Turtles All the Way Down: Bounded rationality in an evidence-based age

Linda Botterill, Andrew Hindmoor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Evidence-based policy-making (EBPM) has become both a catch-cry and aspiration of governments. Drawing on 'the evidence', governments seek to focus on 'what works' and so avoid the pitfalls of policy driven by ideology or values. Critics of EBPM remind us that the policy process remains messy and uncertain and that while research may deliver the latest scientific evidence, it is not always translated effectively into policy. We argue that the problems with EBPM run much deeper. This is not only because of the way in which knowledge is employed by policy-makers but because of the way in which knowledge is collected and communicated to policy-makers. It is well understood that policy actors are boundedly rational and this impacts upon the way in which evidence is used in the policy process. What has not been clearly articulated and is the focus of this article is that bounded rationality applies equally to the production of evidence. Drawing on the work of Polish microbiologist Ludwick Fleck we discuss how the process of systematically collecting and communicating evidence can undermine the aspirations of EPBM. We illustrate this argument with reference to recent policy debates about obesity
LanguageEnglish
Pages367-379
Number of pages13
JournalPolicy Studies
Volume33
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

rationality
evidence
critic
ideology
Values

Cite this

@article{c147b555f2884c968d707023026070ed,
title = "Turtles All the Way Down: Bounded rationality in an evidence-based age",
abstract = "Evidence-based policy-making (EBPM) has become both a catch-cry and aspiration of governments. Drawing on 'the evidence', governments seek to focus on 'what works' and so avoid the pitfalls of policy driven by ideology or values. Critics of EBPM remind us that the policy process remains messy and uncertain and that while research may deliver the latest scientific evidence, it is not always translated effectively into policy. We argue that the problems with EBPM run much deeper. This is not only because of the way in which knowledge is employed by policy-makers but because of the way in which knowledge is collected and communicated to policy-makers. It is well understood that policy actors are boundedly rational and this impacts upon the way in which evidence is used in the policy process. What has not been clearly articulated and is the focus of this article is that bounded rationality applies equally to the production of evidence. Drawing on the work of Polish microbiologist Ludwick Fleck we discuss how the process of systematically collecting and communicating evidence can undermine the aspirations of EPBM. We illustrate this argument with reference to recent policy debates about obesity",
keywords = "Bounded Rationality, Science, Evidence-Based Policy",
author = "Linda Botterill and Andrew Hindmoor",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1080/01442872.2011.626315",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "367--379",
journal = "Policy Studies",
issn = "0144-2872",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "5",

}

Turtles All the Way Down: Bounded rationality in an evidence-based age. / Botterill, Linda; Hindmoor, Andrew.

In: Policy Studies, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2012, p. 367-379.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Turtles All the Way Down: Bounded rationality in an evidence-based age

AU - Botterill, Linda

AU - Hindmoor, Andrew

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Evidence-based policy-making (EBPM) has become both a catch-cry and aspiration of governments. Drawing on 'the evidence', governments seek to focus on 'what works' and so avoid the pitfalls of policy driven by ideology or values. Critics of EBPM remind us that the policy process remains messy and uncertain and that while research may deliver the latest scientific evidence, it is not always translated effectively into policy. We argue that the problems with EBPM run much deeper. This is not only because of the way in which knowledge is employed by policy-makers but because of the way in which knowledge is collected and communicated to policy-makers. It is well understood that policy actors are boundedly rational and this impacts upon the way in which evidence is used in the policy process. What has not been clearly articulated and is the focus of this article is that bounded rationality applies equally to the production of evidence. Drawing on the work of Polish microbiologist Ludwick Fleck we discuss how the process of systematically collecting and communicating evidence can undermine the aspirations of EPBM. We illustrate this argument with reference to recent policy debates about obesity

AB - Evidence-based policy-making (EBPM) has become both a catch-cry and aspiration of governments. Drawing on 'the evidence', governments seek to focus on 'what works' and so avoid the pitfalls of policy driven by ideology or values. Critics of EBPM remind us that the policy process remains messy and uncertain and that while research may deliver the latest scientific evidence, it is not always translated effectively into policy. We argue that the problems with EBPM run much deeper. This is not only because of the way in which knowledge is employed by policy-makers but because of the way in which knowledge is collected and communicated to policy-makers. It is well understood that policy actors are boundedly rational and this impacts upon the way in which evidence is used in the policy process. What has not been clearly articulated and is the focus of this article is that bounded rationality applies equally to the production of evidence. Drawing on the work of Polish microbiologist Ludwick Fleck we discuss how the process of systematically collecting and communicating evidence can undermine the aspirations of EPBM. We illustrate this argument with reference to recent policy debates about obesity

KW - Bounded Rationality

KW - Science

KW - Evidence-Based Policy

U2 - 10.1080/01442872.2011.626315

DO - 10.1080/01442872.2011.626315

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 367

EP - 379

JO - Policy Studies

T2 - Policy Studies

JF - Policy Studies

SN - 0144-2872

IS - 5

ER -