The rapid and widespread diffusion of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has unlocked new capabilities and changed how content and services are created, shared, and consumed. This special issue builds on the 2021 Policy and Society special issue on the governance of AI by focusing on the legal, organizational, political, regulatory, and social challenges of governing generative AI. This introductory article lays the foundation for understanding generative AI and underscores its key risks, including hallucination, jailbreaking, data training and validation issues, sensitive information leakage, opacity, control challenges, and design and implementation risks. It then examines the governance challenges of generative AI, such as data governance, intellectual property concerns, bias amplification, privacy violations, misinformation, fraud, societal impacts, power imbalances, limited public engagement, public sector challenges, and the need for international cooperation. The article then highlights a comprehensive framework to govern generative AI, emphasizing the need for adaptive, participatory, and proactive approaches. The articles in this special issue stress the urgency of developing innovative and inclusive approaches to ensure that generative AI development is aligned with societal values. They explore the need for adaptation of data governance and intellectual property laws, propose a complexity-based approach for responsible governance, analyze how the dominance of Big Tech is exacerbated by generative AI developments and how this affects policy processes, highlight the shortcomings of technocratic governance and the need for broader stakeholder participation, propose new regulatory frameworks informed by AI safety research and learning from other industries, and highlight the societal impacts of generative AI.
{"title":"Governance of Generative AI","authors":"Araz Taeihagh","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puaf001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf001","url":null,"abstract":"The rapid and widespread diffusion of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has unlocked new capabilities and changed how content and services are created, shared, and consumed. This special issue builds on the 2021 Policy and Society special issue on the governance of AI by focusing on the legal, organizational, political, regulatory, and social challenges of governing generative AI. This introductory article lays the foundation for understanding generative AI and underscores its key risks, including hallucination, jailbreaking, data training and validation issues, sensitive information leakage, opacity, control challenges, and design and implementation risks. It then examines the governance challenges of generative AI, such as data governance, intellectual property concerns, bias amplification, privacy violations, misinformation, fraud, societal impacts, power imbalances, limited public engagement, public sector challenges, and the need for international cooperation. The article then highlights a comprehensive framework to govern generative AI, emphasizing the need for adaptive, participatory, and proactive approaches. The articles in this special issue stress the urgency of developing innovative and inclusive approaches to ensure that generative AI development is aligned with societal values. They explore the need for adaptation of data governance and intellectual property laws, propose a complexity-based approach for responsible governance, analyze how the dominance of Big Tech is exacerbated by generative AI developments and how this affects policy processes, highlight the shortcomings of technocratic governance and the need for broader stakeholder participation, propose new regulatory frameworks informed by AI safety research and learning from other industries, and highlight the societal impacts of generative AI.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143084081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Few policymakers initiate policies that they know are malign, and are contrary to the public interest. Well-intentioned policies may, however, have unintended consequences that over time do make them, at least in part, malign. These policies may continue to produce some positive results for society, but they may also have significant negative consequences. Further, given that the malign nature of the policy tends to benefit powerful political and economic interests, once the malign aspects of the policy begin to manifest themselves, they tend to persist. This paper will use four mini-cases to understand better the transition from benign to malign policies. Two of the cases come from the United States and two come from Germany. Two cases will be in health policy, one in infrastructure, and one in crisis management policies. In all four cases policies that have over time began to demonstrate negative features continue to be implemented because of the benefits that they create for some interests in society–interests other than the original targets of the programs. In addition to the emerging literature on malign policies, this paper will have relevance for the large literature on unintended consequences (beginning with Merton in 1936), as well as the literature on Zombie ideas and failed policy ideas.
