We compare national education policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in England, Germany and Italy to explore negotiations about the public good and identify the role that research has played in framing, legitimating and rendering trustworthy the settlements reached. National data, comprising news media reports and publically available documents, are analysed and compared to identify debates about the public good and their consequences within and across national contexts. Our analysis contrasts policy contexts on three dimensions: (a) the range of interests included in debates; (b) the form and locus of decision-making; and (c) public acceptance of policy during implementation. These are related to processes of depoliticising debate and politicising research evidence in each context, as factions position themselves as trustworthy. We suggest that the way research is seen to inform decision-making during crises such as the current COVID-19 pandemic has enduring consequences for public trust in research, the politicians who employ it to justify their decisions and the schools tasked with putting these decisions into practice.

我们比较了英国、德国和意大利对 COVID-19 大流行的国家教育政策反应，以探讨关于公共利益的谈判，并确定研究在制定、合法化和使达成的解决方案值得信赖方面发挥的作用。对包括新闻媒体报道和公开文件在内的国家数据进行分析和比较，以确定在国家范围内和跨国家范围内关于公共利益及其后果的辩论。我们的分析从三个维度对比政策背景：(a) 辩论中包含的利益范围；(b) 决策的形式和地点；(c) 在政策实施过程中公众对政策的接受程度。这些都与在每种情况下将辩论去政治化和研究证据政治化的过程有关，因为派系将自己定位为值得信赖的。