Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:55:34.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Complexity of Evidence: Reflections on Research Utilisation in a Heavily Politicised Policy Area

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2009

Mark Monaghan
Mark Monaghan*
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Sociology/Social Policy and Crime, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds E-mail: m.p.monaghan@leeds.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Exploring evidence utilisation in a heavily politicised policy area, this paper suggests that established models of research utilisation provide inadequate grounds to conceptualise the evidence and policy relationship in this context. This is because they operate at too high a level of abstraction and have a narrow understanding of the association. Using recent developments in UK drug classification policy as a case study, a newer ‘processual model’ is (tentatively) advocated. This highlights the complexity and nuance of the policy process and its accompanying use of evidence which, it is claimed, more accurately depicts the evidence and policy relationship in this particular scenario.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ACMD (2002), The Classification of Cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
ACMD (2005), Further Consideration of the Classification of Cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
ACMD (2008), Cannabis: Classification and Public Health, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Arseneault, L., Cannon, M., Witton, J. and Murray, R. M. (2004), ‘Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence’, British Journal of Psychiatry, 184, 2, 110–17.Google Scholar
Blunkett, D. (2000), ‘Influence or irrelevance: can social science improve government?’, Research Intelligence, 71 (March).Google Scholar
Bulmer, M., Banting, K. G., Blume, S. S., Carley, M. and Weiss, C. (eds) (1986), Social Science and Social Policy, London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Chambliss, W. J. (1976), ‘The state and criminal law’, in Chambliss, W. J. and Mankoff, M. (eds.), Whose Law? What Order? A Conflict Approach to Criminology, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Herman, E. S. (1988), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass-Media, New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Duke, K. (2003), Drugs, Prisons and Policy-Making, London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J. and Ridder, E. M. (2005), ‘Tests of causal linkages between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms’, Addiction, 100, 3, 354–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finch, J. (1986), Research and Policy: The Use of Qualitative Methods in Social and Educational Research, London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hall, W. (2007), ‘Psychoactive drugs of misuse: rationalising the irrational’, The Lancet, 369, 9566, 972.Google Scholar
Hansard (2007), ‘Westminster Hall Debates – Drug Classification: John Bercow In the Chair’, Vol. accessed 4/10/07: available at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-06-14a.335.0.Google Scholar
Heinemann, R. A., Buhm, W. T., Peterson, S. A. and Kearney, E. N. (1990), The World of the Policy Analyst: Rationality, Values and Politics, Chatham: NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Henquet, C., Krabbendam, L., Spauwen, J., Kaplan, C., Lieb, R., Wittchen, H.-U. and van Os, J. (2004), ‘Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people’, British Medical Journal, 330, 11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Home Affairs Committee (2002), The Government's Drugs Policy: Is it Working? London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Home Office (2002), Updated Drug Strategy 2002, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Klein, R. (2000), ‘From evidence-based medicine to evidence-based policy’, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 5, 2, 65–6.Google Scholar
Levitt, R., Nason, E. and Hallsworth, M. (2006), The Evidence-base for the Classification of Drugs, Cambridge: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1959), ‘The science of muddling through’, Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1980), The Policy-making Process, 2nd edn, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
MacDonald, R. and Das, A. (2006), ‘UK classification of drugs of abuse: an un-evidence-based mess’, The Lancet, 368, 9535, 559–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marmot, M. G. (2004), ‘Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence’, British Medical Journal, 328, 7445, 906–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
May, T., Warburton, H., Turnbull, P. J. and Hough, M. (2002), The Times They are A-Changing, York: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Metropolitan Police Authority (2002), The Lambeth Cannabis Warning Pilot Scheme, London: MPA.Google Scholar
Mills, J. H. (2003), Cannabis Britannica: Empire, Trade and Prohibition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Monaghan, M. (2008)a, ‘Appreciating cannabis: the paradox of “evidence” in evidence-based policy-making’, Evidence and Policy, 4, 2, 209–31.Google Scholar
Monaghan, M. (2008)b, ‘The evidence-base in UK drug policy: the new rules of engagement’, Policy and Politics, 36, 1, 145–50.Google Scholar
MORI (2002), Policing the Possession of Cannabis: Residents’ Views on the Lambeth Experiment, London: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (2001), Modern Policy Making: Ensuring Policies Deliver Value for Money, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Nutt, D., King, L. A., Saulsbury, W. and Blakemore, C. (2007), ‘Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse’, The Lancet, 369, 9566, 1046–53.Google Scholar
Police Foundation (2000), Drugs and the law: report of the inquiry into the misuse of drugs act 1971, London: The Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Reuter, P. and Stevens, A. (2007), An Analysis of UK Drug Policy: A Monograph Prepared for the UK Drug Policy Commission, London: United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission.Google Scholar
Roe, S. (2005), Drug Misuse Declared: Findings from the 2004–2005 British Crime Survey – England and Wales, London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin.Google Scholar
Rolles, S., Kushlick, D. and Jay, M. (2006), After the War on Drugs: Options for Control, Bristol: Transform Drug Policy Foundation.Google Scholar
Royal Society of Arts (2007), Drugs – Facing the Facts: The Report for the RSA Commission on Illegal Drugs, Communities and Public Policy, London: The Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts, Manufacture and Commerce.Google Scholar
Science and Technology Committee (2006), Drug Classification: Making a Hash of It? London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Solesbury, W. (2001), ‘Evidence-based Policy: Whence It Came From and Where It's Going’, ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice – Working Paper 1, London.Google Scholar
Spencer, H. (1891), Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, London: Appleton.Google Scholar
Stevens, A. (2007), ‘Survival of the ideas that fit: an evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy’, Social Policy and Society, 6, 1, 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Guardian (2007), ‘Disowning success’, The Guardian, 29 October, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2201019,00.html.Google Scholar
Tonry, M. (2004), Punishment and Politics: Evidence and Emulation in the Making of English Crime Control Policy, London: Willan.Google Scholar
Vickers, G. (1965), The Art of Judgement: A Study of Policy-Making, London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H. (1977), Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, Lexington: DC Heath.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H. (1986), ‘The many meanings of research utilisation’, in Bulmer, M. (ed.), Social Science and Social Policy, London: Allen Unwin.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H. (1998), ‘Have we learned anything about the use of evaluation?’,American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 1, 21–33.Google Scholar
Young, J. (1971), The Drugtakers: The Social Meaning of Drug Use, London: MacGibbon & Kee.Google Scholar
Young, K., Ashby, D., Boaz, A. and Grayson, L. (2002), ‘Social science and the evidence-based policy movement’, Social Policy and Society, 1, 3, 215–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar