The webs of belief around ‘evidence’ in legislatures: The case of select committees in the UK House of Commons

Abstract

A wide‐ranging literature has explored the relationship between research, knowledge and policy. However, legislatures have often been overlooked in this research. While some studies have looked at ‘who has access’, the literature on how parliaments seek to engage with knowledge claims is particularly scarce. This article addresses this gap through a case study of UK select committees. By adopting an interpretive lens, the article explores how MPs and officials make sense of evidence in committee settings. It finds that legalistic definitions around ‘evidence’ shape wider beliefs in how to engage with knowledge claims and the practices of undertaking inquiries, and are underpinned by a distinctly political function of knowledge use in politics. Beliefs around evidence have significant repercussions and highlight tensions (i) around the authority of committee reports, (ii) between epistemic and democratic claims and (iii) with respect to who is included and who is excluded.

Enabling knowledge brokerage intermediaries to be evidence-informed

“…Similar questions about the nature of the brokerage activity can be asked of expert scientific advisory committees. There is not always clarity about how they identify and select experts to be members (including skills, topic areas, relationships with and perspectives shared with government), or the functioning of the committees and how they make decisions (Gough, 2020;Geddes, 2020). As the methods and processes are not explicit, the theories of change about their outcomes (and how this would differ from other approaches to providing science advice) are also not clear.…”

“…There has been a focus on how government uses advice to respond to health emergencies such as the BSE crisis (Hinchliffe, 2001) and now the COVID-19 pandemic, with the latter subject to an inquiry by the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee (Gough, 2020). There is also research on the use of evidence by legislatures (Kenny et al, 2017;Geddes, 2020).…”

Use of research evidence in legislatures: a systematic review

“…Availability and accessibility are the last analytical theme identified under the category of institution and organisation. The accessibility of research evidence (Kenny et al, 2017;Geddes et al, 2017;Bogenschneider et al, 2019a;Bogenschneider et al, 2019b;Rose et al, 2020;Geddes, 2020), research evidence that is available and accessible when a window of opportunity opens (Purtle et al, 2016;Kenny et al, 2017;Mosley and Gibson, 2017;Geddes et al, 2017;Rose et al, 2020;Geddes, 2020), and capacity of information provider to rapidly respond as issues arose (Jewell and Bero, 2008), were seen as facilitators of use. Lack of timeliness and rarely receiving unsolicited research evidence (Kenny et al, 2017;Rose et al, 2020), as well as lack of access or subscription to databases (Guston et al, 2005;Dodson et al, 2015;Dodson et al, 2015;Bogenschneider et al, 2019a;Bogenschneider and Bogenschneider, 2020), were seen as hindrances to the use of research evidence.…”

The Law: “If Men Were Angels”: The Legal Dynamics of Overseeing the Executive Branch

“…There can be electoral benefits to creating confrontation with a president of the opposite party in order to further a narrative of executive corruption, government waste, or policy failure (Lowande and Peck 2017; Parker and Dull 2009; Wright 2014). As a result, the internal and political dynamics of legislative committees during oversight are complex, theatrical, and not entirely driven by evidence (Geddes 2020a; 2020b). Partisan polarization can make scandal production and information suppression more likely (see Dziuda and Howell 2021).…”