Do policy actors have different views of what constitutes evidence in policymaking

Datos Bibliográficos

ID6327252
AutoresGrace Piddington (0009-0006-3868-3195, Cardiff University), Eleanor Mackillop (0000-0003-3345-7499, Cardiff University), James Downe (0000-0003-0772-3183, Cardiff University)
Año2024
Volumen52
Número2
Páginas239-258
Fecha de publicación2024-04-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaPolicy & Politics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0305-5736 • E-ISSN: 1470-8442
EditorialBristol University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1332/03055736y2024d000000032
OpenAlexW4392366807
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas2
Referencias citadas31

The role played by evidence in policymaking is hotly disputed and there is no agreement over how evidence is defined. This article examines whether policy actors have different views of what counts as evidence and which factors influence these perceptions (for example, professional background, length of service, organisation setting, cultures of evidence)? In addressing this question, we contribute to the growing research focus on the context of evidence use. Q methodology – a mixed method approach to study people’s attitudes towards a topic – is used in interviewing 67 policy actors and comparing two countries, Scotland and Wales, to find out whether there are different cultures of evidence. In both countries, we identified four distinct profiles of attitudes towards evidence: the evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) Idealist, the Pragmatist, the Inclusive, and the Political. Our research highlights important differences between the two contexts, with a greater leaning towards EBPM views of evidence in Wales, and more pragmatism in defining evidence in Scotland. We illustrate how different cultures of evidence coexist in a same context and highlight their similarities and differences. We also contribute to the understanding of the value of Q methodology research by showing that it can be used to compare two datasets collected in different countries

Economics · Political economy · Political science · Positive economics · Public economics · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Public Administration