Integrating evidence and public engagement in policy work: an empirical examination of three UK policy organisations
Alongside efforts to improve evidence use in policy, grassroots demands and governance-driven democratisation are informing an ever-increasing range of public engagement processes in UK policy. This article explores how these simultaneous efforts intersect within three policy organisations working at different levels of UK policy: local (Sheffield City Council), regional (Greater Manchester Combined Authority) and national (devolved) (Scottish Government). Employing documentary analysis and 51 interviews with individuals working in these organisations, we argue that there are organisational similarities in approaches to evidence and engagement, including: conceiving of both ‘data’ (statistics tracked by internal analysts) and ‘evidence’ (external analysis) in primarily quantified terms; and a tendency to limit the authority of publics to advising and consulting on predefined issues. Yet, we also find growing interest in more in-depth understandings of publics (for example, via ‘lived experiences’) but uncertainty about how to use these qualitative insights in settings that have institutionalised quantitative approaches to evidence. We identify four distinct responses: (1) prioritising public engagement; (2) strategically using public engagement and evidence to support policy proposals; (3) prioritising quantified evidence and data; and (4) attempting to integrate these distinct knowledge types. Surprisingly (given the organisational importance afforded to metrics), we categorised most interviewees in Cluster 4. Finally, we explore how interviewees described trying to do this kind of integration work, before reflecting on the promise and limitations of the various mechanisms that interviewees identified.
-
Abelson, J., Forest, P.G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E. and Gauvin, F.P. (2003) Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes, Social Science & Medicine, 57(2): 239–51.
-
Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S. and Auer, S. (2015) A systematic review of open government data initiatives, Government Information Quarterly, 32(4): 399–418. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.006
-
Bambra, C. (2013) The primacy of politics: the rise and fall of Evidence-based public health policy?, Journal of Public Health, 35(4): 486–87. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdt113
-
Bandola-Gill, J. (2022) Statistical entrepreneurs: the political work of infrastructuring the SDG indicators, Policy and Society, 41(4): 498–512. doi: 10.1093/polsoc/puac013
-
Bandola-Gill, J., Arthur, M. and Leng, R. (2022) What is Co-production? Conceptualising and understanding of Co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical perspectives, Evidence and Policy, doi: 10.1332/174426421X16420955772641.
-
Bennett, H., Escobar, O., Hill O’Connor, C., Plotnikova, E. and Steiner, A. (2021) Participation requests: a democratic innovation to unlock the door of public services?, Administration & Society, 54(4): 605–28. doi: 10.1177/00953997211037597
-
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
-
Cabinet Office (1999) Modernising Government (White Paper), London: The Stationary Office.
-
Cabannes, Y. and Lipietz, B. (2018) Revisiting the democratic promise of participatory budgeting in light of competing political, good governance and technocratic logics, Environment and Urbanization.
-
Contandriopoulos, D., Lemire, M., Denis, J.L. and Tremblay, E. (2010) Knowledge exchange processes in organisations and policy areas: a narrative systematic review of the literature, Milbank Quarterly, 88(4): 444–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00608.x
-
Dalton, R. (2017) The Participation Gap: Social Status and Political Inequality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Dean, R. (2019) Control or influence? Conflict or solidarity? Understanding diversity in preferences for public participation in social policy decision making, Social Policy & Administration, 53(1): 170–87.
-
Dunlop, C.A. (2014) The possible experts: how epistemic communities negotiate barriers to knowledge use in ecosystems services policy, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(2): 208–28. doi: 10.1068/c13192j
-
Elstub, S. and Escobar, O. (2019) Defining and typologising democratic innovations, in S. Elstub and O. Escobar (eds) Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
-
Evans, R. (2022) SAGE advice and political decision-making: ‘following the science’ in times of epistemic uncertainty, Social Studies of Science, 52(1): 53–78. doi: 10.1177/03063127211062586
-
Few, R., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E.L. (2007) Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion, Climate Policy, 7(1): 46–59. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2007.9685637
-
Fereday, J. and Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006) Demonstrating rigour using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and them development, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1): 80–92. doi: 10.1177/160940690600500107
-
Fung, A. (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance, Public Administration Review, 66(1): 66–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
-
GMCA (Greater Manchester Combined Authority) (2022) Greater Manchester strategy 2021–2031: good lives for all, https://aboutgreatermanchester.com/media/jlslgbys/greater-manchester-strategy-our-plan.pdf.
-
Greer, S.L., Stewart, E., Ercia, A. and Donnelly, P. (2021) Changing health care with, for, or against the public: an empirical investigation into the place of the public in health service reconfiguration, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 6(1): 12–19.
-
Haas, P.M. (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination, International Organization, 46(1): 1–35. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300001442
-
Head, B.W. and Banerjee, S. (2020) Policy expertise and use of evidence in a populist era, Australian Journal of Political Science, 55(1): 110–21. doi: 10.1080/10361146.2019.1686117
-
Hendriks, C.M. (2012) Policy evaluation and public participation, in E. Araral, Fritzen, S., Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. and Wu, X. (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, Abingdon: Routledge, pp 434–49.
-
Hillier, J. (2003) Commentary, International Planning Studies, 8(2): 157–66. doi: 10.1080/13563470305155
-
Innvær, S., Vist, G., Trommald, M. and Oxman, A. (2002) Health Policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 7(4): 239–44.
