Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Science of Policymaking

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making

  • 5303 Accesses

Abstract

The term ‘evidence-based policymaking’ (EBPM) is in common currency in traditional mass media and social media. Yet, it is a vague, aspirational term, rather than a good description of the policy process. This chapter injects some clarity into the debate by examining how to define EBPM in a more useful way, demonstrating the importance of the policy process to the role of evidence, and identifying the crucial role of policy theory to our understanding of that process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bastow, S., Dunleavy, P., & Tinkler, J. (2014a). Measuring the impact of social science research in UK central government policy making. Political Studies Association Annual Conference, Manchester. http://bit.ly/1iSMw4P

  • Bastow, S., Dunleavy, P., & Tinkler, J. (2014b). The impact of the social sciences. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993; 2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (1st and 2nd eds.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bédard, P., & Ouimet, M. (2012). Cognizance and consultation of randomized controlled trials among ministerial policy analysts. Review of Policy Research, 29 (5), 625–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béland, D. (2005). Ideas and social policy: An institutionalist perspective. Social Policy & Administration, 39 (1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, F., & Berry, W. (2014). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In P. Sabatier & C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.). Chicago: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P. (2012a). Understanding public policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P. (2012b). Complexity theory in political science and public policy. Political Studies Review, 10 (3), 346–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies? Policy Studies Journal, 41 (1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P., & Heikkila, T. (2014). A comparison of theories of the policy process. In P. Sabatier & C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.). Chicago: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P., & Studlar, D. (2014). Public health policy in the United Kingdom: After the war on Tobacco, is a war on alcohol brewing? World Medical and Health Policy, 6 (3), 308–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P., Studlar, D., & Mamudu, H. (2012). Global tobacco control: Power, policy, governance and transfer. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embrett, M., & Randall, G. (2014). Social determinants of health and health equity policy research: Exploring the use, misuse, and nonuse of policy analysis theory. Social Science and Medicine, 108, 147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, H., Nohrstedt, D., & Weible, C. (2014). The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research’ process. In P. Sabatier & C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.). Chicago: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, P. (2012). Analysing public policy (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. (1984; 1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies (1st & 2nd eds.). New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kok, M., Rodrigues, A., Paulo Silva, A., & de Haan, S. (2012). The emergence and current performance of a health research system: Lessons from Guinea Bissau. Health Research Policy and Systems, 10 (5), 1–12. http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/10/1/5.

  • Lavis, J. N., Lomas, J., Hamid, M., & Sewankambo, N. K. (2006). Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84 (8), 620–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. (1964). Contexts for change and strategy: A reply. Public Administration Review, 24 (3), 157–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston, G., & Watts, R. (2003). Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence-based policy-making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3 (3), 143–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, M. (2011). Evidence versus politics: Exploiting research in UK drug policy making? Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsen, P., Ståhl, C., Roback, K., & Cairney, P. (2013). Never the twain shall meet? A comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implementation Science, 8 (1), 63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutley, S., Powell, A., & Davies, H. (2013). What counts as good evidence. London: Alliance for Useful Evidence. http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/What-Counts-as-Good-Evidence-WEB.pdf.

  • Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J., & Thomas, J. (2014). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research, 14 (1), 2. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/14/2.

  • Oliver, K., Lorenc, T., & Innvær, S. (2014). New directions in evidence-based policy research: A critical analysis of the literature. Health Research Policy and Systems, 12, 34. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1478-4505-12-34.pdf.

  • Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P., & Weible, C. (Eds.). (2014). Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.). Chicago: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, I. (2009). Intelligent policy making for a complex world: Pragmatism, evidence and learning. Political Studies, 57, 699–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39 (5), 426–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process. Cambridge, MA: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

    Paul Cairney

Authors
  1. Paul Cairney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cairney, P. (2016). The Science of Policymaking. In: The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation