In his new book, The Politics of Evidence: From evidence-based polity to the good governance of evidence, Justin Parkhurst of the LSE looks at the continual calls to scale up or institutionalise the use of evidence which never stop to consider some fundamentally important political questions – such as what evidence should be promoted, by whom, and for which of the many social concerns typically at stake in policymaking.
The answers to these questions – about which evidence, about what concerns, by whom – have implications for whose interests are promoted or legitimised within the policy sphere. This tension underlies some of the most important contemporary debates about evidence use today – often seen to be waged in terms of a ‘paradigm war’ between advocates of better evidence on the one hand – who argue that we need to ensure rigour and scientific good practice; and critical policy scholars – who argue that important value debates risk being depoliticised or obscured by particular uses of evidence.
This book tries to move these debates forward, arguing that we need to recognise that in policy arenas, the systems and processes that shape how evidence is used can be understood as governing the use of evidence for policymaking. Institutionalising or scaling up new ways of using evidence, are thus not simply technical exercises in skills building, but are fundamentally a normative (value driven) process. It sets in place the structures, rules, and practices that will direct how different forms of evidence, for different social concerns, are used to guide policy decisions.
If institutions govern evidence use, and if the decisions on how to arrange them are political ones, this begs the question: which values or norms should be followed when working to improve the use of evidence? What, in other words, can we hold up as key principles of the good governance of evidence? My book looks to the stakeholders in the aforementioned debate to find answers to this. Champions of evidence typically uphold a key set of normative concerns that are fundamentally about achieving scientific best practice. Critical policy scholars, on the other hand, present a separate, but just as important, set of concerns over democratic representation in policymaking. These need not be mutually exclusive, however. Both perspectives can be used to form a set of principles that underpins a conceptualisation of good governance of evidence. Evidence can be said to be well governed when we have systems in place that ensure that rigorous, systematic and technically valid pieces of evidence are used in decision-making processes that are representative of, and accountable to, the populations served.
This concept allows us to return to our goal of building institutions to improve evidence use for policymaking, but to do so in ways that are appropriate to the political nature of the policy process.
‘The Politics of Evidence: From Evidence Based Policy to the Good Governance of Evidence’ by Justin Parkhurst is published by Routledge (2017).
The book is available for free as a pdf under a creative commons open access licence (CC-BY-NC-ND) and can be downloaded here.
Hardback copies are also available for purchase here.
A set of briefs have also been produced summarising many of the key points of the book, available here (listed under ‘chapter summaries’).
Justin Parkhurst is an Associate Professor of Global Health Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science (the LSE). His current work looks at the politics and governance of evidence, with past work on health systems development and HIV/AIDS prevention, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (see https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Parkhurst for publications, many of which are open access and free to download).