When does evidence-based policy turn into policy-based evidence configurations, contexts and mechanisms

Evidence and Policy

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 259-277

  Strassheim, Holger ^a   Kettunen, Pekka ^b  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

Evidence based policy; Expertise; Policy relevant knowledge; Regulatory science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901778883     PISSN: 17442648     EISSN: 17442656     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1332/174426514X13990433991320     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Adelle, C, Weiland, S, 2013, Policy assessment: The state of the art, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30, 1, 25-33
2. Beck, S, 2012, The challenges of building cosmopolitan climate expertise: The case of Germany, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews (WIREs), Climate Change 3, 1, 1-17
3. Beck, U, 1992, Risk society: Towards a new modernity, London: Sage
4. Bogner, A, 2011, Die Ethisierung von Technikkonflikten: Studien zum Geltungswandel des Dissenses (The Ethization of Techno-Conflicts), Weilerswist: Velbrück
5. Bora, A, 2007, Im Schatten von Normen und Fakten -Die Kolonisierung der Politik durch technowissenschaftliche Normativität (In the Shadow of Norms and Facts -the Colonization of Politics by Techno-scientific Normativity), Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 27,1, 31-50
6. Böschen, S, 2013, Modes of constructing evidence: Sustainable development as social experimentation -the cases of chemical regulations and climate change politics, Nature and Culture 8, 1, 74-96
7. Böschen, S, Dressel, K, Schneider, M, Viehöfer, W, 2002, Pro und Kontra der Trennung von Risikomanagement und Risikobewertung, TAB Diskussionspapier Nr 10 (Separating Risk Management and Risk Evaluation -Pros and Cons), Berlin
8. Büro für Technikfolgenabschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (TAB) (Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag
9. Boswell, C, 2008, The political functions of expert knowledge: Knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy, Journal of European Public Policy 15, 4, 471-88
10. Cabinet Office, 1999, Modernising government, London: The Stationery Office
11. Cabinet Office, 2013, What Works: Evidence centres for social policy, London: Cabinet Office
12. Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team, 2010, Applying behavioural insights to health, London: Cabinet Office
13. Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team, 2012, Test, learn, adapt: Developing public policy with randomised controlled trials, London: Cabinet Office
14. Caplan, N, Morrison, A, Stambaugh, RJ, 1975, The use of social science knowledge in policy decision at the national level: A report to respondents, Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Center for Research on the Utilization of Scientific Knowledge
15. Christensen, T, Laegreid, P (eds), 2006, Autonomy and regulation: Coping with agencies in the modern state, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
16. Crewe, E, Young, J, 2002, Bridging research and policy: Context, evidence and links, Working Paper 173, London: Overseas Development Institute
17. Davies, HTO, Nutley, SM, Smith, PC (eds), 2000, What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services, Bristol: Policy Press
18. DfEE (Department for Education and Employment), 2000, Influence or irrelevance: Can social science improve government?, Secretary of State's ESRC Lecture Speech, 2 February, London: DfEE Employment Service
19. Doherty, J, 2000, Housing: Linking theory and practice, in Davies, HTO, Nutley, SM, Smith, PC (eds), Housing: Linking theory and practice, Bristol: Policy Press, 167-86
20. Döhler, M, 2012, The role of science in regulation: Scrutinizing an uneasy relationship, Paper for the 8th Transatlantic Dialogue on Transitions in Governance, Nijmegen
21. Döhler, M, Bach, T, 2012, Mandated science and the problem of neutral expertise: The case of governmental research agencies, WZB Discussion Paper SP III 2012-602, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin
22. Drori, GS, Meyer, JW, Ramirez, FO Schofer, E (eds), 2003, Science in the modern world polity: Institutionalization and globalization, Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press
23. Felt, U, Fochler, M, 2008, The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology, Science and Public Policy 35, 7, 489-99
24. Fischer, F, 2009, Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry, Oxford: Oxford University Press
25. Foss Hansen, H, 2013, Systemic evaluation governance: New logics in the development of organisational fields, Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 16, 47-64
26. Funtowicz, S, Ravetz, J, 1993, Science for a post-normal age, Futures 25, 7, 739-55
27. Gieryn, TF, 1998, Cultural boundaries of science credibility on the line, Chicago: University of Chicago
28. Gregg, D, 2010, Family intervention projects: A classic case of policy-based evidence, London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London
29. Halffman, W, 2005, Science-policy boundaries: National styles, Science and Public Policy 32, 6, 457-67
