Mechanisms to Bridge the Gap Between Science and Politics in Evidence-Informed Policymaking: Mapping the Landscape

Abstract

Despite long-standing efforts to enhance evidence-informed decision-making in public health policy, tensions remain between the goal of basing decisions on the best available scientific evidence and the need to balance competing aims, interests, and evidentiary sources in representative democracies. In response, several strategies have been proposed both to democratize evidence production and evaluation, and to effectively integrate evidence into the decision-making processes of institutions of representative democracy. Drawing on a synthesis of the conceptual and empirical literature, this chapter describes and categorizes mechanisms that aim to reconcile political and scientific considerations in evidence-informed policymaking and develops an analytical typology that identifies salient dimensions of variation in their selection and design.

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

“…Our findings show that local public health problem severity (e.g., motor vehicle fatalities, COVID-19 cases) is not a reliable predictor of policy action (Givens & Mistur, 2021;Kavanagh et al, 2021;Sebhatu et al, 2020;Winder & LaPlant, 2000). From the perspective of public health practice, this finding confirms tacit understanding that public health surveillance, while important and necessary, is not sufficient to prompt public policy action (Chambers et al, 2006). Governments may vary in their capacity to obtain, analyze, and use this information (Clouser-McCann et al, 2015;Shipan & Volden, 2014), or governments may be aware of public health threats, but privilege other factors in decision-making, such as non-health measures of policy success (Shipan & Volden, 2008), or pressures from other government jurisdictions via one or more diffusion mechanisms.…”

“…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).…”

Exploring evidence use and capacity for health services management and planning in Swiss health administrations: A mixed-method interview study

“…Beyond that, administration leadership and civil servants currently possess little knowledge of potential EIPM-supportive measures. Building internal capacity and organizational processes might help them make better use of existing tools and services [ 4 , 5 , 55 , 56 ].…”

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

“…These days, most policymakers and many (especially social and political researchers) believe that a pluralist, diverse evidence base is the ideal starting point for decisions to be made about public policy and practice (Head, 2008). As a way of achieving this aim, it is now fairly common to see calls for more deliberative, democratic approaches to knowledge production and use (Degeling et al, 2017;Stewart, 2017); see Chapter 13 (Cassola et al, 2022) and Chapter 4 (Kothari & Smith, 2022). This approach recognises that all forms of knowledge are social, in the sense that they are interpreted by humans within social settings, and therefore driven by and subject to societal and political values and interests (Douglas, 2009;Fafard, 2015;Jasanoff & Polsby, 1991).…”