ABSTRACT In the United Kingdom, the influence of parliamentary select committees on policy depends substantially on the ‘seriousness’ with which they approach the task of gathering and evaluating a wide range of evidence and producing reports and recommendations based on it. However, select committees are often charged with being concerned with ‘political theatre’ and ‘grandstanding’ rather than producing evidence-based policy recommendations. This study, based on a survey of 919 ‘discretionary’ witnesses, including those submitting written and oral evidence, examines the case for arguing that there is political bias and grandstanding in the way select committees go about selecting witnesses, interrogating them and using their evidence to put reports together. While the research finds some evidence of such ‘grandstanding’ it does not appear to be strong enough to suggest that the role of select committees is compromised as a crowdsourcer of evidence.

中文翻译：

---

英国议会选举委员会：为循证政策或哗众取宠的众包？

摘要在英国，议会特选委员会对政策的影响在很大程度上取决于他们处理收集和评估广泛证据并在此基础上提出报告和建议的任务的“严肃性”。然而，特别委员会通常负责关注“政治戏剧”和“声势浩大”，而不是提出基于证据的政策建议。本研究基于对 919 名“酌情”证人（包括提交书面和口头证据的证人）的调查，审查了该案，以辩称特别委员会在选择证人、审问他们和使用他们的证据的方式中存在政治偏见和哗众取宠将报告放在一起。