{"title":"From benign to malign: unintended consequences and the growth of Zombie policies","authors":"B. Guy Peters, Maximilian L Nagel","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae039","url":null,"abstract":"Few policymakers initiate policies that they know are malign, and are contrary to the public interest. Well-intentioned policies may, however, have unintended consequences that over time do make them, at least in part, malign. These policies may continue to produce some positive results for society, but they may also have significant negative consequences. Further, given that the malign nature of the policy tends to benefit powerful political and economic interests, once the malign aspects of the policy begin to manifest themselves, they tend to persist. This paper will use four mini-cases to understand better the transition from benign to malign policies. Two of the cases come from the United States and two come from Germany. Two cases will be in health policy, one in infrastructure, and one in crisis management policies. In all four cases policies that have over time began to demonstrate negative features continue to be implemented because of the benefits that they create for some interests in society–interests other than the original targets of the programs. In addition to the emerging literature on malign policies, this paper will have relevance for the large literature on unintended consequences (beginning with Merton in 1936), as well as the literature on Zombie ideas and failed policy ideas.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142991993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Andrea Krizsán, Katarzyna Jezierska, Adrienne Sörbom
In an era of post-truth, the legitimacy of policy knowledge is questioned, especially in de-democratizing contexts where governments purposefully engage in post-truth politics to support their regimes. In such contexts, technocratic evidence-based policymaking is undermined, and the role played by policy advice changes. Recognizing the significance of political contextual factors that might differ across de-democratizing contexts, we analyzed how changes in policymaking and public administration in de-democratization contexts impact policy advice, focusing on think tanks in two de-democratizing countries of the European Union: Hungary and Poland. We identify four aspects of policymaking that are particularly consequential for the role of think tanks and the knowledge they produce in policymaking processes: questioning and politicizing expertise, centralizing policymaking, politicizing public administration, and dismantling accountability mechanisms. We argue that changes in policymaking along these four aspects are conducive to a controlled policy advice system, favoring short-term policy advice aligned with government ideology, while marginalizing and excluding the actors and knowledge that do not align. Our research, along with other literature on knowledge regimes in consolidated autocracies, suggests that control in these European Union–based contexts is not complete, and the think tank field continues to be characterized by diversity, particularly contestation and polarization between those who are aligned with the regime and those who oppose it. We substantiate our claims using an original interview dataset on think tanks in Hungary and Poland.
{"title":"Policy knowledge production in de-democratizing contexts","authors":"Andrea Krizsán, Katarzyna Jezierska, Adrienne Sörbom","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae037","url":null,"abstract":"In an era of post-truth, the legitimacy of policy knowledge is questioned, especially in de-democratizing contexts where governments purposefully engage in post-truth politics to support their regimes. In such contexts, technocratic evidence-based policymaking is undermined, and the role played by policy advice changes. Recognizing the significance of political contextual factors that might differ across de-democratizing contexts, we analyzed how changes in policymaking and public administration in de-democratization contexts impact policy advice, focusing on think tanks in two de-democratizing countries of the European Union: Hungary and Poland. We identify four aspects of policymaking that are particularly consequential for the role of think tanks and the knowledge they produce in policymaking processes: questioning and politicizing expertise, centralizing policymaking, politicizing public administration, and dismantling accountability mechanisms. We argue that changes in policymaking along these four aspects are conducive to a controlled policy advice system, favoring short-term policy advice aligned with government ideology, while marginalizing and excluding the actors and knowledge that do not align. Our research, along with other literature on knowledge regimes in consolidated autocracies, suggests that control in these European Union–based contexts is not complete, and the think tank field continues to be characterized by diversity, particularly contestation and polarization between those who are aligned with the regime and those who oppose it. We substantiate our claims using an original interview dataset on think tanks in Hungary and Poland.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142991996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Organizations increasingly use Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) to create strategic documents, legislation, and recommendations to support decision-making. Many current AI initiatives are technology-deterministic, whereas technology co-evolves with the social environment, resulting in new applications and situations. This paper presents a novel view of AI governance by organizations from the perspective of complex adaptive systems (CASs). AI is conceptualized as a socio-technological and adaptive system in which people, policies, systems, data, AI, processes, and other elements co-evolve. The CAS lens draws attention to focusing AI governance on the entire organization, taking an outward perspective and considering public values and societal concerns. Although there is no shortage of AI governance instruments, they differ in their effectiveness, and combinations of appropriate mechanisms should be selected to deal with AI’s evolving nature and complexity. A major challenge is that no responsibility, and therefore accountability, is taken due to the lack of understanding of the full socio-technological CAS. As such, joint accountability is needed in which involved parties work together.
