IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v51y2024i3p553-556..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taking pluralism seriously: a new perspective on evidence-based policy

Author

Listed:
  • Karim Bschir
  • Simon Lohse

Abstract

Scientific policy advice in the face of complex real-world problems requires a maximally pluralistic knowledge base. However, integrating different types of knowledge from a variety of sources raises a series of highly challenging epistemic as well as practical problems. We propose an integrated model of pluralistic policy advice emphasizing the appropriate constitution and structure of pluralistic expert panels. Furthermore, we suggest that normative assumptions underlying expert advice should be made explicit to policymakers. The goal should not be to avoid normative biases, but rather to create transparency with respect to the unavoidable value judgements that influence the epistemic preferences of experts and to provide policymakers with evidence-based scenarios that range over a variety of value preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Karim Bschir & Simon Lohse, 2024. "Taking pluralism seriously: a new perspective on evidence-based policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 553-556.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:3:p:553-556.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scad074
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:3:p:553-556.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.