Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 345–365 | Cite as

‘Hoisted with our own petard’: evidence and democratic deliberation on obesity

  • John BoswellEmail author
Article

Abstract

Key actors engaged in debate on obesity in Australia and the UK subscribe to radically different narratives about the nature, extent and even existence of this public health problem. Yet there is a common thread to these clashing narratives: evidence. All are emphatic that their story is ‘evidence-based’. In this paper, I seek to examine this state of affairs by looking at how actors think about, use and interpret evidence across a range of sites of policy debate on this issue. In doing so, I contribute to academic inquiry about the place of evidence in democratic deliberation. Firstly, I find that there is a high degree of consensus among actors who promote differing interpretations of the issue on what evidence means and entails in the abstract. Secondly, I find that the differing narratives on obesity are underpinned by different interpretations of the evidence, but that internal inconsistencies affect each of these competing narratives as well. As such, I argue that policy actors should not be seen just as strategically marshalling convenient evidence to support a preconceived cause. Overall, I suggest that these findings have mixed implications for democratic deliberation on the issue, enhancing the deliberative side of the equation but undermining the democratic. I then point to ways in which the goals of evidence-based and democratic policymaking on this issue may be further reconciled.

Keywords

Evidence-based policy-making Deliberative democracy Obesity Science and public policy Public health policy 