{"title":"Responsible governance of generative AI: conceptualizing GenAI as complex adaptive systems","authors":"Marijn Janssen","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae040","url":null,"abstract":"Organizations increasingly use Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) to create strategic documents, legislation, and recommendations to support decision-making. Many current AI initiatives are technology-deterministic, whereas technology co-evolves with the social environment, resulting in new applications and situations. This paper presents a novel view of AI governance by organizations from the perspective of complex adaptive systems (CASs). AI is conceptualized as a socio-technological and adaptive system in which people, policies, systems, data, AI, processes, and other elements co-evolve. The CAS lens draws attention to focusing AI governance on the entire organization, taking an outward perspective and considering public values and societal concerns. Although there is no shortage of AI governance instruments, they differ in their effectiveness, and combinations of appropriate mechanisms should be selected to deal with AI’s evolving nature and complexity. A major challenge is that no responsibility, and therefore accountability, is taken due to the lack of understanding of the full socio-technological CAS. As such, joint accountability is needed in which involved parties work together.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143020403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The anticipated arrival of autonomous vehicles has created considerable uncertainty for US states because they govern roads. In response, states activated their policy advisory systems. While policy advising at the national level has been studied, less is known about the sub-national level. Similarly, more is known about the use of scientific knowledge by policymakers than about the full range of knowledge deployed in policy advising. This study analyzes reports written for states to help them make sense of an emerging technology in preparation for governance. Committees, university researchers, staff at Department of Transportation, and legislative staff produced different types of reports, for example, more and less academic, focused more or less on topics associated with governance or engineering. Our analysis reveals that state policy advisory systems used two types of processes—convening and expert—and employed three types of expertise—academic, practical, and political—to help prepare to govern this emerging technology. The study provides insight into how states mobilized expertise to address uncertainty around an emerging technology, showing how different actors balanced the need for credible technical knowledge with legitimate stakeholder engagement.
{"title":"Steering the future: expert knowledge and stakeholder voices in autonomous vehicle policy reports","authors":"Diana Hicks, Gordon Kingsley, Kimberley R Isett","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae041","url":null,"abstract":"The anticipated arrival of autonomous vehicles has created considerable uncertainty for US states because they govern roads. In response, states activated their policy advisory systems. While policy advising at the national level has been studied, less is known about the sub-national level. Similarly, more is known about the use of scientific knowledge by policymakers than about the full range of knowledge deployed in policy advising. This study analyzes reports written for states to help them make sense of an emerging technology in preparation for governance. Committees, university researchers, staff at Department of Transportation, and legislative staff produced different types of reports, for example, more and less academic, focused more or less on topics associated with governance or engineering. Our analysis reveals that state policy advisory systems used two types of processes—convening and expert—and employed three types of expertise—academic, practical, and political—to help prepare to govern this emerging technology. The study provides insight into how states mobilized expertise to address uncertainty around an emerging technology, showing how different actors balanced the need for credible technical knowledge with legitimate stakeholder engagement.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142962797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Collaborative governance has gained momentum for its promise to deliver social inclusion, with municipalities viewed as ideal spaces for its success. However, little research critically examines the political conditions under which this is the case. This article theorizes why and how collaborative local governance succeeds or fails in today’s divided democracies. It argues that politicization manifests in three dimensions of local governance—among stakeholders, across government levels, and in the framing of policy target groups. These dynamics often incentivize the exclusion of marginalized populations. For collaboration to succeed, it must be anchored in an ideologically cohesive network of stakeholders, with civil society organizations acting as political advocates for disadvantaged groups. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in 2018–2022, we compare asylum policies in two Italian cities: Bologna and Venice. Despite rising far-right politics nationally, Bologna’s collaborative governance persisted thanks to the sustained commitment of local officials and civil society actors, all sharing ideological and strategic motivations in promoting refugee rights. In contrast, anti-migrant politics has increasingly informed the policy agenda of Venice elected officials. The politicization of immigration offered them powerful incentives to wipe out long-established collaborations and to frame refugees as undeserving policy targets, leading to their exclusion from public services. These findings extend to other geographical contexts and policy sectors, calling for a more political understanding of collaborative local governance.