30. Halffman, W, 2009, Measuring the stakes: The Dutch planning bureaus, in Weingart, P, Lentsch, J (eds), Scientific advice to policy making: International comparison, Opladen: Barbara Budrich, 47-65
31. HM Treasury, 2011, The Magenta Book: Guidance for evaluation, London: National Archives
32. HM Treasury, 2014, The Green Book: Appraisal and evaluation in central government, London: National Archives
33. Hood, C, 2007, Public service management by numbers: Why does it vary? Where has it come from? What are the gaps and the puzzles?, Public Money and Management 27, 2, 95-102
34. Hood, C, 2010, Blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
35. Hope, T, Walters, R, 2008, Critical thinking about the uses of research, London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London
36. Hoppe, R, 2005, Rethinking the science-policy nexus: From knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements, Poiesis and Praxis 3, 3, 199-215
37. Jasanoff, S, 1990, The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
38. Jasanoff, S, 2003, (No) Accounting for expertise, Science and Public Policy 30, 3, 157-162
39. Jasanoff, S, 2005, Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
40. Jasanoff, S, 2011a, Quality control and peer review in advisory science, in Lentsch, J, Weingart, P (eds), The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for quality assurance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19-35
41. Jasanoff, S, 2011b, The practices of objectivity in regulatory science, in Camid, C, Gross, N, Lamont, M (eds), Social knowledge in the making, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 307-38
42. Johnston, JS (ed), 2012, Institutions and incentives in regulatory science, Plymouth: Lexington Books
43. Jung, A, Korinek, R-L, Strassheim, H, 2014, Embedded expertise: A conceptual framework for reconstructing knowledge orders, their transformation and local specificities, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2014.892425
44. Kemm, J, 2006, The limitations of evidence-based public health, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 12, 3, 319-24
45. Kinchy, A, 2012, Seeds, science, and struggle: The global politics of transgenic crops, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
46. Korinek, R-L, Veit, S, 2013, Only good fences keep ministries and independent agencies good neighbors! The institutionalization of science-policy interactions in the German food safety administration, Paper submitted to the Faculty Seminar, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Potsdam: University of Potsdam
47. Majone, G, 1996, Public policy and administration: Ideas, interests and institutions, in Goodin, RE, Klingemann, H-D (eds), A new handbook of political science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 610-27
48. Marston, G, Watts, R, 2003, Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence-based policy-making, The Drawing Board 3, 143-63
49. Miller, P, 2001, Governing by numbers: Why calculative practices matter, Social Research 68, 2, 379-396
50. Millstone, E, 2009, Science, risk and governance: Radical rhetorics and the realities of reform in food safety governance, Research Policy 38, 4, 624-636
51. Millstone, E, Zwanenberg, P, 2002, The evolution of food safety policy -making institutions in the UK, EU and Codex Alimentarius, Social Policy & Administration 36, 6, 593-609
52. Morgan, MS, 2011, Travelling facts, in Howlett, P, Morgan, MS (eds), Travelling facts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-39
53. Mullen, E, Shuluk, J, 2010, Outcomes of social work intervention in the context of evidence-based practice, Journal of Social Work 11, 49-63
54. Nelkin, D, 1987, Selling science: How the press covers science and technology, New York: WH Freeman
55. Nilsson, M, Jordan, A, Turnpenny, J, Hertin, J, Nykvist, B, Duncan, R, 2008, The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: An analysis of three European countries and the European Union, Policy Science 41, 4, 335-55
56. Nutley, S, Morton, S, Jung, T, Boaz, A, 2010, Evidence and policy in six European countries: Diverse approaches and common challenges, Evidence & Policy 6, 2, 131-44
57. Nutley, SM, Webb, J, 2000, Evidence and the policy process, in Davies, HTO, Nutley, SM, Smith, PC (eds) Evidence and the policy process, Bristol: Policy Press, 13-41
58. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2009, Regulatory impact analysis, Paris: OECD
59. Pawson, R, 2006, Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective, London: Sage
60. Pielke, RJ, 2011, The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
61. Pielke, RJ, 2013, Letter from America: A memo to Sir Mark Walport, in Doubleday, R, Wilsdon, J (eds) Future directions for scientific advice in Whitehall, Cambridge /Sussex: University of Cambridge /University of Sussex, 122-33
62. Porter, TM, 1995, Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
63. Power, M, 1997, The audit society: Rituals of verification, Oxford: Oxford University Press
64. Radaelli, CM, 2005, Diffusion without convergence: How political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment, Journal of European Public Policy 12, 5, 924-43
65. Rayner, S, 2003, Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making, Science and Public Policy 30, 3, 163-70
66. Rittel, HWJ, Webber, MM, 1973, Dilemmas in a general theory of planning, Policy Sciences 4, 2, 155-69
67. Rosenhead, J, Thunhurst, C, 1979, Operational research and cost-benefit analysis: Whose science?, in Miles, I, Evans, J (eds), Demystifying social statistics, London: Pluto Press, 289-304
68. Rothstein, H, 2013, Domesticating participation: Participation and the institutional rationalities of science-based policy-making in the UK Food Standards Agency, Journal of Risk Research 16, 771-90
69. Rüb, F, Strassheim, H, 2012, Politische Evidenz Rechtfertigung durch Verobjektivierung (Political Evidence. Justification by Objectivation), in Geis, A, Nullmeier, F, Daase, C (eds), Der Aufstieg der Legitimitätspolitik Rechtfertigung und Kritik politisch-ökonomischer Ordnungen (The Rise of Legitimacy Politics. Justification and Critique of Politico-economic Orders), Leviathan, special issue 27/2012, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 377-97
70. Rudd, K, 2008, Address to heads of agencies and members of the senior executive service, Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra, 30 April, Canberra
71. Rüling, A, 2010, Re-framing of childcare in Germany and England: From a private responsibility to an economic necessity, German Policy Studies 6, 2, 153-86
72. Salter, L, 1998, Mandated science: Science and scientists in the making of standards, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
73. Sanderson, I, 2002, Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making, Public Administration 80, 1, 1-22
74. Sanderson, I, 2011, Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? Reflections on Scottish experience, Evidence & Policy 7, 1, 59-76
75. Schütz, A, 1976, Tiresias, or our knowledge of future events, in Schütz, A (ed), Tiresias, or our knowledge of future events, Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 277-93
76. Scott, JC, 1998, Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
77. Sharman, A, Holmes, J, 2010, Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% target, Environmental Policy and Governance 20, 5, 309-21
78. Solesbury, W, 2001, Evidence based policy: Whence it came and where it's going, Working Paper 1, London: ESRC Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice
79. Star, SL, Griesemer, JR, 1989, Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertrebrate Zoology, 1907-39, Social Studies of Science 19, 3, 387-420
80. Stone, D, 2002, Knowledge networks in the global agora, Paper presented to the International Symposium on Knowledge Networks and Global Governance, 28 June, Kassel
81. Stone, D, 2012, Knowledge actors and transnational governance: The private-public policy nexus in the global agora, London: Palgrave Macmillan
82. Strassheim, H, 2013, Politische Expertise im Wandel: Zur diskursiven und institutionellen Einbettung epistemischer Autorität (Political Expertise in the Making: The Discursive and Institutional Embeddedness of Epistemic Authority), in Kropp, S, Kuhlmann, S (eds) Wissen und Expertise in Politik und Verwaltung (Knowledge and Expertise in Politics and Administration), Der moderne Staat, special issue 1/2013, Sonderheft 1/2013, 65-87
83. Strassheim, H, Jung, A, Korinek, R-L, forthcoming, Reframing expertise: The rise of behavioural insights and interventions in public policy, in Berthoin Antal, A, Hutter, M, Stark, D (eds), Moments of valuation exploring sites of dissonance, Oxford: Oxford University Press
84. Torriti, J, 2010, Impact assessment and the liberalization of the EU energy markets: Evidence-based policy-making or policy-based evidence-making?, Journal of Common Market Studies 48, 8, 1065-81
85. Vibert, F, 2007, The rise of the unelected: Democracy and the new separation of powers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
86. Voss, J-P, 2007, Innovation processes in governance: The development of emissions trading as a new policy instrument, Science and Public Policy 34, 5, 329-43
87. Voss, J-P, Bornemann, B, 2011, The politics of reflexive governance: Challenges for designing adaptive management and transition management, Ecology and Society 16, 2, 9
88. Weiss, CH, 1980, Knowledge creep and decision accretion, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8, 2, 381-404
89. Wesselink, A, Paavola, J, Fritsch, O, Renn, O, 2011, Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners' perspectives, Environment and Planning Theory and Practice 43, 11, 2688-704
90. Zürn, M, 2012, Autorität und Legitimität in der postnationalen Konstellation (Authority and Legitimacy in the Postnational Constellation), in Geis, A, Nullmeier, F, Daase, C (eds), Der Aufstieg der Legitimitätspolitik Rechtfertigung und Kritik politischökonomischer Ordnungen (The Rise of Legitimacy Politics. Justification and Critique of Politico-economic Orders), Leviathan, special issue 27/2012, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 41-62
91. Zürn, M, Binder, M, Ecker-Ehrhardt, M, 2012, International authority and its politicization, International Theory 4, 1, 69-106