|New insight from policy studies||New advice based on such insights||New dilemmas arising from such advice|
|How to maximise the use of evidence in policy||Too many studies focus on supplying scientific evidence to reduce uncertainty; focus instead on increasing demand for evidence by reducing ambiguity||Successful actors reduce ambiguity by, for example, framing issues in manipulative ways, using emotional language||
How far should scientists go to persuade policymakers to act on their evidence?
Should they be manipulative? This strategy may be effective, but it presents moral dilemmas and challenges a politically effective image of science as objective
We identify several current responses to this dilemma
|How best to understand and act effectively within the policy process||Too many studies assume that there is a policymaking ‘centre’, making policy via linear stages in a cycle; focus instead on a complex multi-level system or environment||Successful actors take the time to identify which responsibilities are delegated, ‘where the action is’ and the ‘rules of the game’ in each policymaking venue||
How far should you go to defend a hierarchy of evidence to deliver policy solutions?
Should scientists object to ‘localism’ if it undermines policies based on RCTs? Or, should they embrace the ‘co-production’ of policy with actors who reject their ‘hierarchy’ of evidential methods?
We identify three main responses to this dilemma