Stucki Iris
Center of Competence for Public Management, University of Bern, Schanzeneckstrasse 1, 3001 Bern, Switzerland.
Eval Program Plann. 2018 Aug;69:148-156. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.08.019. Epub 2016 Aug 31.
This article analyses the use of evidence, such as policy evaluation studies, in arguments in direct-democratic campaigns. Set in the context of 16 Swiss direct-democratic campaigns on smoking bans, the article compares evidence-based arguments with arguments that do not refer to evidence. The study adds to the argumentative direction in evaluation and program planning by showing that in direct-democratic campaigns, the political use of evaluation results to substantiate policy preferences is rare. The study shows that around 6% of the arguments refer to evidence and that evaluation results are mostly cited in support of causal arguments referring to the effects of policy interventions. Above all, the results show that policy information is available, at least for causal arguments, and apparently known in the public discourse but only cited explicitly when the speaker wants to raise credibility. This applies especially to researchers, such as evaluators. The results further indicate that the political use of evaluation results fosters an informed discourse and the evidence may eventually become common public knowledge. The credentials of evaluators make them suitable not only for bringing more evaluation results into the direct-democratic discourse but also for acting as teachers in this discourse.
本文分析了诸如政策评估研究等证据在直接民主运动中的论点中的运用。以瑞士16次关于禁烟的直接民主运动为背景，本文将基于证据的论点与未提及证据的论点进行了比较。该研究通过表明在直接民主运动中，利用评估结果来证实政策偏好的政治行为很少见，从而为评估和项目规划中的论证方向增添了内容。研究表明，约6%的论点提及了证据，且评估结果大多被引用来支持关于政策干预效果的因果论证。最重要的是，结果表明政策信息是可得的，至少对于因果论证而言，并且在公共话语中显然是已知的，但只有在发言者想要提高可信度时才会被明确引用。这尤其适用于评估人员等研究人员。结果还表明，评估结果的政治运用促进了有见地的话语交流，且这些证据最终可能会成为公共常识。评估人员的资质使他们不仅适合将更多评估结果引入直接民主话语中，还适合在这种话语中充当教导者。
