Introduction

In the preceding chapters, our contributing authors have revealed asurprisingly long and rich history of the use of evidence in formingpublic sector policy and practice in the UK. However, they alsopoint to major shortcomings in the extent of evidence available, thenature of that evidence, and the ways in which the evidence isdisseminated and used by policy makers and practitioners. Ourinvidious task now is to draw some of these themes together.

It is clear that vast differences exist between service areas in thebreadth and quality of available evidence, and in the ways in whichthis evidence is utilised (see Chapters Three to Ten and Box 16.1).Considerable diversity also arises within sector areas, and so summaries such as those inBox 16.1 are necessarily broad-brush. These differences may arisefor a number of reasons: the nature of the service; the costs ofproviding evidence; the capacity and culture of the researchcommunity; the attitudes and prejudices of practitioners; theattitudes and prejudices of citizens and policy makers; orhistorical accident. Exploring the diversity between sector areas isinteresting not just in helping to explain sector-specificdevelopments but, more importantly, because it promotes thediffusion of learning between sectors.

Learning from diversity requires us to celebrate difference and notalways to search for what is common. It is not a question oflevelling down to the lowest common denominator: one size does notfit all. On the contrary, diversity is explored to extendunderstanding of the possible, stimulate creative thinking about newstrategies, inject life into tired old debates, and foster a morenuanced and contextualised view of the challenges and possiblesolutions. To anticipate just two examples, the ‘paradigm wars’between quantitative and qualitative approaches to evidencegeneration seen in some sectors (such as education and social care)may reach some sort of rapprochement from an understanding of howthey offer diverse and complementary perspectives on policyproblems. This may be easier for the protagonists to see by lookingoutside of their own sector – for example, by examining the debatesover experimentation in criminal justice. Similarly, insight intothe difficulties of implementation in one area may foster creativethinking about new strategies in another.