Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The strategic uses of evidence in UK e-cigarettes policy debates
Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice ( IF 2.595 ) Pub Date : 2019-11-01 , DOI: 10.1332/174426418x15212872451438
Benjamin Hawkins 1 , Stefanie Ettelt 1
Affiliation  

Background Current debates on e-cigarette policy in the UK are highly acrimonious and are framed in terms of evidence-based policymaking. Aims and objectives The article aims to understand the use of evidence in policymaking in the context of both political controversy and limited policy-relevant evidence via a case study of UK e-cigarette debates. Methods The study draws on a series of semi-structured interviews with policy actors to examine their positions on e-cigarette policy process and their use of evidence to support this. Findings Policy actors articulate a strong commitment to evidence-based policymaking and claim that their positions are evidence-based. Some actors also claim emerging consensus around their positon as a rhetorical tool in the debate. Respondents argued that actors adopting opposing policy positions fail to follow the evidence base. This is attributed to a lack of understanding or disregard for the relevant evidence for political or ideological reasons. Discussion Respondents adhere to a rationalist understanding of policymaking in which policy disputes can be settled by recourse to ‘the evidence’. Interpretative policy analysis suggests that multiple legitimate framings of policy issues, supported by different bodies of evidence, are possible. Policy differences are thus not due to bad faith but to policy actors framing the issue at stake in different terms and thus advocating different policy responses. Conclusions Process of ‘frame reflection’ may help to overcome the acrimony of current policy leading to more effective engagement by public health actors in the e-cigarettes policy debates.

中文翻译:

英国电子烟政策辩论中证据的战略用途

背景 目前英国关于电子烟政策的辩论非常激烈,并且以循证决策为框架。目的和目标 本文旨在通过英国电子烟辩论的案例研究,了解在政治争议和有限的政策相关证据的背景下,证据在决策中的使用。方法 该研究利用对政策参与者的一系列半结构化访谈来考察他们对电子烟政策过程的立场以及他们使用证据来支持这一点。结果 政策行动者明确表示对循证决策的坚定承诺,并声称他们的立场是基于证据的。一些参与者还声称围绕他们的立场正在形成共识,作为辩论中的修辞工具。受访者认为,采取相反政策立场的行为者未能遵循证据基础。这归因于出于政治或意识形态原因对相关证据缺乏了解或漠视。讨论 受访者坚持对政策制定的理性主义理解,其中政策争议可以通过求助于“证据”来解决。解释性政策分析表明,由不同证据支持的多种合法的政策问题框架是可能的。因此,政策差异不是由于恶意,而是由于政策行为者以不同的方式界定所涉问题并因此主张不同的政策反应。
更新日期:2019-11-01
down
wechat
bug