循证政策：认识论与规范论的张力

IF 0.4 3区社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Critical Review Pub Date : 2019-04-03 DOI:10.1080/08913811.2019.1688520

Donal Khosrowi, J. Reiss

{"title":"循证政策：认识论与规范论的张力","authors":"Donal Khosrowi, J. Reiss","doi":"10.1080/08913811.2019.1688520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Acceding to the demand that public policy should be based on “the best available evidence” can come at significant moral cost. Important policy questions cannot be addressed using “the best available evidence” as defined by the evidence-based policy paradigm; the paradigm can change the meaning of questions so that they can be addressed using the preferred kind of evidence; and important evidence that does not meet the standard defined by the paradigm can get ignored. We illustrate these problems in three contexts of evidence-based policy.","PeriodicalId":51723,"journal":{"name":"Critical Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"179 - 197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08913811.2019.1688520","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-Based Policy: The Tension Between the Epistemic and the Normative\",\"authors\":\"Donal Khosrowi, J. Reiss\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08913811.2019.1688520\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Acceding to the demand that public policy should be based on “the best available evidence” can come at significant moral cost. Important policy questions cannot be addressed using “the best available evidence” as defined by the evidence-based policy paradigm; the paradigm can change the meaning of questions so that they can be addressed using the preferred kind of evidence; and important evidence that does not meet the standard defined by the paradigm can get ignored. We illustrate these problems in three contexts of evidence-based policy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Review\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"179 - 197\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08913811.2019.1688520\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2019.1688520\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2019.1688520","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 9

摘要

同意公共政策应基于“可获得的最佳证据”的要求可能会付出巨大的道德代价。重要的政策问题不能使用“现有的最佳证据”来解决，这是基于证据的政策范式所定义的;范式可以改变问题的意义，以便使用首选的证据来解决问题;不符合范式定义的标准的重要证据可以被忽略。我们在三种基于证据的政策背景下说明了这些问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Evidence-Based Policy: The Tension Between the Epistemic and the Normative

ABSTRACT Acceding to the demand that public policy should be based on “the best available evidence” can come at significant moral cost. Important policy questions cannot be addressed using “the best available evidence” as defined by the evidence-based policy paradigm; the paradigm can change the meaning of questions so that they can be addressed using the preferred kind of evidence; and important evidence that does not meet the standard defined by the paradigm can get ignored. We illustrate these problems in three contexts of evidence-based policy.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Critical Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

12.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society is a political-science journal dedicated to advancing political theory with an epistemological bent. Recurrent questions discussed in our pages include: How can political actors know what they need to know to effect positive social change? What are the sources of political actors’ beliefs? Are these sources reliable? Critical Review is the only journal in which the ideational determinants of political behavior are investigated empirically as well as being assessed for their normative implications. Thus, while normative political theorists are the main contributors to Critical Review, we also publish scholarship on the realities of public opinion, the media, technocratic decision making, ideological reasoning, and other empirical phenomena.