Professor of History and Director of the Centre for History in Public Health,London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,University of London,London,UK.
Health Econ Policy Law. 2018 Jul;13(3-4):369-381. doi: 10.1017/S1744133117000433. Epub 2018 Feb 21.
Policy makers like the idea of new initiatives and fresh starts, unencumbered by, even actively overthrowing, what has been done in the past. At the same time, history can be pigeonholed as fusty and antiquarian, dealing with long past events of no relevance to the present. Academic historians are sometimes bound up in their own worlds. The debates central to academe may have little direct relevance to the immediate concerns of policy making. The paper argues that history, as the evidence-based discipline par excellence, is as relevant as other approaches to evidence-based policy making. Case studies can show us the nature of that relevance. How to achieve influence for history also needs discussion. The relationship is not straightforward and will vary according to time and place. History is an interpretative discipline, not just a collection of 'facts'. The paper discusses how historians work and why it is important for policy makers to engage, not just with history, but with historians as well. Historians too need to think about the value of bringing their analysis into policy.
政策制定者喜欢新举措和新起点的想法,不受过去所做工作的束缚,甚至积极推翻过去的工作。与此同时,历史也可能被归入陈旧过时的范畴,只涉及与当前无关的久远过去的事件。学术历史学家有时会陷入自己的世界。学术界的核心辩论与政策制定的直接关注点可能没有什么直接关系。本文认为,历史作为卓越的基于证据的学科,与其他基于证据的政策制定方法一样具有相关性。案例研究可以让我们了解这种相关性的本质。如何为历史赢得影响力也需要讨论。这种关系并不简单,会因时间和地点的不同而有所不同。历史是一门解释性学科,不仅仅是“事实”的集合。本文讨论了历史学家的工作方式,以及为什么政策制定者不仅要了解历史,还要与历史学家合作,这一点很重要。历史学家也需要思考将他们的分析纳入政策的价值。