'Black magic' and 'gold dust': the epistemic and political uses of evidence tools in public health policy making

Ellen Stewart, Katherine E Smith

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    13 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Concerns about the limited influence of research on decision-making have prompted the development of tools intended to mediate evidence for policy audiences. This article focuses on three examples, prominent in public health: impact assessments; systematic reviews; and economic decision-making tools (cost-benefit analysis and scenario modelling). Each has been promoted as a means of synthesising evidence for policymakers but little is known about policy actors’ experiences of them. Employing a literature review and 69 interviews, we offer a critical analysis of their role in policy debates, arguing that their utility lies primarily in their symbolic value as markers of ‘good’ decision-making.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages415-437
    Number of pages23
    JournalEvidence and Policy
    Volume11
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 21 Aug 2015

    Fingerprint

    gold
    health policy
    public health
    decision making
    evidence
    cost-benefit analysis
    scenario
    interview
    economics
    experience

    Keywords

    • impact assessments
    • systematic review
    • cost-benefit analysis (CBA)
    • modelling
    • evidence-based policy (EBP)
    • advocacy
    • decision-making tools
    • public health

    Cite this

    @article{b941499c10a640628cd43445edb6b602,
    title = "'Black magic' and 'gold dust': the epistemic and political uses of evidence tools in public health policy making",
    abstract = "Concerns about the limited influence of research on decision-making have prompted the development of tools intended to mediate evidence for policy audiences. This article focuses on three examples, prominent in public health: impact assessments; systematic reviews; and economic decision-making tools (cost-benefit analysis and scenario modelling). Each has been promoted as a means of synthesising evidence for policymakers but little is known about policy actors’ experiences of them. Employing a literature review and 69 interviews, we offer a critical analysis of their role in policy debates, arguing that their utility lies primarily in their symbolic value as markers of ‘good’ decision-making.",
    keywords = "impact assessments, systematic review, cost-benefit analysis (CBA), modelling, evidence-based policy (EBP), advocacy, decision-making tools, public health",
    author = "Ellen Stewart and Smith, {Katherine E}",
    note = "This is a post-peer-review, pre-copy edited version of an article published in Evidence and Policy. The definitive publisher version Stewart, E., & Smith, K. E. (2015). 'Black magic' and 'gold dust': the epistemic and political uses of evidence tools in public health policy making. Evidence and Policy, 11(3), 415-437. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14381786400158",
    year = "2015",
    month = "8",
    day = "21",
    doi = "10.1332/174426415X14381786400158",
    language = "English",
    volume = "11",
    pages = "415--437",
    journal = "Evidence and Policy",
    issn = "1744-2648",
    number = "3",

    }

    'Black magic' and 'gold dust' : the epistemic and political uses of evidence tools in public health policy making. / Stewart, Ellen; Smith, Katherine E.

    In: Evidence and Policy, Vol. 11, No. 3, 21.08.2015, p. 415-437.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - 'Black magic' and 'gold dust'

    T2 - Evidence and Policy

    AU - Stewart, Ellen

    AU - Smith, Katherine E

    N1 - This is a post-peer-review, pre-copy edited version of an article published in Evidence and Policy. The definitive publisher version Stewart, E., & Smith, K. E. (2015). 'Black magic' and 'gold dust': the epistemic and political uses of evidence tools in public health policy making. Evidence and Policy, 11(3), 415-437. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14381786400158

    PY - 2015/8/21

    Y1 - 2015/8/21

    N2 - Concerns about the limited influence of research on decision-making have prompted the development of tools intended to mediate evidence for policy audiences. This article focuses on three examples, prominent in public health: impact assessments; systematic reviews; and economic decision-making tools (cost-benefit analysis and scenario modelling). Each has been promoted as a means of synthesising evidence for policymakers but little is known about policy actors’ experiences of them. Employing a literature review and 69 interviews, we offer a critical analysis of their role in policy debates, arguing that their utility lies primarily in their symbolic value as markers of ‘good’ decision-making.

    AB - Concerns about the limited influence of research on decision-making have prompted the development of tools intended to mediate evidence for policy audiences. This article focuses on three examples, prominent in public health: impact assessments; systematic reviews; and economic decision-making tools (cost-benefit analysis and scenario modelling). Each has been promoted as a means of synthesising evidence for policymakers but little is known about policy actors’ experiences of them. Employing a literature review and 69 interviews, we offer a critical analysis of their role in policy debates, arguing that their utility lies primarily in their symbolic value as markers of ‘good’ decision-making.

    KW - impact assessments

    KW - systematic review

    KW - cost-benefit analysis (CBA)

    KW - modelling

    KW - evidence-based policy (EBP)

    KW - advocacy

    KW - decision-making tools

    KW - public health

    U2 - 10.1332/174426415X14381786400158

    DO - 10.1332/174426415X14381786400158

    M3 - Article

    VL - 11

    SP - 415

    EP - 437

    JO - Evidence and Policy

    JF - Evidence and Policy

    SN - 1744-2648

    IS - 3

    ER -