-
Katikireddi, S.C., Higgins, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C. and Macintyre, S. (2011) How evidence based is English public health policy?, BMJ, (343): d7310.
-
Kenealy, D. (2016) A tale of one city: the Devo Manc deal and its implications for English devolution, The Political Quarterly, 87(4): 572–81. doi: 10.1111/1467-923X.12278
-
King, M. and Wilson, R. (2022) Local government and democratic innovations: reflections on the case of citizen assemblies on climate change, Public Money & Management, 1–4.
-
Lafont, C. (2020) Democracy within Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Lancsar, E., Gu, Y., Gyrd-Hansen, D., Butler, J., Ratcliffe, J., Bulfone, L. and Donaldson, C. (2020) The relative value of different QALY types, Journal of Health Economics, 70: 102303. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102303
-
Lorenc, T., Tyner, E.F., Petticrew, M., Duffy, S., Martineau, F.P., Phillips, G. and Lock, K. (2014) Cultures of evidence across policy sectors: systematic review of qualitative evidence, European Journal of Public Health, 24(6): 1041–7. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku038
-
Maybin, J. (2016) Producing Health Policy: Knowledge and Knowing in Government Policy Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Mitton, C., Adair, C.E., McKenzie, E., Patten, S.B. and Waye Perry, B. (2007) Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature, The Milbank Quarterly, 85(4): 729–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00506.x
-
Mulgan, G. (2005) Government, knowledge and the business of policy making: the potential and limits of evidence based policy, Evidence and Policy, 1(2): 215–26. doi: 10.1332/1744264053730789
-
Naughton, M. (2005) ‘Evidence-based policy’ and the government of the criminal justice system – only if the evidence fits!, Critical Social Policy, 25(1): 47–69. doi: 10.1177/0261018305048967
-
Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J. and Thomas, J. (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers, BMC Health Services Research, 14(2), doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-2.
-
Pallett, H. (2020) The new evidence-based policy: public participation between ‘hard evidence’ and democracy in practice, Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 16(2): 209–27.
-
Pateman, C. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Pawson, R. (2006) Evidence Based Policy: A Realist Perspective, London: SAGE Publications.
-
Poverty and Inequality Commission (2022) How we Work, Glasgow: Poverty and Inequality Commission, https://povertyinequality.scot/#how-we-work.
-
Qureshi, K. (2013) It’s not just pills and potions? Depoliticising health inequalities policy in England, Anthropology & Medicine, 20(1): 1–12.
-
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2): 251–90.
-
Saltelli, A. and Giampietro, M. (2017) What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?, Futures, 91: 62–71. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012
-
Sager, F. and Mavrot, C. (2021) Participatory vs expert evaluation styles, in M. Howlett and T. Jale (eds) Sage Handbook of Policy Styles, London: Routledge.
-
Scotland’s Climate Assembly (2021) Scotland’s climate assembly: recommendations for action, https://www.climateassembly.scot/sites/default/files/2021-09/620640_SCT0521502140-001_Scotland%E2%80%99s%20Climate%20Assembly_Final%20Report%20Goals_WEB%20ONLY%20VERSION.pdf, Edinburgh: Scotland’s Climate Assembly.
-
Scottish Government (2021) Scottish government response to Scotland’s Climate Assembly: recommendations for action, https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2021/12/scottish-government-response-scotlands-climate-assembly-recommendations-action2/documents/scottish-government-response-scotlands-climate-assembly-recommendations-action/scottish-government-response-scotlands-climate-assembly-recommendations-action/govscot%3Adocument/scottish-government-response-scotlands-climate-assembly-recommendations-action.pdf.
-
Sheffield City Council (2021) Our Sheffield: one year plan, https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam/sheffield/docs/your-city-council/our-plans,-policies-and-performance/one-year-plan.pdf.
-
Smith, G. and Wales, C. (2000) Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy, Political Studies, 48(1): 51–65. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.00250
-
Smith, K. (2013) Institutional filters: the translation and Re-circulation of ideas about health inequalities within policy, Policy & Politics, 41(1): 81–100.
-
Smith-Merry, J. (2020) Evidence-based policy, knowledge from experience and validity, Evidence & Policy, 16(2): 305–16.
-
Stevens, A. (2011) Telling policy stories: an ethnographic study of the use of evidence in Policy-making in the UK, Journal of Social Policy, 40(2): 237–55, doi: 10.1017/S0047279410000723.
-
Stewart, E. (2016) Publics and Their Health Systems: Rethinking Participation, London: Palgrave Macmillian.
-
Stewart, E., Smith-Merry, J., Geddes, M. and Bandola-Gill, J. (2020) Opening up evidence-based policy: exploring citizen and service user expertise, Evidence & Policy, 16(2): 199–208.
-
Warren, M.E. (2009) Governance-driven democratization, Critical Policy Studies, 3(1): 3–13. doi: 10.1080/19460170903158040
-
Weiss, C. (1979) The many meanings of research utilization, Public Administration Review, 39(5): 426–31. doi: 10.2307/3109916
| May 2022 onwards | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 496 | 496 | 139 |
| Full Text Views | 340 | 340 | 122 |
| PDF Downloads | 213 | 213 | 60 |
We are a leading social science publisher
committed to making a difference.
Bristol University Press and
Policy Press
bristoluniversitypress.co.uk