Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research (SSPSSR), University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Nov 1;7(11):1067-1069. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.81.
This commentary expands on two of the key themes briefly raised in the paper involving analysis of the evidence about key contextual influences on decisions of value. The first theme focuses on the need to explore in more detail what is called backstage decision-making looking at how actual decisions are made drawing on evidence from ethnographies about decision-making. These studies point to less of an emphasis on instrumental and calculative forms of decision-making with more of an emphasis on more pragmatic rationality. The second related theme picks up on the issue of sources of information as a contextual influence particularly highlighting the salience of uncertainty or information deficits. It is argued that there are a range of different types of uncertainties, not only associated with information deficits, which are found particularly in allocative types of decisions of value. This means that the decision-making process although attempting to be linear and rational, tends to be characterised by a form of navigation where the decision-makers navigate their way through the uncertainties inherent and overtly manifested in the decision-making process.
本评论扩展了论文中简要提出的两个关键主题,涉及对关键背景影响决策价值的证据进行分析。第一个主题侧重于更详细地探讨所谓的后台决策,研究实际决策是如何做出的,借鉴有关决策的民族志中的证据。这些研究表明,决策制定较少强调工具理性和计算理性,而更多地强调更务实的理性。第二个相关主题涉及信息来源作为一种背景影响的问题,特别是强调不确定性或信息不足的显著地位。有人认为,存在一系列不同类型的不确定性,不仅与信息不足有关,而且在分配类型的价值决策中特别明显。这意味着决策过程虽然试图是线性和理性的,但往往具有一种导航的特点,决策者在决策过程中内在和明显存在的不确定性中导航。