What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?

The present crisis of science's governance, affecting science's reproducibility, scientific peer review and science's integrity, offers a chance to reconsider evidence based policy as it is being practiced at present. Current evidence based policy exercises entail forms of quantificat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies planning and futures studies, 2017-08, Vol.91, p.62-71
Hauptverfasser: Saltelli, Andrea, Giampietro, Mario
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 71
container_issue
container_start_page 62
container_title Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies
container_volume 91
creator Saltelli, Andrea
Giampietro, Mario
description The present crisis of science's governance, affecting science's reproducibility, scientific peer review and science's integrity, offers a chance to reconsider evidence based policy as it is being practiced at present. Current evidence based policy exercises entail forms of quantification -- often in the form of risk analysis or cost benefit analyses -- which aim to optimize one among a set of policy options corresponding to a generally single framing of the issue under consideration. More cogently the deepening of the analysis corresponding to a single view of what the problem is has the effect of distracting from what could be alternative readings. When using evidence based policy those alternative frames become a kind of 'uncomfortable knowledge' which is de facto removed from the policy discourse. All the more so when the analysis is supported by extensive mathematical modelling. Thus evidence based policy may result in a dramatic simplification of the available perceptions, in flawed policy prescriptions and in the neglect of other relevant world views of legitimate stakeholders. This use of scientific method ultimately generates -- rather than resolving -- controversies and erodes the institutional trust of the involved actors. We suggest an alternative approach -- which we term quantitative story-telling -- which encourages a major effort in the pre-analytic, pre-quantitative phase of the analysis as to map a socially robust universe of possible frames, which represent different lenses through which to perceive what the problem is. This is followed by an analysis where the emphasis in not on confirmatory checks or system optimization but -- the opposite -- on an attempt to refute the frames if these violate constraints of feasibility (compatibility with processes outside human control); viability (compatibility with processes under human control), and desirability (compatibility with a plurality of normative considerations relevant to the system's actors).
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1999626326</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1999626326</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c328t-621cebdf97447134292a7774bb0cc408e2422a6351bd0c9be2187231662819c33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkG9LwzAQh4MoOKcfQQj41tbcpUuaVyJj_oGBbxRfhiRNXcvWzqTd2Lc3Y4OD48cd93APIffAcmAgntq8Hocx-JhjijlAzgAvyARKyTPBZXlJJixNMo6lvCY3MbYp8hnDCVn8rMxAm0j3oe9-6b4ZVtTvmsp3zlNroq_otl837vBITVfRVb-nznS0Gaj1tNlsQ7_z1fMtuarNOvq7c5-S79fF1_w9W36-fcxflplL6CETCM7bqlayKCTwAhUaKWVhLXOuYKXHAtEIPgNbMaesx_QCchACS1CO8yl5ON1N3L_Rx0G3_Ri6hNSglBIoeKopmZ22XOhjDL7W29BsTDhoYPpoTLf6bEwfjWkAnYzxf2e7XzM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1999626326</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Saltelli, Andrea ; Giampietro, Mario</creator><creatorcontrib>Saltelli, Andrea ; Giampietro, Mario</creatorcontrib><description>The present crisis of science's governance, affecting science's reproducibility, scientific peer review and science's integrity, offers a chance to reconsider evidence based policy as it is being practiced at present. Current evidence based policy exercises entail forms of quantification -- often in the form of risk analysis or cost benefit analyses -- which aim to optimize one among a set of policy options corresponding to a generally single framing of the issue under consideration. More cogently the deepening of the analysis corresponding to a single view of what the problem is has the effect of distracting from what could be alternative readings. When using evidence based policy those alternative frames become a kind of 'uncomfortable knowledge' which is de facto removed from the policy discourse. All the more so when the analysis is supported by extensive mathematical modelling. Thus evidence based policy may result in a dramatic simplification of the available perceptions, in flawed policy prescriptions and in the neglect of other relevant world views of legitimate stakeholders. This use of scientific method ultimately generates -- rather than resolving -- controversies and erodes the institutional trust of the involved actors. We suggest an alternative approach -- which we term quantitative story-telling -- which encourages a major effort in the pre-analytic, pre-quantitative phase of the analysis as to map a socially robust universe of possible frames, which represent different lenses through which to perceive what the problem is. This is followed by an analysis where the emphasis in not on confirmatory checks or system optimization but -- the opposite -- on an attempt to refute the frames if these violate constraints of feasibility (compatibility with processes outside human control); viability (compatibility with processes under human control), and desirability (compatibility with a plurality of normative considerations relevant to the system's actors).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-3287</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-6378</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd</publisher><subject>Compatibility ; Cost benefit analysis ; Frames ; Mathematical models ; Reproducibility ; Risk analysis ; Robustness (mathematics) ; Studies ; Universe ; Viability</subject><ispartof>Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies, 2017-08, Vol.91, p.62-71</ispartof><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Aug 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c328t-621cebdf97447134292a7774bb0cc408e2422a6351bd0c9be2187231662819c33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c328t-621cebdf97447134292a7774bb0cc408e2422a6351bd0c9be2187231662819c33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Saltelli, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giampietro, Mario</creatorcontrib><title>What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?