Match!

Integrating evidence, politics and society: a methodology for the science–policy interface

Published on Dec 1, 2018in Palgrave Communications
· DOI :10.1057/s41599-018-0099-3
Peter Horton79
Estimated H-index: 79
(University of Sheffield),
Garrett W. Brown1
Estimated H-index: 1
(University of Leeds)
Abstract
There is currently intense debate over expertise, evidence and ‘post-truth’ politics, and how this is influencing policy formulation and implementation. In this article, we put forward a methodology for evidence-based policy making intended as a way of helping navigate this web of complexity. Starting from the premise of why it is so crucial that policies to meet major global challenges use scientific evidence, we discuss the socio-political difficulties and complexities that hinder this process. We discuss the necessity of embracing a broader view of what constitutes evidence—science and the evaluation of scientific evidence cannot be divorced from the political, cultural and social debate that inevitably and justifiably surrounds these major issues. As a pre-requisite for effective policy making, we propose a methodology that fully integrates scientific investigation with political debate and social discourse. We describe a rigorous process of mapping, analysis, visualisation and sharing of evidence, constructed from integrating science and social science data. This would then be followed by transparent evidence evaluation, combining independent assessment to test the validity and completeness of the evidence with deliberation to discover how the evidence is perceived, misunderstood or ignored. We outline the opportunities and the problems derived from the use of digital communications, including social media, in this methodology, and emphasise the power of creative and innovative evidence visualisation and sharing in shaping policy.
Figures & Tables
  • References (17)
  • Citations (2)
References17
Newest
#1Julie Lucero (UNR: University of Nevada, Reno)H-Index: 11
#2Nina Wallerstein (UNM: University of New Mexico)H-Index: 32
Last.Cynthia R. Pearson (UW: University of Washington)H-Index: 20
view all 12 authors...
#1Dustin Garrick (University of Oxford)H-Index: 18
#2Jim W. Hall (University of Oxford)H-Index: 46
Last.Lucia De Stefano (Complutense University of Madrid)H-Index: 13
view all 13 authors...
#1Ruth S. DeFries (Columbia University)H-Index: 84
#2Harini Nagendra (Azim Premji University)H-Index: 38
#1Peter Horton (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 79
#2Steve A. Banwart (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 15
Last.Peter Jackson (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 39
view all 10 authors...
#1Johan Rockström (Stockholm Resilience Centre)H-Index: 61
#2Owen Gaffney (Stockholm Resilience Centre)H-Index: 13
Last.Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (PIK: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research)H-Index: 50
view all 6 authors...
#1Michael A. Neblo (OSU: Ohio State University)H-Index: 12
#2William Minozzi (OSU: Ohio State University)H-Index: 8
Last.David Lazer (NU: Northeastern University)H-Index: 35
view all 6 authors...
View next paperSocial science and the evidence-based policy movement