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

Ellen Stewart; Katherine E Smith

doi:10.1332/174426415X14381786400158

'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 journal › Article

18 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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	415-437
Number of pages	23
Journal	Evidence and Policy
Volume	11
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14381786400158
Publication status	Published - 21 Aug 2015

Keywords

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

Access to Document

10.1332/174426415X14381786400158

Stewart-Smith-EP-2015-epistemic-and-political-uses-of-evidence-tools-in-public-health-policy-makingAccepted author manuscript, 248 KB

Profiles

Kat Smith

katherine.smith.100@strath.ac.uk

Social Work And Social Policy - Professor
Health and Wellbeing
Society and Policy

Person: Academic

Cite this

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

@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{\textquoteright} 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 {\textquoteleft}good{\textquoteright} 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 = aug,

day = "21",

doi = "10.1332/174426415X14381786400158",

language = "English",

volume = "11",

pages = "415--437",

journal = "Evidence and Policy",

issn = "1744-2648",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - 'Black magic' and 'gold dust'

T2 - the epistemic and political uses of evidence tools in public health policy making

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 -