Over the last decades, evidence-based public policy has emerged as a concept and field of research, presenting methodological approaches from the natural sciences as the ideal. However, empirical and interdisciplinary research on the relationship between methodological approaches and policy impact remains scarce. The aim is to investigate whether the impact of evaluations on development of new ideas and policies depends on methodological approaches. Data are drawn from a survey among policy-makers (n = 222) in six Norwegian agencies. Applying linear regression models, we analyse whether ‘evaluations provide new ideas and perspectives’ and if ‘evaluations play a major role as a foundation for policy-making’, and if these aspects depend on the reason for conducting the evaluation and the type of data collection. The civil servants report strong belief in evaluations' impact on policy and development of new ideas; however, this is more or less independent of type of methodological approaches. Exceptions are evaluation using observational data, interviews, or case studies and evaluations conducted with the intention of obtaining new knowledge. The article brings new empirical knowledge regarding the way different methodological approaches contribute to the usefulness of evaluations. Supporting the criticism of a rigid understanding of the meaning of evidence.

中文翻译：

---

评估社会政策：方法论方法是否决定政策影响？

在过去的几十年里，基于证据的公共政策已经成为一个概念和研究领域，将自然科学的方法论方法视为理想的。然而，关于方法论方法和政策影响之间关系的实证和跨学科研究仍然很少。目的是调查评估对新思想和政策发展的影响是否取决于方法论方法。数据来自政策制定者的调查（n = 222) 在六个挪威机构中。应用线性回归模型，我们分析“评估是否提供了新的想法和观点”以及“评估是否作为政策制定的基础发挥了主要作用”，以及这些方面是否取决于进行评估的原因和数据类型收藏。公务员表示坚信评估对政策和新思想发展的影响；然而，这或多或少与方法论的类型无关。例外情况是使用观察数据、访谈或案例研究进行的评估，以及旨在获得新知识的评估。这篇文章带来了关于不同方法论方法对评估有用性的贡献方式的新经验知识。