Previous research has identified political ideology as central in the landmark Academies Act (2010). This article further analyses how politics of evidence played its part in the policy process by focusing on long-term structural changes and preferences among policymakers. The article draws on policymaker interviews after the reform, a mapping of think tanks and a document analysis. The analysis shows that political–ideological preferences were derived from think tanks, and the Conservative manifesto built on skewed Swedish evidence in constructing an argument for the Act. The political choices morphed into fact-based arguments in the policy process. While think tanks had some reservations, in the Whitehall bureaucracy the argument was reformulated as a rational deliberation. This was possible because of the long-term change in the significance of think tanks, and how policymakers preferred politically informed opinions instead of research evidence. The conclusion argues that the evidence-based policy emphasis is an attempt to depoliticise the scope for political arguments. The political dynamic thus results in structurally empowered and layered but depoliticising use of evidence.

中文翻译：

---

证据政治：智囊团和学院法

先前的研究已将政治意识形态确定为具有里程碑意义的《学院法》（2010 年）的核心。本文通过关注政策制定者的长期结构变化和偏好，进一步分析证据政治如何在政策过程中发挥作用。这篇文章借鉴了改革后的政策制定者访谈、智库地图和文件分析。分析表明，政治意识形态偏好来自智囊团，而保守党的宣言则建立在歪曲的瑞典证据之上，为该法案构建论据。在政策过程中，政治选择演变成基于事实的争论。尽管智囊团有所保留，但在白厅官僚机构中，该论点被重新表述为理性审议。这是可能的，因为智库的重要性发生了长期变化，以及政策制定者如何更喜欢有政治依据的意见而不是研究证据。结论认为，以证据为基础的政策重点是试图将政治争论的范围去政治化。因此，政治动力导致结构上授权和分层但非政治化的证据使用。