When Evidence is not Taken for Granted: The Use and Perception of “Evidence” in the Czech Republic Ministries

Author:

Veselý Arnošt1,Ochrana František2,Nekola Martin3

Affiliation:

1. Center for Social and Economic Strategies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague , Czech Republic

2. Department of Public and Social Policy, Institute of Sociological Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague , Czech Republic

3. Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague , Czech Republic

Abstract

Abstract The role of evidence in policy-making is one of the most researched topics in public policy and public administration. However, surprisingly little research has been done on how public officials actually use evidence in everyday life practice. Moreover, these studies have been limited to countries that have been influenced by the evidence-based policy movement (EBP). Little is known about how the evidence is conceptualized and utilized in other countries which have not been so strongly influenced by EBP movement. This paper addresses this gap. Using a large-N survey on the Czech ministerial officials and in-depth interviews with them, we explore what is understood under the term of “evidence”, what kind of evidence is used and preferred by public officials and why. In doing so, we use four theoretical perspectives on the use of evidence. We show that despite the long-established tradition of using research in policy-making the importance of research evidence in the Czech Republic is far from being taken for granted. On the contrary, the immediate and personal experience is often preferred over the research findings. The exception to that are census-like statistical data and comparative data published by international organizations. We find some support for the two-communities metaphor, though these communities are not defined by their socio-demographic characteristics, but rather by their internal discourse and understanding of evidence.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Public Administration

Reference24 articles.

1. Belli, Robert F, Michael W. Traugott and Matthew N. Beckmann. 2001. “What Leads to Voting Overreports ? Contrasts of Overreporters to Validated Voters and Admitted Nonvoters in the American National Election Studies.” Journal of Official Statistics 17(4), 479.

2. Braun, Virginia. and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Th ematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77 - 101.

3. Caplan, Nathan. 1979. “Th e Two-Communities Th eory and Knowledge Utilization.” American Behavioral Scientist 22(3), 459 - 470. doi:10.1177 / 00027642 7902200308.

4. Ganster, Daniel C, Harry W. Hennessey and Fred Luthans. 1983. “Social Desirability Response Eff ects: Th ree Alternative Models.” Academy of Management Journal 26(2), 321 - 331.

5. Gibson, Brendan. 2003. “Beyond Two Communities.” In Vivian Lin and Brendan Gibson (eds). Evidence-Based Health Policy: Problems and Possibilities. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 18 - 30.

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3