{"title":"Collaborative governance in politicized times: the battle over asylum policies in Italian cities","authors":"Raffaele Bazurli, Francesca Campomori","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae038","url":null,"abstract":"Collaborative governance has gained momentum for its promise to deliver social inclusion, with municipalities viewed as ideal spaces for its success. However, little research critically examines the political conditions under which this is the case. This article theorizes why and how collaborative local governance succeeds or fails in today’s divided democracies. It argues that politicization manifests in three dimensions of local governance—among stakeholders, across government levels, and in the framing of policy target groups. These dynamics often incentivize the exclusion of marginalized populations. For collaboration to succeed, it must be anchored in an ideologically cohesive network of stakeholders, with civil society organizations acting as political advocates for disadvantaged groups. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in 2018–2022, we compare asylum policies in two Italian cities: Bologna and Venice. Despite rising far-right politics nationally, Bologna’s collaborative governance persisted thanks to the sustained commitment of local officials and civil society actors, all sharing ideological and strategic motivations in promoting refugee rights. In contrast, anti-migrant politics has increasingly informed the policy agenda of Venice elected officials. The politicization of immigration offered them powerful incentives to wipe out long-established collaborations and to frame refugees as undeserving policy targets, leading to their exclusion from public services. These findings extend to other geographical contexts and policy sectors, calling for a more political understanding of collaborative local governance.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142936166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Justyna Bandola-Gill, Niklas A Andersen, Rhodri Leng, Valérie Pattyn, Katherine E Smith
This paper conceptualizes the notion of “evidence culture” in evidence-informed policymaking by surveying existing literature that either specifically employs the term or uses adjacent terms such as “epistemic” or “research culture”. It employs mixed-methods scoping review, combining citation analysis using Web of Science data used to identify the key clusters of scholarship with a qualitative thematic analysis of key papers across these clusters. This analysis identifies seven distinct approaches to “evidence cultures” across disciplinary communities. The key points of divergence across the clusters include the meanings of evidence, the underlying understanding of the evidence–policy interplay, the conceptualization of culture, and its implications for evidence use in policy. Building on these insights, we offer a framework for analyzing evidence cultures, arguing for the conceptual and empirical utility of this term in advancing scholarship on evidence use in policy settings.
本文通过调查现有文献，将循证决策中的“证据文化”概念概念化，这些文献要么具体使用该术语，要么使用邻近的术语，如“认识论”或“研究文化”。它采用了混合方法的范围审查，结合了引用分析，使用Web of Science数据来确定奖学金的关键集群，并对这些集群中的关键论文进行了定性的专题分析。该分析确定了跨学科社区的七种不同的“证据文化”方法。跨集群的分歧关键点包括证据的含义、对证据-政策相互作用的潜在理解、文化的概念化及其对政策中证据使用的影响。在这些见解的基础上，我们提供了一个分析证据文化的框架，论证了这一术语在推进政策制定中证据使用的学术研究方面的概念和经验效用。
{"title":"A matter of culture? Conceptualizing and investigating “Evidence Cultures” within research on evidence-informed policymaking","authors":"Justyna Bandola-Gill, Niklas A Andersen, Rhodri Leng, Valérie Pattyn, Katherine E Smith","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae036","url":null,"abstract":"This paper conceptualizes the notion of “evidence culture” in evidence-informed policymaking by surveying existing literature that either specifically employs the term or uses adjacent terms such as “epistemic” or “research culture”. It employs mixed-methods scoping review, combining citation analysis using Web of Science data used to identify the key clusters of scholarship with a qualitative thematic analysis of key papers across these clusters. This analysis identifies seven distinct approaches to “evidence cultures” across disciplinary communities. The key points of divergence across the clusters include the meanings of evidence, the underlying understanding of the evidence–policy interplay, the conceptualization of culture, and its implications for evidence use in policy. Building on these insights, we offer a framework for analyzing evidence cultures, arguing for the conceptual and empirical utility of this term in advancing scholarship on evidence use in policy settings.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142902255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper explores different “cultures of evidence” in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. The urgent energy system transformation needed to respond to the climate crisis depends on policies informed by technical and engineering expertise, and particularly energy modeling. Such expertise had traditionally been poorly represented in the energy ministries of the Dutch, German, and UK governments. There is limited understanding of how policy advisory systems have evolved to respond to these emerging evidence needs. This paper presents a framework for describing how cultures of evidence differ, and applies this to a comparative study of energy policymaking in the UK, Netherlands, and Germany. I show clear differences in how evidence is understood and used. The Dutch and German governments have sought technical and modeling evidence from consultants or independent agencies. In doing so, the Dutch and German ministries appear to place stronger value on the “independence” of such evidence, while the UK system builds credibility through adherence to formal procedures. A second clear difference in the cultures of evidence relates to different beliefs about the extent to which expert knowledge can be impartial and value-free. The cases suggest that different cultures of evidence have coevolved with each country’s institutional history and shaped the energy policy advisory system.
