IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v49y2016i4d10.1007_s11077-016-9263-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias

Author

Listed:
  • Justin O. Parkhurst

    (London School of Economics and Political Science)

Abstract

Wicked policy problems are often said to be characterized by their ‘intractability’, whereby appeals to evidence are unable to provide policy resolution. Advocates for ‘Evidence Based Policy’ (EBP) often lament these situations as representing the misuse of evidence for strategic ends, while critical policy studies authors counter that policy decisions are fundamentally about competing values, with the (blind) embrace of technical evidence depoliticizing political decisions. This paper aims to help resolve these conflicts and, in doing so, consider how to address this particular feature of problem wickedness. Specifically the paper delineates two forms of evidentiary bias that drive intractability, each of which is reflected by contrasting positions in the EBP debates: ‘technical bias’—referring to invalid uses of evidence; and ‘issue bias’—referring to how pieces of evidence direct policy agendas to particular concerns. Drawing on the fields of policy studies and cognitive psychology, the paper explores the ways in which competing interests and values manifest in these forms of bias, and shape evidence utilization through different mechanisms. The paper presents a conceptual framework reflecting on how the nature of policy problems in terms of their complexity, contestation, and polarization can help identify the potential origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias leading to intractability in some wicked policy debates. The discussion reflects on how a better understanding about such mechanisms could inform future work to mitigate or overcome such intractability.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:49:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-016-9263-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-016-9263-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-016-9263-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-016-9263-z?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. Harri Raisio & Pirkko Vartiainen, 2015. "Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 339-361, September.
    2. 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.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:407-424 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Parkhurst, Justin O. & Chilongozi, David & Hutchinson, Eleanor, 2015. "Doubt, defiance, and identity: Understanding resistance to male circumcision for HIV prevention in Malawi," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 15-22.
    5. Sean Snyder, 2013. "The Simple, the Complicated, and the Complex: Educational Reform Through the Lens of Complexity Theory," OECD Education Working Papers 96, OECD Publishing.
    6. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    7. Selda Ulucanlar & Gary J Fooks & Jenny L Hatchard & Anna B Gilmore, 2014. "Representation and Misrepresentation of Scientific Evidence in Contemporary Tobacco Regulation: A Review of Tobacco Industry Submissions to the UK Government Consultation on Standardised Packaging," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Southwick, Lawrence, 2000. "Self-defense with guns: The consequences," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 351-370.
    9. Frédéric Varone & Stéphane Nahrath & David Aubin & Jean-David Gerber, 2013. "Functional regulatory spaces," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(4), pages 311-333, December.
    10. Kelly Levin & Benjamin Cashore & Steven Bernstein & Graeme Auld, 2012. "Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(2), pages 123-152, June.
    11. Baron, Jonathan, 1997. "Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 301-309, May-June.
    12. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    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. Jennifer E. Mosley & Katherine Gibson, 2017. "Strategic use of evidence in state-level policymaking: matching evidence type to legislative stage," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 697-719, December.
    2. Giliberto Capano & Anna Malandrino, 2022. "Mapping the use of knowledge in policymaking: barriers and facilitators from a subjectivist perspective (1990–2020)," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 399-428, September.
    3. Andrew Joyce & Emma Risely & Celia Green & Gemma Carey & Fiona Buick, 2023. "What Can Public Health Administration Learn from the Decision-Making Processes during COVID-19?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Sanaz Honarmand Ebrahimi & Marinus Ossewaarde, 2019. "Not a Security Issue: How Policy Experts De-Politicize the Climate Change–Migration Nexus," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Jesper Dahl Kelstrup & Jonas Videbæk Jørgensen, 2024. "Explaining differences in research utilization in evidence-based government ministries," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 257-280, June.
    6. William J. Fleming, 2024. "Employee well‐being outcomes from individual‐level mental health interventions: Cross‐sectional evidence from the United Kingdom," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(2), pages 162-182, March.
    7. Tanja Brüchert & Paula Quentin & Sabine Baumgart & Gabriele Bolte, 2021. "Barriers, Facilitating Factors, and Intersectoral Collaboration for Promoting Active Mobility for Healthy Aging—A Qualitative Study within Local Government in Germany," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Moshe Maor & Tereza Capelos, 2023. "Symposium: Affect and emotions in policy dynamics," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 439-448, September.
    9. Kate Crowley & Brian W. Head, 2017. "The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: revisiting Rittel and Webber," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 539-547, December.

    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. Kate Crowley & Brian W. Head, 2017. "The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: revisiting Rittel and Webber," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 539-547, December.
    2. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    3. Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Schläpfer, Felix & Lobsiger, Michael, 2017. "A Novel Approach to Estimating the Demand Value of Road Safety," ETA: Economic Theory and Applications 254045, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    4. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2002. "Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 329-342.
    5. Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Schläpfer, Felix & Lobsiger, Michael, 2018. "A novel approach to estimating the demand value of public safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 285-305.
    6. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    7. Moore, Don A. & Cain, Daylian M., 2007. "Overconfidence and underconfidence: When and why people underestimate (and overestimate) the competition," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 197-213, July.
    8. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Lucius Caviola & Nadira Faulmüller & Jim. A. C. Everett & Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane, 2014. "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 303-315, July.
    10. Natalie Slawinski & Jonatan Pinkse & Timo Busch & Subhabrata Bobby Banerjeed, 2014. "The role of short-termism and uncertainty in organizational inaction on climate change: multilevel framework," Working Papers hal-00961226, HAL.
    11. Joseph A Hamm & Corwin Smidt & Roger C Mayer, 2019. "Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    12. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    13. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    14. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    15. Aubel Martin & Pikturniene Indre & Joye Yannick, 2022. "Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Response to Service Robot Anthropomorphism in Banking," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 30(2), pages 26-42, June.
    16. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    17. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    18. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:130-134 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Henry H. Willis & H. Keith Florig, 2002. "Potential Exposures and Risks from Beryllium‐Containing Products," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 1019-1033, October.
    21. Kai Greenlees & Randolph Cornelius, 2021. "The promise of panarchy in managed retreat: converging psychological perspectives and complex adaptive systems theory," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 503-510, 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:49:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-016-9263-z. 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.