A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking

Remco Heesen*, Hannah Rubin, Mike D. Schneider, Katie Woolaston, Alejandro Bortolus, Emelda E. Chukwu, Ricardo Kaufer, Veli Mitova, Anne Schwenkenbecher, Evangelina Schwindt, Helena Slanickova, Temitope O. Sogbanmu, Chad L. Hewitt

*Corresponding author voor dit werk

Onderzoeksoutput: ArticleAcademicpeer review

23 Downloads (Pure)

Samenvatting

When evidence-based policymaking is so often mired in disagreement and controversy, how can we know if the process is meeting its stated goals? We develop a novel mathematical model to study disagreements about adequate knowledge utilization, like those regarding wild horse culling, shark drumlines and facemask policies during pandemics. We find that, when stakeholders disagree, it is frequently impossible to tell whether any party is at fault. We demonstrate the need for a distinctive kind of transparency in evidence-based policymaking, which we call transparency of reasoning. Such transparency is critical to the success of the evidence-based policy movement, as without it, we will be unable to tell whether in any instance a policy was in fact based on evidence.

Originele taal-2English
Artikelnummer18495
TijdschriftScientific Reports
Volume14
Nummer van het tijdschrift1
DOI's
StatusPublished - 9-aug.-2024

Vingerafdruk

Duik in de onderzoeksthema's van 'A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking'. Samen vormen ze een unieke vingerafdruk.

Citeer dit