Cairney Paul, Oliver Kathryn
Politics and Public Policy at the University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.
Division of History and Politics, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, United Kingdom.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Apr 26;15(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x.
There is extensive health and public health literature on the 'evidence-policy gap', exploring the frustrating experiences of scientists trying to secure a response to the problems and solutions they raise and identifying the need for better evidence to reduce policymaker uncertainty. We offer a new perspective by using policy theory to propose research with greater impact, identifying the need to use persuasion to reduce ambiguity, and to adapt to multi-level policymaking systems.We identify insights from secondary data, namely systematic reviews, critical analysis and policy theories relevant to evidence-based policymaking. The studies are drawn primarily from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We combine empirical and normative elements to identify the ways in which scientists can, do and could influence policy.We identify two important dilemmas, for scientists and researchers, that arise from our initial advice. First, effective actors combine evidence with manipulative emotional appeals to influence the policy agenda - should scientists do the same, or would the reputational costs outweigh the policy benefits? Second, when adapting to multi-level policymaking, should scientists prioritise 'evidence-based' policymaking above other factors? The latter includes governance principles such the 'co-production' of policy between local public bodies, interest groups and service users. This process may be based primarily on values and involve actors with no commitment to a hierarchy of evidence.We conclude that successful engagement in 'evidence-based policymaking' requires pragmatism, combining scientific evidence with governance principles, and persuasion to translate complex evidence into simple stories. To maximise the use of scientific evidence in health and public health policy, researchers should recognise the tendency of policymakers to base judgements on their beliefs, and shortcuts based on their emotions and familiarity with information; learn 'where the action is', and be prepared to engage in long-term strategies to be able to influence policy; and, in both cases, decide how far you are willing to go to persuade policymakers to act and secure a hierarchy of evidence underpinning policy. These are value-driven and political, not just 'evidence-based', choices.
有大量关于“证据 - 政策差距”的健康与公共卫生文献，探讨了科学家们在努力促使人们对他们提出的问题及解决方案做出回应时所经历的令人沮丧的情况，并指出需要更好的证据来减少政策制定者的不确定性。我们通过运用政策理论提出具有更大影响力的研究，识别出利用说服力来减少模糊性以及适应多层次政策制定系统的必要性，从而提供了一个新视角。我们从二手数据中识别出见解，即与循证政策制定相关的系统评价、批判性分析和政策理论。这些研究主要来自美国、英国、加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰等国家。我们结合实证和规范要素来确定科学家能够、确实以及可以影响政策的方式。我们为科学家和研究人员识别出了由我们的初步建议引发的两个重要困境。首先，有效的行动者将证据与操纵性的情感诉求相结合以影响政策议程——科学家是否也应如此做，还是声誉成本会超过政策收益？其次，在适应多层次政策制定时，科学家是否应将“循证”政策制定置于其他因素之上？后者包括治理原则，如地方公共机构、利益集团和服务使用者之间政策的“共同生产”。这个过程可能主要基于价值观，且涉及并不遵循证据等级制度的行动者。我们得出结论，成功参与“循证政策制定”需要实用主义，将科学证据与治理原则相结合，并运用说服力将复杂的证据转化为简单的故事。为了在健康和公共卫生政策中最大限度地利用科学证据，研究人员应认识到政策制定者倾向于基于自身信念做出判断，以及基于情感和对信息的熟悉程度采取捷径；了解“行动所在之处”，并准备好参与长期战略以便能够影响政策；而且，在这两种情况下，要决定为了说服政策制定者采取行动并确保支撑政策的证据等级制度，自己愿意做到何种程度。这些都是由价值观驱动且具有政治性的选择，而不仅仅是“基于证据”的选择。
