Abstract
This chapter identifies how scientists, seeking to influence the policy process, can act in a more informed way. Should scientists stop bemoaning the real world and start adapting to it? I consider alternative ways to think about evidence-based policymaking, considering the legitimate role of elected policymakers, to pay selective attention to scientific evidence, and weigh it up against the preferences of other participants in the policy process, such as ‘the public’, the users of public services, and the organisations charged with implementing policy. In that context, I outline a set of ways in which scientists can adapt, to influence, rather than simply bemoan the pathologies of, the policy process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alter, A., & Oppenheimer, D. (2008). Easy on the mind, easy on the wallet: The roles of familiarity and processing fluency in valuation judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 985–990.
Alter, A., & Oppenheimer, D. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235.
Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993; 2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (1st and 2nd eds.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Cairney, P. (2012). Understanding public policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Cairney, P. (2013). What is evolutionary theory and how does it inform policy studies? Policy and Politics, 41(2), 279–298.
Cairney, P. (2015c). Evidence-based best practice is more political than it looks: A case study of the ‘Scottish approach’. Paper to ESRC academic practitioner workshop, Centre on Constitutional Change, Edinburgh, 10 June.
Cairney, P. (2015d). These complaints about ignoring science seem biased and naïve—And too easy to dismiss. https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/these-complaints-about-ignoring-science-seem-biased-and-naive-and-too-easy-to-dismiss/
Cairney, P., & St. Denny, E. (2015). What happens when a ‘policy window’ opens to produce a vague solution to an ill-defined policy problem? Paper to International Conference on Public Policy, Milan, July.
Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Constantinescu, D. (2012). The role of emotion in judicial decision-making. Available at SSRN 2000857.
Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses unbound: Studies in rationality, precommitment, and constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frank, R. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the emotions. New York: Norton.
Greenaway, J. (2008). Agendas, venues and alliances: New opportunities for the alcohol control movement in England. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 15(5), 487–501.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.
Jasanoff, S. (1986). Risk management and political culture: A comparative analysis of science in a policy context. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kingdon, J. (1984; 1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies (1st & 2nd eds.). New York: Harper Collins.
Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.
Lindblom, C. (1964). Contexts for change and strategy: A reply. Public Administration Review, 24(3), 157–158.
Lindblom, C. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517–525.
Lustick, I. (2011). Taking evolution seriously. Polity, 43(2), 179–209.
McCaughey, D., & Bruning, N. S. (2010). Rationality versus reality: The challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers. Implementation Science, 5, 39. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-39. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/39.
Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.
Nutley, S., Powell, A., & Davies, H. (2013). What counts as good evidence. London: Alliance for Useful Evidence. http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/What-Counts-as-Good-Evidence-WEB.pdf.
Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: Sage.
Sanderson, I. (2009). Intelligent policy making for a complex world: Pragmatism, evidence and learning. Political Studies, 57, 699–719.
Smith, K. (2013). Beyond evidence based policy in public health: The interplay of ideas. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stoker, G. (2010). Translating experiments into policy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 628(1), 47–58.
Stoker, G. (2013). Why policymakers ignore evidence. Southampton: University of Southampton. http://publicpolicy.southampton.ac.uk/why-policymakers-ignore-evidence/.
Sunstein, C. (2002). Risk and reason: Safety, law, and the environment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, B. (2013). Evidence-based policy and systemic change: Conflicting trends? (Springfield Working Paper Series no. 1). Durham: The Springfield Centre.
True, J. L., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2007). Punctuated equilibrium theory. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.
Van Kleef, G., De Dreu, C., & Manstead, A. (2010). An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision making: The emotions as social information model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 45–96.
Weale, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy: Science advice, democratic responsiveness and public policy. Science and Public Policy, 28(6), 413–421.
Weible, C., Heikkila, T., deLeon, P., & Sabatier, P. (2012). Understanding and influencing the policy process. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 1–21.
Weinberger, N. (2014). (Review) Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Economics and Philosophy, 30(1), 113–120.
Williams, I., & Glasby, J. (2010). Making ‘what works’ work: The use of knowledge in UK health and social care decision-making. Policy and Society, 29, 95–102.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cairney, P. (2016). Conclusion: How to Respond to the Limits of EBPM. In: The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-51780-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-51781-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)