| 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 |