Axiomathes

, 19:425 | Cite as

Questions of Evidence in Evidence-Based Policy

Original Paper

Abstract

Evidence-based approaches to policy-making are growing in popularity. A generally embraced view is that with the appropriate evidence at hand, decision and policy making will be optimal, legitimate and publicly accountable. In practice, however, evidence-based policy making is constrained by a variety of problems of evidence. Some of these problems will be explored in this article, in the context of the debates on evidence from which they originate. It is argued that the source of much disagreement might be a failure to addressing crucial philosophical assumptions that inform, often silently, these debates. Three controversial questions will be raised which appear central to some of the challenges faced by evidence-based policy making: firstly, how do certain types of facts candidate themselves as evidence; secondly, how do we decide what evidence we have, and how much of it; and thirdly, can we combine evidence. In addressing these questions it will be shown how a philosophically informed debate might prove instrumental in clarifying and settling practical difficulties.

Keywords

Evidence Policy-making Facts Practical objectivity Transparency 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper presents some of the issues and questions pursued in the research project “Evidence for Use”, hosted by the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science at the London School of Economics. I am grateful to Nancy Cartwright and the other members of the research group for enlightening discussions over the topic.

References

  1. Cabinet Office (1999) Modernising government, white paper Cm 4310, HMSOGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell Collaboration. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org
  3. Cartwright N (1999) The vanity of rigour in economics. Discussion paper series, CPNSS. Expanded version in P. Fontaine and R. Leonard (eds) (2005) The experiment in the history of economics. Routledge, London-New York, pp 135–153Google Scholar
  4. Cartwright N (2007a) Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties 2(2):11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cartwright N (2007b) Evidence based policy and its ranking schemes: so, where’s ethnography? (mimeo)Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright N et al (2007) Evidence-based policy: where is our theory of evidence? CPNSS/Contingency and Dissent DP, London. Also published in Beckermann A, Tetens H, Walter S (eds) (2008) Philosophy: foundations and applications. Main lectures and colloquia talks of the German analytic philosophy conference GAP. 6. Mentis-Verlag, PaderbornGoogle Scholar
  7. Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane.org
  8. Commission of the European Communities (2001) European governance: a white paper. Commission of the European communities: Brussels. COMGoogle Scholar
  9. Daston L, Galison P (1992) The image of objectivity. Representation 40:135–156Google Scholar
  10. Daston L, Galison P (2007) Objectivity. Zone Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawid AP (2008) Statistics and the law. In: Bell A, Swenson J, Tybjerg W-K (eds) Evidence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 119–148Google Scholar
  12. Dehue T (2002) A Dutch treat. Randomized controlled experimentation and the case of heroin-maintenance in the Netherlands. Hist Human Sci 15:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gigerenzer G (2002) Reckoning with risk. Penguin Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Gigerenzer G et al (1989) Empire of chance: how probability changed science and everyday life. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Haack S (ed) (2003) Clues to the puzzle of scientific evidence: a more-so story. In: Defending science—within reason. Prometheus Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Hacking I (1975) The emergence of probability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunter DJ (2003) Evidence-based policy and practice: riding for a fall? J R Soc Med 96(4):194–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jefferson T (2003) Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine 21:3954–3960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lynch M, McNally R (2003) Science, “common sense”, and DNA evidence: a legal controversy about the public understanding of science. Public Underst Sci 12:83–103Google Scholar
  20. Martin E (2006) Evidence, objectivity and public policy: methodological perspectives on the vaccine controversy. APA Proc Address 81(3) (mimeo)Google Scholar
  21. Mayo D (1988) Towards a more objective understanding of carcinogenic risk. PSA Proc 2:489–503Google Scholar
  22. Montuschi E (2003) The objects of social science. Continuum Press, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network) (2004). http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/50/compevidence.html
  24. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence (2007). http://www.cebm.jr2.ox.ac.uk/docs/level.html
  25. Porter T (1995) Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  26. Scientific advice, risk and evidence: how government handles them (2006) Evidence Report 15 Feb 2006. http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology_committee/sag.cfm
  27. Seckinelgin H (2007) Evidence based policy for HIV/AIDS interventions: questions of external validity, or relevance for use. Dev Change 38(6):1219–1234Google Scholar
  28. Suter G (1993) Ecological risk assesment. Lewis Publ, ChelseaGoogle Scholar
  29. Wakefield A et al (1998) Ideal lymphoid-nodular hyper-plasia, non specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351:637–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social ScienceLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations