Organised Chaos: An Interpretive Approach to Evidence-Based Policy Making in Defra

2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 959-977 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katy Wilkinson

The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has been heavily criticised for its handling of disease outbreaks in recent years by analysts who compare the conduct of officials with the model of evidence-based policy making, finding fault in their use of advisers or decision-making processes. In this article, I take an alternative approach to policy analysis, based on ethnographic research in the department. I explore the day-to-day interactions between scientific experts and policy makers in Defra to understand why policy making takes the form it does and how scientists negotiate their position within this process. I argue that policy making in Defra is organised by socially constructed narratives that help officials and advisers to make sense of their roles in the policy-making process. Drawing on insights from organisational sociology, I analyse the ways in which Defra officials talk about their responsibilities and understanding of their roles. These narratives act as ‘modes of ordering’ that bring about organisational realities by structuring their relationships, influencing the way they use scientific advice and consequently affecting policy outcomes. I outline three modes of ordering that can be identified in Defra – rationalism, bureaucracy and expediency – and demonstrate that they correspond to three complementary images of evidence-based policy making.

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 369-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Berridge

AbstractPolicy makers like the idea of new initiatives and fresh starts, unencumbered by, even actively overthrowing, what has been done in the past. At the same time, history can be pigeonholed as fusty and antiquarian, dealing with long past events of no relevance to the present. Academic historians are sometimes bound up in their own worlds. The debates central to academe may have little direct relevance to the immediate concerns of policy making. The paper argues that history, as the evidence-based discipline par excellence, is as relevant as other approaches to evidence-based policy making. Case studies can show us the nature of that relevance. How to achieve influence for history also needs discussion. The relationship is not straightforward and will vary according to time and place. History is an interpretative discipline, not just a collection of ‘facts’. The paper discusses how historians work and why it is important for policy makers to engage, not just with history, but with historians as well. Historians too need to think about the value of bringing their analysis into policy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 1344-1348
Author(s):  
Revency Vania Rugebregt ◽  
M.J. Saptenno ◽  
J. Tjiptabudy

Indigenous Peoples are a problem that is relatively unknown to the wider community because they are located in remote areas, and only certain areas have Indigenous Peoples problems. They are a very vulnerable group in our society and in the country in general. This happens because they lack access to development and even their rights tend to be neglected. Apart from that, the alignment of the constitution with them in the laws and regulations is not in line with the practice in the field. This research uses the normative research method where the conceptual and statutory approaches are used, but also the legal materials that are obtained in the field will also be input in this research. It is hoped that this research can contribute ideas to policy makers so that it becomes a recommendation for making policies based on conditions in the field or evidence (evidence-based policies).


2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Cookson

In this paper, I aim to re-establish the meaning and importance of the concept of 'evidence-based policy making' (EBP) in health care. The term EBP is often misunderstood as being either vacuous (who thinks that public policy should not be based on evidence?), unrealistic (the naive product of ivory tower thinking) or conservative (an excuse permanently to delay reform). It need be none of these things. EBP should be thought of as a set of rules and institutional arrangements designed to encourage transparent and balanced use of evidence in public policy making. As well as controlled trials and observational studies, a broad range of theoretical and empirical evidence about human behaviour may be relevant to predicting policy outcomes - including stakeholder opinions and other sources of intelligence that might not qualify as scientific research. Gradual progress towards EBP, properly understood, has the potential to facilitate open democracy and to improve policy outcomes. The argument is illustrated using examples based on large-scale policies of health care reform in England, where progress towards EBP over the last decade has been real but modest.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
J de Jong ◽  
J Hansen ◽  
P Groenewegen

Abstract Background Compared to the policy process, the research process is slow. As a result, research evidence is not always available when needed in the policy process. These differences in timelines between research and policy hinder the use of research evidence in the policy process. In order to support evidence-based policy making, timeliness of research is important. Methods Examples are provided, e.g. where research was on time to be included in the policy process and where research was too late to be included in it. These examples are described and analysed to provide for recommendations on how to better align both processes. Results It is shown that in order to create timeliness of research, policy makers and researchers should talk on a regular basis. This increases the chance that results from the research are included in policy making. Conclusions Timeliness of research is important for evidence-based policy making. In order to create timeliness of research, interaction between researchers and policy makers is important.


2012 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catarina Ferreira ◽  
Miguel Delibes-Mateos

Abstract This paper discusses the controversial management decisions made by policy-makers worldwide regarding poisoning campaigns aimed to control small mammal populations, often considered harmful economic pests. Aside from considerations regarding the biological consequences of these campaigns, we argue that when society rejects all values of science and expertise then only badly supported and negligent decisions will be made about conservation and management issues. The extermination of small mammal species, some of which play crucial ecological roles in several regions of the world, is just an example of such discredit and misinformation. Without a strong commitment towards evidence-based policy-making, economic investments in research and development could be entirely compromised [Current Zoology 58 (2): 353–357, 2012].


Author(s):  
Katherine E. Smith

This chapter discusses the role of ideas in policy making. The existence of conflicts between evidence-based and ideological approaches to politically contentious issues is widely recognised. However, for policy issues — such as public health — in which there seems to be rather more of a consensus about the overarching objectives, it seems less obvious how or why ‘politics’ might obstruct the use of evidence within policy making. Indeed, the majority of civil servants and politicians in a post-1997 UK context have signed up to taking an evidence-based approach to improving population health and reducing health inequalities. The existence of such a cross-sector consensus suggests that public heath might be one area in which evidence-based policy and practice are feasible. Yet, disappointingly, most assessments of public health policies continue to conclude that they are not evidence-based. A popular explanation for this disjuncture is that it results from communicative, institutional, and cultural gaps between researchers and policy makers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document