{"title":"Exploring cultures of evidence in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands","authors":"Will McDowall","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae035","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores different “cultures of evidence” in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. The urgent energy system transformation needed to respond to the climate crisis depends on policies informed by technical and engineering expertise, and particularly energy modeling. Such expertise had traditionally been poorly represented in the energy ministries of the Dutch, German, and UK governments. There is limited understanding of how policy advisory systems have evolved to respond to these emerging evidence needs. This paper presents a framework for describing how cultures of evidence differ, and applies this to a comparative study of energy policymaking in the UK, Netherlands, and Germany. I show clear differences in how evidence is understood and used. The Dutch and German governments have sought technical and modeling evidence from consultants or independent agencies. In doing so, the Dutch and German ministries appear to place stronger value on the “independence” of such evidence, while the UK system builds credibility through adherence to formal procedures. A second clear difference in the cultures of evidence relates to different beliefs about the extent to which expert knowledge can be impartial and value-free. The cases suggest that different cultures of evidence have coevolved with each country’s institutional history and shaped the energy policy advisory system.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142672950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kidjie Saguin, João V Guedes-Neto, Pedro Lucas Moura Palotti, Natália Massaco Koga, Flavio Lyrio Carneiro
Evidence use across policy sectors is widely believed to vary as each sector espouses a specific and dominant pattern in how it sources evidence. This view privileges the idea that a “culture of evidence” serves as a norm that guides behavior in the entire sector. In this article, we seek to nuance the policy sectoral approach to understanding evidence use by analyzing the results of a large-N survey of federal employees in Brazil (n = 2,177). Our findings show a diverse set of cultures of evidence with a few sectors like Science and Technology demonstrating a strong likelihood for using scientific evidence with most sectors showing a mixed pattern of sourcing evidence. However, a majority of the surveyed civil servants show an “indistinct” pattern of evidence use who are likely to not use any sources of evidence.
{"title":"Variation in evidence use across policy sectors: the case of Brazil","authors":"Kidjie Saguin, João V Guedes-Neto, Pedro Lucas Moura Palotti, Natália Massaco Koga, Flavio Lyrio Carneiro","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae031","url":null,"abstract":"Evidence use across policy sectors is widely believed to vary as each sector espouses a specific and dominant pattern in how it sources evidence. This view privileges the idea that a “culture of evidence” serves as a norm that guides behavior in the entire sector. In this article, we seek to nuance the policy sectoral approach to understanding evidence use by analyzing the results of a large-N survey of federal employees in Brazil (n = 2,177). Our findings show a diverse set of cultures of evidence with a few sectors like Science and Technology demonstrating a strong likelihood for using scientific evidence with most sectors showing a mixed pattern of sourcing evidence. However, a majority of the surveyed civil servants show an “indistinct” pattern of evidence use who are likely to not use any sources of evidence.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142637546","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How can we explain the worldwide spread of evidence-based policymaking despite continuous criticism? What are the underlying mechanisms of its persistence on a global scale? This article aims at answering these questions by focusing on the cultural constellations in which evidence is imbued with political as well as epistemic authority. Evidence cultures are discursive and institutional forces (re-)producing both the scientific validation of knowledge and its relevance in policymaking. They need to be understood as self-propagating constellations of interlinking science and policy through practices, discourses and institutionally sedimented regulations. Evidence is the product of chains of practices in which the initial knowledge struggles are gradually made publicly invisible and often inaccessible. The article reconstructs the immunization of evidence cultures from criticism and their silent politics by looking at quantifications, benchmarking and randomized controlled trials as typical cases. To overcome the circularities and closures so characteristic of the evidence culture of evidence-based policymaking, politico-epistemic diversity should be actively promoted.
{"title":"A world of evidence: the global spread and silent politics of evidence cultures","authors":"Holger Straßheim","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae029","url":null,"abstract":"How can we explain the worldwide spread of evidence-based policymaking despite continuous criticism? What are the underlying mechanisms of its persistence on a global scale? This article aims at answering these questions by focusing on the cultural constellations in which evidence is imbued with political as well as epistemic authority. Evidence cultures are discursive and institutional forces (re-)producing both the scientific validation of knowledge and its relevance in policymaking. They need to be understood as self-propagating constellations of interlinking science and policy through practices, discourses and institutionally sedimented regulations. Evidence is the product of chains of practices in which the initial knowledge struggles are gradually made publicly invisible and often inaccessible. The article reconstructs the immunization of evidence cultures from criticism and their silent politics by looking at quantifications, benchmarking and randomized controlled trials as typical cases. To overcome the circularities and closures so characteristic of the evidence culture of evidence-based policymaking, politico-epistemic diversity should be actively promoted.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142449438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：