</title><title>Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies</title><description>The present crisis of science's governance, affecting science's reproducibility, scientific peer review and science's integrity, offers a chance to reconsider evidence based policy as it is being practiced at present. Current evidence based policy exercises entail forms of quantification -- often in the form of risk analysis or cost benefit analyses -- which aim to optimize one among a set of policy options corresponding to a generally single framing of the issue under consideration. More cogently the deepening of the analysis corresponding to a single view of what the problem is has the effect of distracting from what could be alternative readings. When using evidence based policy those alternative frames become a kind of 'uncomfortable knowledge' which is de facto removed from the policy discourse. All the more so when the analysis is supported by extensive mathematical modelling. Thus evidence based policy may result in a dramatic simplification of the available perceptions, in flawed policy prescriptions and in the neglect of other relevant world views of legitimate stakeholders. This use of scientific method ultimately generates -- rather than resolving -- controversies and erodes the institutional trust of the involved actors. We suggest an alternative approach -- which we term quantitative story-telling -- which encourages a major effort in the pre-analytic, pre-quantitative phase of the analysis as to map a socially robust universe of possible frames, which represent different lenses through which to perceive what the problem is. This is followed by an analysis where the emphasis in not on confirmatory checks or system optimization but -- the opposite -- on an attempt to refute the frames if these violate constraints of feasibility (compatibility with processes outside human control); viability (compatibility with processes under human control), and desirability (compatibility with a plurality of normative considerations relevant to the system's actors).</description><subject>Compatibility</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Frames</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Reproducibility</subject><subject>Risk analysis</subject><subject>Robustness (mathematics)</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Universe</subject><subject>Viability</subject><issn>0016-3287</issn><issn>1873-6378</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotkG9LwzAQh4MoOKcfQQj41tbcpUuaVyJj_oGBbxRfhiRNXcvWzqTd2Lc3Y4OD48cd93APIffAcmAgntq8Hocx-JhjijlAzgAvyARKyTPBZXlJJixNMo6lvCY3MbYp8hnDCVn8rMxAm0j3oe9-6b4ZVtTvmsp3zlNroq_otl837vBITVfRVb-nznS0Gaj1tNlsQ7_z1fMtuarNOvq7c5-S79fF1_w9W36-fcxflplL6CETCM7bqlayKCTwAhUaKWVhLXOuYKXHAtEIPgNbMaesx_QCchACS1CO8yl5ON1N3L_Rx0G3_Ri6hNSglBIoeKopmZ22XOhjDL7W29BsTDhoYPpoTLf6bEwfjWkAnYzxf2e7XzM</recordid><startdate>201708</startdate><enddate>201708</enddate><creator>Saltelli, Andrea</creator><creator>Giampietro, Mario</creator><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>JQ2</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201708</creationdate><title>What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?</title><author>Saltelli, Andrea ; Giampietro, Mario</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c328t-621cebdf97447134292a7774bb0cc408e2422a6351bd0c9be2187231662819c33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Compatibility</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Frames</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Reproducibility</topic><topic>Risk analysis</topic><topic>Robustness (mathematics)</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Universe</topic><topic>Viability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Saltelli, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giampietro, Mario</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><jtitle>Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Saltelli, Andrea</au><au>Giampietro, Mario</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?</atitle><jtitle>Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies</jtitle><date>2017-08</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>91</volume><spage>62</spage><epage>71</epage><pages>62-71</pages><issn>0016-3287</issn><eissn>1873-6378</eissn><abstract>The present crisis of science's governance, affecting science's reproducibility, scientific peer review and science's integrity, offers a chance to reconsider evidence based policy as it is being practiced at present. Current evidence based policy exercises entail forms of quantification -- often in the form of risk analysis or cost benefit analyses -- which aim to optimize one among a set of policy options corresponding to a generally single framing of the issue under consideration. More cogently the deepening of the analysis corresponding to a single view of what the problem is has the effect of distracting from what could be alternative readings. When using evidence based policy those alternative frames become a kind of 'uncomfortable knowledge' which is de facto removed from the policy discourse. All the more so when the analysis is supported by extensive mathematical modelling. Thus evidence based policy may result in a dramatic simplification of the available perceptions, in flawed policy prescriptions and in the neglect of other relevant world views of legitimate stakeholders. This use of scientific method ultimately generates -- rather than resolving -- controversies and erodes the institutional trust of the involved actors. We suggest an alternative approach -- which we term quantitative story-telling -- which encourages a major effort in the pre-analytic, pre-quantitative phase of the analysis as to map a socially robust universe of possible frames, which represent different lenses through which to perceive what the problem is. This is followed by an analysis where the emphasis in not on confirmatory checks or system optimization but -- the opposite -- on an attempt to refute the frames if these violate constraints of feasibility (compatibility with processes outside human control); viability (compatibility with processes under human control), and desirability (compatibility with a plurality of normative considerations relevant to the system's actors).</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier Science Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0016-3287
ispartof Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies, 2017-08, Vol.91, p.62-71
issn 0016-3287
1873-6378
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1999626326
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Compatibility
Cost benefit analysis
Frames
Mathematical models
Reproducibility
Risk analysis
Robustness (mathematics)
Studies
Universe
Viability
title What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T12%3A20%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20is%20wrong%20with%20evidence%20based%20policy,%20and%20how%20can%20it%20be%20improved?&rft.jtitle=Futures%20:%20the%20journal%20of%20policy,%20planning%20and%20futures%20studies&rft.au=Saltelli,%20Andrea&rft.date=2017-08&rft.volume=91&rft.spage=62&rft.epage=71&rft.pages=62-71&rft.issn=0016-3287&rft.eissn=1873-6378&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1999626326%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1999626326&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true