Understanding, negotiating and navigating the politicisation of evidence-based policy research: the case of Irish research on lone parent labour market activation policy

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 559-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Millar ◽  
Rosemary Crosse ◽  
John Canavan
Keyword(s):  
Labour Market ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
The Political ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Advocacy Groups ◽  
Lone Parent ◽  
Lone Parents ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
The Government

Utilising a case study of evidence-based policy (EBP) commissioned by government we explore how academic outputs can serve several purposes, depending on the political milieu and the values and ideologies of any given party. Our commissioned research was being carried out in the context of significant policy change for lone parents in Ireland which saw the introduction of labour market activation. The research was initially used by the then Government to appease the Opposition to the highly emotive policy change. Following a general election, Opposition and advocacy groups called on policymakers to acknowledge the report they had commissioned. Concepts of research(er) deficit, normative reality and a shifting ‘policy agora’ are explored to highlight how the political context shaped the uptake of the research findings. We followed the debate by drawing on publicly available documentary evidence relevant to the policy of lone parent activation in Ireland from pertinent parliamentary and committee debates involving all stakeholders, that is the Government, civil servants, Opposition and advocacy groups, to ascertain what happened with the research and why did it happen. Attention is given to the consequences of producing outputs that diverge from political values and ideologies, whereby research can be subject to manipulation to discredit and invalidate findings.

scholarly journals The new evidence-based policy: public participation between ‘hard evidence’ and democracy in practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-227
Author(s):  
Helen Pallett
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Ethnographic Study ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
Hard Evidence ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

Background:Debates about evidence-based policy (EBP) were revived in the UK in the 2010s in the context of civil service reform and changing practices of policy making, including institutionalisation of public participation in science policy making. Aims and objectives:This paper aims to explore this revival of interest in EBP in the context of the Government-funded public participation programme Sciencewise, which supports and promotes public dialogues in science policy making. It is based on in-depth ethnographic study of the programme during 2013, considering the impacts on Sciencewise practices and working understandings of engaging in the EBP debate. There is a particular focus on the advantages and disadvantages of categorising public participation as a source of evidence-based policy as opposed to presenting participation as a democratic act which is separate from discussions of EBP. Key conclusions:At different times Sciencewise actors moved between these stances in order to gain credibility and attention for their work, and to situate the outcomes of public participation processes in a broader policy context. In some instances the presentation of outputs from public participation processes as legitimate evidence for policy gave them greater influence and enriched broader discussions about the meaning and practice of open policy. However, it also frequently led to their dismissal on methodological grounds, inhibiting serious engagement with their outputs and challenging internal frameworks for evaluation and learning.

scholarly journals Advocacy research and social policy

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (3/4) ◽  
pp. 239-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth McLaughlin
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Government Funding ◽  
Social Constructionist ◽  
The Political ◽  
National Society ◽  
Advocacy Groups ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Theoretical Concepts

Purpose – Much social policy research today is commissioned, published and publicised by organisations with direct involvement in that particular aspect of policy. Whilst much good can result from such “advocacy research”, at times the tactics employed by some groups have been criticised for exaggerated claims making and sensationalist reporting as they attempt to get their particular issue into the political and public domain and also generate more government funding and/or increase public donations. The purpose of this paper is to investigate such claims. Design/methodology/approach – In this paper the author wishes to look at some of the tactics utilised by advocacy groups in order to establish the legitimacy of their particular concern. The author focuses on material published by Action for Children and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and between 2010 and 2012 in relation to child maltreatment, critically analysing them from a social constructionist standpoint and drawing on aspects of moral panic theory. Findings – The paper concludes by warning of the dangers for both social policy and related practice that can arise from uncritically accepting the claims of contemporary moral entrepreneurs. Originality/value – This paper uses theoretical concepts to analyse contemporary campaigns by two charity organisations.

Bridging the research‐policy gap: the importance of effective identity leadership and shared commitment

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Mols ◽  
Jennifer Bell ◽  
Brian Head
Keyword(s):  
Research Policy ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Public Agencies ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
Social Psychological Research ◽  
Joint Knowledge Production ◽  
Good Quality Research ◽  
Shared Commitment

It is widely agreed that the availability of high quality evidence does not translate readily into influence over policy decisions. This insight has generated long-running debates about the most effective way to ‘bridge the gap’ between policy research and policymaking, and to increase policy research ‘uptake’. The proposed remedies (for example, greater ‘linkage and exchange activity’, ‘knowledge brokering’, ‘joint knowledge production’) tend to be premised on the idea that increased contact will increase preparedness to take on board other stakeholders’ views. We agree that contact is important, along with adequate resourcing and access to good quality research evidence. However, as social and organisational psychologists have shown, trust and mutual understanding do not automatically emerge from more intensive interaction, but require effective ‘identity leadership’, to ensure core values (about shared goals and directions) become internalised in new shared self-understanding. So far, these insights have been neglected in the evidence-based policy literature, and the purpose of this paper is to fill this gap. More specifically, we draw on social-psychological research into ‘identity leadership’, and use illustrative data from interviews with leaders in public agencies and a major NGO partnership, to show (a) that leaders play an important role embedding commitment to evidence-based policy into ‘organisational culture’; and (b) that leaders of successful partnerships go to great lengths to unite stakeholders and to promote a shared (overarching) sense of purpose and ‘mission’.

Social Science and the Evidence-based Policy Movement

2002 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 215-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Young ◽  
Deborah Ashby ◽  
Annette Boaz ◽  
Lesley Grayson
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Effective Contribution

There is a growing interest in ‘evidence-based policy making’ in the UK. However, there remains some confusion about what evidence-based policy making actually means. This paper outlines some of the models used to understand how evidence is thought to shape or inform policy in order to explore the assumptions underlying ‘evidence-based policy making.’ By way of example, it considers the process of evidence seeking and in particular the systematic review as a presumed ‘gold standard’ of the EBP movement. It highlights some of the opportunities and challenges represented in this approach for policy research. The final part of the paper outlines some questions of capacity that need to be addressed if the social sciences are to make a more effective contribution to policy debate in Britain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document