Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 367–386 | Cite as

Puzzling about problems: the ambiguous search for an evidence-based strategy for handling influx of health technology

  • Ann-Charlotte NedlundEmail author
  • Peter Garpenby
Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on problem frame differences among actors (members of an advisory body, senior administrators and clinical unit managers) who are concerned with the introduction of new health technology at the regional level in Sweden. It explores issues related to problem framing, puzzling, powering, participation and the various rationales articulated in the ambiguous search for an evidence-based strategy to handle the influx of new technologies. The Health Technology Advisory Committee (HTAC) was established in one Swedish county council in 2004 with the intention of controlling both the introduction of health technology and supporting policy decision and clinical practice by promoting the use of best evidence. The HTAC followed a scientific rationality dominated by one problem frame, although the problematic situation, as it was framed by all the actor groups, was highly complex and not solely a matter of evidence. This paper illustrates how problem frame differences shape the puzzling of a policy problem and how the different distinguishable policy styles are dependent on who is participating and who is not participating in the puzzling.

Keywords

Evidence-based policy Problem frames Policy practice Policy style Health technology Sweden 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The article is based on research supported by the Vinnvård Research Program Grant no. A2008-017 "INTEGRAL" and by the County Council of Östergötland, Sweden.The Informants are acknowledged with gratitude. The authors also thank the organizers and the participants at the panel "Evidence and Meaning in Policy Practice", at the Interpretive Policy Analysis Conference 2012, in Tilburg, as well as the three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Bijker, W. E., Bal, R., & Hendrik, R. (2009). The paradox of scientific authority: The role of scientific advice in democracies. Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems, 18, 298–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CCO [County Council of Ostergotland]. (2011). Verksamhetsberättelse Metodrådet 2009–2010. Februari 2011. Linköping: Landstinget i Östergötland.Google Scholar
  4. Colebatch, H. K. (2006). What work makes policy? Policy Sciences, 39(40), 309–321.Google Scholar
  5. Colebatch, H. (2011). Challenge and development: The emerging understanding of policy work. Politika misao, 48(5), 11–24.Google Scholar
  6. Dewulf, A., Craps, M., Bouwen, R., Taillieu, T., & Pahl-Wost, C. (2005). Integrated management of natural resources: Dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. Water Science and Technology, 52(6), 115–124.Google Scholar
  7. Freeman, R. (2007). Epistemological bricolage: How practitioners make sense of learning. Administration and Society, 39(40), 476–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman, R. (2009). What is ‘translation’? Evidence and Policy, 5(4), 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gillman, B. (2000). The research interview. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  10. Greenhalgh, T., & Russell, J. (2009). Evidence-based policymaking a critique. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52(2), 304–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hall, P. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heclo, H. (1974/2010). Modern social politics in Britain and Sweden. From relief to income maintenance. New Haven: Yale University Press. Republished 2010 by ECPR.Google Scholar
  13. Hisschemöller, M., & Hoppe, R. (1996). Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowledge for Policy, 4(8), 40–60.Google Scholar
  14. Hoppe, R. (2010). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering and participation. Bristol: The policy press.Google Scholar
  15. Howlett, M. (2002). Understanding national administrative cultures and their impact upon administrative reform: A neo-institutional model and analysis. Policy, Organisation and Society, 21(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein, R. (2003). Evidence and policy: Interpreting the Delphic oracle. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(9), 429–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lehoux, P., Denis, J. L., Rock, M., Hivon, M., & Tailliez, S. (2010). How medical specialists appraise three controversial health innovations: Scientific, clinical and social arguments. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(1), 123–139.Google Scholar
  18. Lin, V. (2003). Competing rationalities: Evidence-based health policy. In V. Lin, B. Gibson (Ed.), Evidence-based health policy: Problems and possibilities (pp. 3–17). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Moran, M. (1995). Three faces of the health care state. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 20(3), 767–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nedlund, A. C. (2012). Designing for legitimacy: Policy work and the art of juggling when setting limits in health care. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Noordegraaf, M. (2010). Academic accounts of policy experiences. In H. K. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Packer, C., Simpson, S., & Stevens, A. (2006). International diffusion of new health technologies: A ten-country analysis of six health technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22(4), 419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge, Technology and Policy, 9(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richardson, J., Gustafsson, G., & Jordan, G. (1982). The concept of policy style. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Policy styles in Western Europe. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  27. Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practise: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Carrying out qualitative analysis. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practise: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Russell, J., Greenhalgh, T., Byrne, E., & McDonnell, J. (2008). Recognizing rhetoric in health care policy analysis. Journal of Health Services Research Policy, 13(1), 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  31. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
  32. Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  33. Syrett, K. (2003). A technocratic fix to the “legitimacy problem”? The Blair government and health care rationing in the United Kingdom. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 28(4), 715–746. Google Scholar
  34. Turnbull, N. (2013). The questioning theory of policy practice: Outline of an integrated analytical framework. Critical Policy Studies, 7(2), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vink, M. J., Boezeman, D., Dewulf, A., & Termeer, C. J. A. M. (2012). Changing climate, changing frames. Dutch water policy frame developments in the context of a rise and fall of attention to climate change. Environmental Science and Policy, 30, 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Visser, J., Hemerijck, A. (1997). A Dutch miracle. Job growth, welfare reform and corporatism in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wagenaar, H. (2004). “Knowing” the rules: administrative work as practice. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Wesselink, A., & Hoppe, R. (2011). If post-normal science is the solution, what is the problem?: The politics of activist environmental science. Science, Technology and Human Values, 36(3), 389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Health Care Analysis, Department of Medical and Health SciencesLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations