A new epistemology of evidence-based policy

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Policy and Politics Pub Date : 2020-04-01 DOI:10.1332/030557319x15657389008311
P. Sayer
{"title":"A new epistemology of evidence-based policy","authors":"P. Sayer","doi":"10.1332/030557319x15657389008311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a remarkably short period, ‘evidence-based policy’ (EBP), and the associated discourses of ‘what works’, have risen to prominence as a set of organising principles for public policy decision-making. Critics of EBP frequently point to its implicit positivist\n assumptions by highlighting the socially constructed nature of evidence. However, the effectiveness of this critique is limited by the imprecise and often pejorative use of the term ‘positivism’. This article therefore seeks to offer a more precise account of the underlying assumptions\n of EBP. To do so, it draws on an epistemological position known as process reliabilism, which analyses the justification of a belief by assessing whether it has been reached by means of an epistemically reliable decision-making process or processes. Through this framework, the article advocates\n a new approach to EBP which is framed around the principle of avoiding error, rather than that of seeking truth.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"241-258"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15657389008311","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

In a remarkably short period, ‘evidence-based policy’ (EBP), and the associated discourses of ‘what works’, have risen to prominence as a set of organising principles for public policy decision-making. Critics of EBP frequently point to its implicit positivist assumptions by highlighting the socially constructed nature of evidence. However, the effectiveness of this critique is limited by the imprecise and often pejorative use of the term ‘positivism’. This article therefore seeks to offer a more precise account of the underlying assumptions of EBP. To do so, it draws on an epistemological position known as process reliabilism, which analyses the justification of a belief by assessing whether it has been reached by means of an epistemically reliable decision-making process or processes. Through this framework, the article advocates a new approach to EBP which is framed around the principle of avoiding error, rather than that of seeking truth.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
循证政策的新认识论
在一个非常短的时期内,“循证政策”(EBP)以及与之相关的“什么有效”的论述,作为一套公共政策决策的组织原则,已经变得突出起来。EBP的批评者经常通过强调证据的社会建构性质来指出其隐含的实证主义假设。然而,这种批评的有效性受到“实证主义”一词的不精确和经常带有贬义的使用的限制。因此,本文试图对EBP的基本假设提供更精确的说明。为了做到这一点,它借鉴了一种被称为过程可靠性的认识论立场,它通过评估它是否已经通过一个或多个认识论上可靠的决策过程来达到来分析信念的正当性。通过这一框架,本文提出了一种以避免错误为原则,而不是以追求真理为原则的EBP新方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
12.80%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
The racialisation of sexism: how race frames shape anti-street harassment policies in Britain and France Concluding discussion: key themes in the (possible) move to co-production and co-creation in public management A theoretical framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions and public value Collaborative governance and innovation in public services settings Digital platforms for the co-creation of public value
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1