Evidence-Based Policy Making advocates for greater attention to evidence, and particularly technical evidence and expertise, in developing policy. This pervasive paradigm presents community actors with a conundrum: how to engage in ways that are consistent with the norms and expectations of policy consultation, whilst also representing the nature and nuance of their lived experience? In this paper we explore one response to this conundrum, in which community actors adopt and adapt technical knowledge claims alongside their lived experience to pursue their case. Using the conflict over Coal Seam Gas development in New South Wales, Australia, we explored community actors’ interpretations and use of evidence and expertise in seeking to make their voices heard and their knowledge count. Analysis of qualitative interviews found community actors seemed compelled to conform with expectations of policy influence, producing and using technical knowledge and evidence, and drawing on scientific expertise and evidence, presenting these in a rational and objective way. This research also finds a complicated relationship between different forms of knowledge, with local knowledge enhancing technical expertise. Emotions, though deeply felt by the community actors in our research, were not seen as convincing to policy decision makers. The Evidence-Based Policy Making paradigm seems to be constraining what community actors feel they must contribute to be seen as legitimate actors, as well as how they contribute it.

循证决策倡导在制定政策时更加关注证据，尤其是技术证据和专业知识。这种普遍存在的范式给社区参与者带来了一个难题：如何以符合政策咨询规范和期望的方式参与，同时也代表他们生活经历的性质和细微差别？在本文中，我们探讨了对这一难题的一种回应，其中社区参与者采用和调整技术知识主张以及他们的生活经验来追求他们的案例。利用澳大利亚新南威尔士州煤层气开发的冲突，我们探索了社区参与者的解释以及证据和专业知识的使用，以寻求让他们的声音被听到并让他们的知识发挥作用。对定性访谈的分析发现，社区参与者似乎被迫符合政策影响的预期，生产和使用技术知识和证据，并利用科学专业知识和证据，以理性和客观的方式呈现这些。这项研究还发现了不同形式知识之间的复杂关系，本地知识增强了技术专长。尽管在我们的研究中社区参与者深深感受到了情绪，但政策决策者并不认为这种情绪具有说服力。基于证据的政策制定范式似乎受到限制 这项研究还发现了不同形式知识之间的复杂关系，本地知识增强了技术专长。尽管在我们的研究中社区参与者深深感受到了情绪，但政策决策者并不认为这种情绪具有说服力。基于证据的政策制定范式似乎有限制 这项研究还发现了不同形式知识之间的复杂关系，本地知识增强了技术专长。尽管在我们的研究中社区参与者深深感受到了情绪，但政策决策者并不认为这种情绪具有说服力。基于证据的政策制定范式似乎有限制社区参与者认为他们必须做出哪些贡献才能被视为合法参与者，以及他们如何做出贡献。