…This special issue is rich of learning on these two levels. In an era in which evidence-based policy is increasingly a mantra (Capano & Malandrino, 2022), Kurzer and Ornston (2023) urge policymakers to be cautious with applying what scientific advisors recommend in times of high uncertainty. Their contribution aims to explain the results of previous large-n studies that found integrating scientific knowledge into policymaking can slow down the response to the pandemic.…”

The Last 20 Years of Empirical Research on Government Utilization of Academic Social Science Research: A State-of-the-Art Literature Review

“…This overall literature has been reviewed and summarized in several different ways. Many reviews synthesize upshots for research-policymaking relations from this broad literature (e.g., Blake & Ottoson, 2009; Capano & Malandrino, 2022; French, 2018; B. Head, 2016; Newman, 2020).…”