IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v47y2014i4p339-344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Wesselink
  • Hal Colebatch
  • Warren Pearce

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:47:y:2014:i:4:p:339-344
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-014-9209-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-014-9209-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-014-9209-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Shulock, 1999. "The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 226-244.
    2. Hal Colebatch, 2006. "What work makes policy?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(4), pages 309-321, December.
    3. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.
    4. Ann-Charlotte Nedlund & Peter Garpenby, 2014. "Puzzling about problems: the ambiguous search for an evidence-based strategy for handling influx of health technology," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 367-386, December.
    5. Anna Wesselink & Andy Gouldson, 2014. "Pathways to impact in local government: the mini-Stern review as evidence in policy making in the Leeds City Region," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 403-424, December.
    6. John Boswell, 2014. "‘Hoisted with our own petard’: evidence and democratic deliberation on obesity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 345-365, December.
    7. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    2. Bridget O'Laughlin & Moritz Hunsmann, 2016. "Forum 2016," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 47(4), pages 798-817, July.
    3. Justin O. Parkhurst, 2016. "Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 373-393, December.
    4. E. E. A. Wolf & Wouter Van Dooren, 2017. "How policies become contested: a spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 449-468, September.
    5. Weldon, Isaac & Parkhurst, Justin, 2022. "Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112430, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Hennen, Leonhard & Nierling, Linda, 2019. "The politics of technology assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 17-22.
    7. Iris Stucki & Fritz Sager, 2018. "Aristotelian framing: logos, ethos, pathos and the use of evidence in policy frames," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 373-385, September.
    8. Denitsa Marchevska, 2024. "Enlightenment, politicisation or mere window dressing? Europeanisation and the use of evidence for policy making in Bulgaria," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 281-303, June.
    9. Natalie Papanastasiou, 2024. "The politics of generating best practice knowledge: Epistemic practice and rendering space technical in a European Commission working group on education policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 42(2), pages 179-197, March.
    10. Sarah Giest, 2017. "Big data for policymaking: fad or fasttrack?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 367-382, September.
    11. Yongjin Choi & Ashley M. Fox & Jennifer Dodge, 2022. "What counts? Policy evidence in public hearing testimonies: the case of single-payer healthcare in New York State," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(4), pages 631-660, December.
    12. Amelia Sharman, 2015. "Climate stories: why do climate scientists and sceptical voices participate in the climate debate?," GRI Working Papers 191, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Denitsa Marchevska, 2024. "Enlightenment, politicisation or mere window dressing? Europeanisation and the use of evidence for policy making in Bulgaria," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 281-303, June.
    2. Sedlačko Michal & Staroňová Katarína, 2015. "An Overview of Discourses on Knowledge in Policy: Thinking Knowledge, Policy and Conflict Together," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 10-31, December.
    3. Stucki, Iris, 2018. "Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 148-156.
    4. Schlaufer, Caroline, 2018. "The contribution of evaluations to the discourse quality of newspaper content," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 157-165.
    5. E. E. A. Wolf & Wouter Van Dooren, 2017. "How policies become contested: a spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 449-468, September.
    6. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    7. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    8. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Policy Advice in Multi-Level Governance Systems: Sub-National Policy Analysts and Analysis," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.
    9. Amy A. Quark & Rachel Lienesch, 2017. "Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 645-661, September.
    10. Deveci, Muhammet & Pamucar, Dragan & Gokasar, Ilgin & Isik, Mehtap & Coffman, D'Maris, 2022. "Fuzzy Einstein WASPAS approach for the economic and societal dynamics of the climate change mitigation strategies in urban mobility planning," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-17.
    11. Justin Longo & Alan Rodney Dobell, 2018. "The Limits of Policy Analytics: Early Examples and the Emerging Boundary of Possibilities," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 5-17.
    12. Claire A Dunlop, 2014. "The Possible Experts: How Epistemic Communities Negotiate Barriers to Knowledge Use in Ecosystems Services Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 208-228, April.
    13. Aurélien Goutsmedt & Francesco Sergi & François Claveau & Clément Fontan, 2023. "The Different Paths of Central Bank Scientization: The Case of the Bank of England," Working Papers hal-04267004, HAL.
    14. Thomas V Maher & Charles Seguin & Yongjun Zhang & Andrew P Davis, 2020. "Social scientists’ testimony before Congress in the United States between 1946-2016, trends from a new dataset," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, March.
    15. Eyert, Florian & Irgmaier, Florian & Ulbricht, Lena, 2022. "Extending the framework of algorithmic regulation. The Uber case," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 23-44.
    16. Jingjing Zeng & Guihua Huang, 2024. "Bureaucratic biases in trust of expert policy advice: a randomized controlled experiment based on Chinese think tank reports," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 305-351, June.
    17. Iris Stucki & Fritz Sager, 2018. "Aristotelian framing: logos, ethos, pathos and the use of evidence in policy frames," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 373-385, September.
    18. David J. Pannell, 2004. "Effectively communicating economics to policy makers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 535-555, September.
    19. Witting Antje, 2015. "Measuring the Use of Knowledge in Policy Development," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 54-62, December.
    20. Peter D. Gluckman & Anne Bardsley & Matthias Kaiser, 2021. "Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:47:y:2014:i:4:p:339-344. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.