IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v47y2014i4p387-402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance

Author

Abstract

Since 2012, a new movement of government departments, think tanks and high-profile individuals within the UK has sought to promote the increased usage of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in public policy. They promote RCTs as an evidence-based corrective for the inappropriate certainties of experts. Recent government reports and public debate around this initiative are reviewed and analysed within a framework for epistemic governance: normative insights into how knowledge for policymaking should be understood and governed drawn from science and technology studies and the policy sciences. The legitimacy of RCT evidence within policymaking is found to rest on the recognition of three key features: (1) how multiple meanings of evidence limit generalisability, (2) ensuring a plurality of evidence inputs, including those from other forms of research and expertise, and (3) building institutions for governing the use of RCTs in the public interest. Producing evidence for policymaking is a hybrid activity that necessarily spans both science and politics. Presenting RCTs as naively neutral evidence of what policy interventions work is misleading. The paper concludes by calling for more work on how the new RCT movement might engage with its own history in social and policy research on the value of experiments for policymaking. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:47:y:2014:i:4:p:387-402
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-014-9208-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-014-9208-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-014-9208-3?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. Gerry Stoker, 2010. "Exploring the Promise of Experimentation in Political Science: Micro-Foundational Insights and Policy Relevance," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58, pages 300-319, March.
    2. Andy Stirling, 2012. "Opening Up the Politics of Knowledge and Power in Bioscience," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-5, January.
    3. Gerry Stoker & Peter John, 2009. "Design Experiments: Engaging Policy Makers in the Search for Evidence about What Works," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(2), pages 356-373, June.
    4. Brian Wynne, 2010. "When doubt becomes a weapon," Nature, Nature, vol. 466(7305), pages 441-442, July.
    5. Sheila Jasanoff, 2003. "(No?) Accounting for expertise," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 157-162, June.
    6. Bonell, Chris & Fletcher, Adam & Morton, Matthew & Lorenc, Theo & Moore, Laurence, 2012. "Realist randomised controlled trials: A new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2299-2306.
    7. Gerry Stoker, 2010. "Exploring the Promise of Experimentation in Political Science: Micro‐Foundational Insights and Policy Relevance," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(2), pages 300-319, March.
    8. Gerry Stoker & Peter John, 2009. "Design Experiments: Engaging Policy Makers in the Search for Evidence about What Works," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57, pages 356-373, June.
    9. 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. Florian Eyert & Florian Irgmaier & Lena Ulbricht, 2022. "Extending the framework of algorithmic regulation. The Uber case," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 23-44, January.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Straßheim, Holger & Korinek, Rebecca-Lea, 2018. "Welten der Verhaltenspolitik: Nudging im inter- und transnationalen Vergleich," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 87(1), pages 81-91.
    6. Donovan, Kevin P., 2018. "The rise of the randomistas: on the experimental turn in international aid," SocArXiv xygzb, Center for Open Science.
    7. Margaret Dalziel, 2018. "Why are there (almost) no randomised controlled trial-based evaluations of business support programmes?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    8. Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2019. "Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Anna Gavine & Steve MacGillivray & Mary Ross-Davie & Kirstie Campbell & Linda White & Mary Renfrew, 2018. "Maximising the availability and use of high-quality evidence for policymaking: collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, December.
    10. Amanda Keddie, 2021. "NGOs working for gender justice with boys and men: Exploring challenges of accountability," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 1461-1474, July.
    11. Andrea Saltelli & Mario Giampietro, 2015. "The fallacy of evidence based policy," Papers 1607.07398, arXiv.org.
    12. 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.
    13. Shihong Guo & Qijiao Song & Ye Qi, 2021. "Innovation or implementation? Local response to low‐carbon policy experimentation in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 555-569, September.
    14. Wintrup, James, 2022. "Promising careers? A critical analysis of a randomised control trial in community health worker recruitment in Zambia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).

    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. Shihong Guo & Qijiao Song & Ye Qi, 2021. "Innovation or implementation? Local response to low‐carbon policy experimentation in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 555-569, September.
    2. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Ansell, Christopher K. & Bartenberger, Martin, 2016. "Varieties of experimentalism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 64-73.
    4. 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.
    5. Laurent Hazard & Nathalie Couix & Camille Lacombe, 2022. "From evidence to value-based transition: the agroecological redesign of farming systems," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 405-416, March.
    6. Eva Sørensen & Jacob Torfing, 2021. "Accountable Government through Collaborative Governance?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Gerry Stoker, 2010. "Translating Experiments into Policy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 628(1), pages 47-58, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Gerry Stoker, 2010. "Exploring the Promise of Experimentation in Political Science: Micro‐Foundational Insights and Policy Relevance," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(2), pages 300-319, March.
    10. Broström, Anders & McKelvey, Maureen, 2016. "Knowledge transfer at the science-policy interface: How cognitive distance and the degree of expert autonomy shapes the outcome," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 441, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    11. Michael Brzoska & Raphael Bossong & Eric van Um, 2011. "Security Economics in the European Context: Implications of the EUSECON Project," Economics of Security Working Paper Series 58, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    12. Steven Donbavand & Bryony Hoskins, 2021. "Citizenship Education for Political Engagement: A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, April.
    13. Eric Chu & Todd Schenk & James Patterson, 2018. "The Dilemmas of Citizen Inclusion in Urban Planning and Governance to Enable a 1.5 °C Climate Change Scenario," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(2), pages 128-140.
    14. Guillaume Martin & Sandrine Allain & Jacques-Eric Bergez & Delphine Burger-Leenhardt & Julie Constantin & Michel Duru & Laurent Hazard & Camille Lacombe & Danièle Magda & Marie-Angélina Magne & Julie , 2018. "How to Address the Sustainability Transition of Farming Systems? A Conceptual Framework to Organize Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    15. Michael McGann & Emma Blomkamp & Jenny M. Lewis, 2018. "The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 249-267, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Katherine Ball & Kirk Jalbert & Lisa Test, 2021. "Making the board: participatory game design for environmental action," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 12-22, March.
    18. Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "An evolving science-society contract in India: The search for legitimacy in anticipatory risk governance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 736-741.
    19. Wolfgang A. Markham & Alan Dolan & Graham F. Moore, 2021. "A Sociological Framework to Reduce Aberrant Behaviour of School Students Through Increasing School Connectedness," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    20. 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.

    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:387-402. 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.