References

  1. Aphramor, L. (2009). All shapes and sizes. The Guardian, May 9.Google Scholar
  2. Banwell, C., Broom, D., Davies, A., & Dixon, J. (2013). Weight of modernity: An intergenerational study in the rise of obesity. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Berg, C. (2008). Tackling obesity—Should the public pay? The case against. Sunday Age, January 6.Google Scholar
  4. Boswell, J., Niemeyer, S., & Hendriks, C. M. (2013). Julia Gillard’s citizens’ assembly for Australia: A deliberative democratic analysis. Australian Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 164–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botterill, L. (2006). Leaps of faith in the obesity debate: A cautionary note for policy-makers. The Political Quarterly, 77(4), 493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botterill, L., & Hindmoor, A. (2012). Turtles all the way down: Bounded rationality in an evidence-based age. Policy Studies, 33(5), 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. (2010). Call for more obesity surgery to cut benefits and NHS bills. The Guardian, September 7.Google Scholar
  8. Campos, P. (2004). The obesity myth: Why America’s obsession with weight is hazardous to your health. New York: Gotham Books.Google Scholar
  9. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowell, L. (2010). The women who want to be obese. The Guardian, March 18.Google Scholar
  11. Dixon, J., & Broom, D. H. (Eds.). (2007). The seven deadly sins of obesity: How the modern world is making us fat. Sydney: UNSW Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative democracy. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Estlund, D. (1997). Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of democratic authority. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Farrelly, E. (2009). The fat of the land. Sydney Morning Herald, June 18.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy—Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foresight. (2007). Tackling obesities: Future choices—Project report (The Foresight Report). London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  20. Freiberg, A., & Carson, W. G. (2010). The limits to evidence-based policy: Evidence, emotion and criminal justice. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(2), 152–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gard, M., & Wright, J. (2001). The obesity epidemic. Science, morality and ideology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora‘s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Greenhalgh, T., & Russell, J. (2006). Reframing evidence synthesis as rhetorical action in the policy making drama. Healthcare Policy, 1(2), 34–42.Google Scholar
  25. Guilliatt, R. (2009). Off the scale. The Australian, 8 May.Google Scholar
  26. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Henderson, J., House, E., Coveney, J., Meyer, S., Ankeny, R., Ward, P., et al. (2013). Evaluating the use of citizens’ juries in food policy: A case study of food regulation. BMC Public Health, 13, 596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hendriks, C. M. (2007). Praxis stories: Experiencing interpretive policy research. Critical Policy Studies, 1(3), 278–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henry, J. (2008). ‘Obesity crusade’ drives children to anorexia. The Daily Telegraph, April 20.Google Scholar
  31. Hess, D. J. (2004). Medical modernisation, scientific research fields, and the epistemic politics of health social movements. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26(6), 695–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: From ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Innes, J. (1990). Knowledge and public policy: The search for meaningful indicators (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Transaction.Google Scholar
  35. John, P. (1998). Analysing public policy. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  36. Jolly, R. (2011). Marketing obesity? Junk food, advertising and kids. Research Paper no. 9, 201011, Australian Parliamentary Library, Canberra.Google Scholar
  37. Lahsen, M. (2008). Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist ‘trio’ supporting the backlash against global warming. Global Environmental Change, 18, 204–219.Google Scholar
  38. Lang, T., & Rayner, G. (2007). Overcoming policy cacophony on obesity: An ecological public health framework for policymakers. Obesity Reviews, 8, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lowy, I. (1992). The strength of loose concepts—Boundary concepts, federated experimental strategies and disciplinary growth: the case of immunology. History of Science, 30, 371–396.Google Scholar
  40. Marmot, M. (2010). Ignorance is as big a killer as obesity. The Observer, August 15.Google Scholar
  41. Milewa, T., & Barry, C. (2005). Health policy and the politics of evidence. Social Policy and Administration, 39(5), 498–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Milne, S. (2010). The corporate grip on public life is a threat to democracy. The Guardian, November 17.Google Scholar
  43. Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Smith, P. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  44. O’Dea, J. A. (2010). Developing positive approaches to nutrition education and the prevention of child and adolescent obesity: First, do no harm. In J. A. O’Dea & M. E. Eriksen (Eds.), Childhood obesity prevention—International research, controversies and interventions (pp. 31–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Orsini, M., & Scala, F. (2006). Every virus tells a story: Toward a narrative centred approach to health policy. Policy and Society, 25(2), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ospina, S., & Dodge, J. (2005). It’s about time: Catching method up to meaning—The usefulness of narrative inquiry in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parsons, W. (2002). From muddling through to muddling up: Evidence based policy making and the modernization of British government. Public Policy and Administration, 17(3), 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Preventative Health Taskforce. (2009). Australia: The healthiest country by 2020. Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing.Google Scholar
  49. Proietto, J. (2008). Surgery will do more than education to fix the obesity epidemic. The Age, February 19.Google Scholar
  50. Randall, J. (2009). We’re in denial: Afraid to face up to the real causes of recession. The Daily Telegraph, February 5.Google Scholar
  51. Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ryan, S., & Bita, N. (2009). Childhood obesity epidemic a myth, says research. The Australian, January 9.Google Scholar
  53. Sammut, J. (2008). CIS submission to the standing Committee on Health and Ageing. Canberra: Inquiry into Obesity in Australia, House of Representatives, Australian government.Google Scholar
  54. Schwandt, T. (1997). Evaluation as practical hermeneutics. Evaluation, 3, 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Shugart, H. A. (2011). Shifting the balance: The contemporary narrative of obesity. Health Communication, 26(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith, G. (2005). Power beyond the ballot: 57 democratic innovations from around the world. London: The Power Inquiry.Google Scholar
  58. Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox and political reason: The art of political decision making, revised edn. WW Norton & Company, New York.Google Scholar
  59. Swierstra, T. (2011). Behaviour, environment or body: Three discourses on obesity. In M. Korthals (Ed.), Genomics, obesity and the struggle over responsibilities (Vol. 18, pp. 27–38). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tenbensel, T. (2006). Policy knowledge for policy work. In H. K. Colebatch (Ed.), The work of policy: An international survey (pp. 199–216). Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  61. The Australian. (2008). More nanny state. The Australian, May 19. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/more-nanny-state/story-e6frg72o-1111116374935. Accessed January 17, 2013.
  62. Throgmorton, J. A. (1991). The rhetorics of policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 24(2), 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Toynbee, P. (2007). We need to start a social revolution by truly putting children first. The Guardian, October 19. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/19/comment.children. Accessed January 18, 2013.
  64. Wood, M., Ferlie, E., & Fitzgerald, L. (1998). Achieving clinical behaviour change: A case of becoming indeterminate. Social Science and Medicine, 47(11), 1729–1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Politics and International RelationsThe University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.ANZSOG Institute for GovernanceUniversity of CanberraCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations