循证政策的新认识论

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
P. Sayer
{"title":"循证政策的新认识论","authors":"P. Sayer","doi":"10.1332/030557319x15657389008311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a remarkably short period, ‘evidence-based policy’ (EBP), and the associated discourses of ‘what works’, have risen to prominence as a set of organising principles for public policy decision-making. Critics of EBP frequently point to its implicit positivist\n assumptions by highlighting the socially constructed nature of evidence. However, the effectiveness of this critique is limited by the imprecise and often pejorative use of the term ‘positivism’. This article therefore seeks to offer a more precise account of the underlying assumptions\n of EBP. To do so, it draws on an epistemological position known as process reliabilism, which analyses the justification of a belief by assessing whether it has been reached by means of an epistemically reliable decision-making process or processes. Through this framework, the article advocates\n a new approach to EBP which is framed around the principle of avoiding error, rather than that of seeking truth.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"241-258"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A new epistemology of evidence-based policy\",\"authors\":\"P. Sayer\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/030557319x15657389008311\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a remarkably short period, ‘evidence-based policy’ (EBP), and the associated discourses of ‘what works’, have risen to prominence as a set of organising principles for public policy decision-making. Critics of EBP frequently point to its implicit positivist\\n assumptions by highlighting the socially constructed nature of evidence. However, the effectiveness of this critique is limited by the imprecise and often pejorative use of the term ‘positivism’. This article therefore seeks to offer a more precise account of the underlying assumptions\\n of EBP. To do so, it draws on an epistemological position known as process reliabilism, which analyses the justification of a belief by assessing whether it has been reached by means of an epistemically reliable decision-making process or processes. Through this framework, the article advocates\\n a new approach to EBP which is framed around the principle of avoiding error, rather than that of seeking truth.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47631,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Politics\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"241-258\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15657389008311\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15657389008311","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

在一个非常短的时期内,“循证政策”(EBP)以及与之相关的“什么有效”的论述,作为一套公共政策决策的组织原则,已经变得突出起来。EBP的批评者经常通过强调证据的社会建构性质来指出其隐含的实证主义假设。然而,这种批评的有效性受到“实证主义”一词的不精确和经常带有贬义的使用的限制。因此,本文试图对EBP的基本假设提供更精确的说明。为了做到这一点,它借鉴了一种被称为过程可靠性的认识论立场,它通过评估它是否已经通过一个或多个认识论上可靠的决策过程来达到来分析信念的正当性。通过这一框架,本文提出了一种以避免错误为原则,而不是以追求真理为原则的EBP新方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A new epistemology of evidence-based policy
In a remarkably short period, ‘evidence-based policy’ (EBP), and the associated discourses of ‘what works’, have risen to prominence as a set of organising principles for public policy decision-making. Critics of EBP frequently point to its implicit positivist assumptions by highlighting the socially constructed nature of evidence. However, the effectiveness of this critique is limited by the imprecise and often pejorative use of the term ‘positivism’. This article therefore seeks to offer a more precise account of the underlying assumptions of EBP. To do so, it draws on an epistemological position known as process reliabilism, which analyses the justification of a belief by assessing whether it has been reached by means of an epistemically reliable decision-making process or processes. Through this framework, the article advocates a new approach to EBP which is framed around the principle of avoiding error, rather than that of seeking truth.
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
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
12.80%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信