Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-f9bf7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T02:42:11.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Telling Policy Stories: An Ethnographic Study of the Use of Evidence in Policy-making in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2010

ALEX STEVENS
ALEX STEVENS*
Affiliation:
Professor in Criminal Justice, School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Gillingham Building, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4AG email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on participant observation in a team of British policy-making civil servants carried out in 2009, this article examines the use that is made of evidence in making policy. It shows that these civil servants displayed a high level of commitment to the use of evidence. However, their use of evidence was hampered by the huge volume of various kinds of evidence and by the unsuitability of much academic research in answering policy questions. Faced with this deluge of inconclusive information, they used evidence to create persuasive policy stories. These stories were useful both in making acceptable policies and in advancing careers. They often involved the excision of methodological uncertainty and the use of ‘killer charts’ to boost the persuasiveness of the narrative. In telling these stories, social inequality was ‘silently silenced’ in favour of promoting policies which were ‘totemically’ tough. The article concludes that this selective, narrative use of evidence is ideological in that it supports systematically asymmetrical relations of power.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 237 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Bachrach, P. and Baratz, S. (1962), ‘Decisions and nondecisions: an analytical framework’, American Political Science Review, 57: 947–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, A. (2003), Illicit Drugs: Use and Control, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béland, D. (2007), ‘The social exclusion discourse: ideas and policy change’, Policy and Politics, 35: 1, 123–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berridge, V. and Thom, B. (1996), ‘Research and policy: what determines the relationship?’, Policy Studies, 17: 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskar, R. (1978), A Realist Theory of Science, Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Black, N. (2001), ‘Evidence based policy: proceed with care’, British Medical Journal, 323: 275–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boaz, A. and Pawson, R. (2005), ‘The perilous road from evidence to policy: five journeys compared’, Journal of Social Policy, 34: 2, 175–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonger, W. (1969) [1905], Criminality and Economic Conditions, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (2000), Pascalian Meditations, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
British Sociological Association (2002), Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association, Durham: British Sociological Association.Google Scholar
Carter, P. (2003), Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach, London, Prime Minister's Strategy Unit.Google Scholar
Chanan, G. (1999), ‘Social exclusion: an overview’, in Wilson, V. (ed.), Tackling Social Exclusion: British and European Perspectives, Canterbury: EISS, University of Kent.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (1987), How Institutions Think, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Doward, J., Hinsliff, G. and McKie, R. (2009), ‘Ministers face rebellion over drug tsar's sacking’, The Observer, 1 November 2009.Google Scholar
Dunn, W. N. (1993), ‘Policy reforms as arguments’, in Fischer, F. and Forester, J. (eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Gans, H. J. (1971), ‘Social science for social policy’, in Horowitz, I. L. (ed.), The Use and Abuse of Social Science, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, pp. 13–33.Google Scholar
Gelsthorpe, L. and Burney, E. (2007), ‘Parenting as crime control: a critique of government policy’, presentation at 7th Annual Conference of the European Society of Criminology, European Society of Criminology, Bologna.Google Scholar
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T. and Paparozzi, M. (2002), ‘The common sense revolution and correctional policy’, in McGuire, J. (ed.), Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-offending, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 359–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. (1979), Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis, London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, , , A. L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
Glees, A. (2005), ‘Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? Hutton and the government's use of secret intelligence’, Parliamentary Affairs, 58: 138–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goggins, P. (2005), House of Commons Written Answers for 5 February 2005, column 1429W, Hansard, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Greener, I. (2009), Public Management: A Critical Text, Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984), Communication and the Evolution of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2002), ‘Social action, purposive activity and communication (1981)’, in Cooke, M. (ed.), On the Pragmatics of Communication, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 105–82.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. A. (1995), The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Environmental Modernization and the Policy Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, M. (2009), The Public Policy Process, 5th edition, Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
John, P. (1998), Analysing Public Policy, London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. W. (1995), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd edition, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Labour Party (1997) New Labour: Because Britain Deserves Better, London: Labour Party.Google Scholar
Layder, D. (1998), Sociological Practice: Linking Theory and Social Research, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1964), Totemism (translated by Needham, R.), London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
Lukes, S. (1974), Power: A Radical View, London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathiesen, T. (2004), Silently Silenced: Essays on the Creation of Acquiescence in Modern Society, Winchester: Waterside Press.Google Scholar
Monaghan, M. (2008), ‘Appreciating cannabis: the paradox of evidence in evidence-based policy making’, Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 4: 209–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaghan, M. (2010), ‘The complexity of evidence: reflections on research utilisation in a heavily politicised policy area’, Social Policy and Society, 9: 1, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Audit Office (2009), The National Offender Management Information System, London: National Audit Office.Google Scholar
Naughton, M. (2005), ‘Evidence-based policy and the government of the criminal justice system – only if the evidence fits!’, Critical Social Policy, 25: 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutley, S. M. and Davies, H. T. O. (2000), ‘Making a reality of evidence-based practice: some lessons from the diffusion of innovations’, Public Money and Management, 20: 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutley, S. M., Walter, I. and Bland, N. (2002), ‘The institutional arrangements for connecting evidence and policy: the case of drug misuse’, Public Policy and Administration, 17: 76–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutley, S. M., Walter, I. and Davies, H. T. O. (2007), Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Page, E. C. and Jenkins, B. (2005), Policy Bureaucracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, G., MacInnes, T. and Kenway, P. (2007), Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion 2007, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Prior, L. (2003), Using Documents in Social Research, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, B. and Uslaner, E. M. (2005), ‘All for all: equality, corruption, and social trust’, World Politics, 58 (October): 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sanderson, I. (2004), ‘Getting evidence into practice: perspectives on rationality’, Evaluation, 10: 366–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. E. (2007), ‘Health inequalities in Scotland and England: the contrasting journey of ideas from research into policy’, Social Science and Medicine, 64: 7, 1438–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, A. (2007a), ‘Survival of the ideas that fit: an evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy’, Social Policy and Society, 6: 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, A. (2007b), ‘When two dark figures collide: evidence and discourse on drug-related crime’, Critical Social Policy, 27: 1, 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, G. (2001), ‘Evidence and policy: the use and misuse of drugs statistics’, Unpublished paper, Imperial College, London.Google Scholar
Straw, J. and Michael, A. (1996), Tackling the Causes of Crime: Labour's Proposals to Prevent Crime and Criminality, London: Labour Party.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009), Reframing Social Citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
The Economist (2009), ‘Time to come clean’, The Economist, 5 November 2009.Google Scholar
Therborn, G. (1980), The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology, London: Verso.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. B. (1990), Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Tilley, N. and Laycock, G. (2000), ‘Joining up research, policy and practice about crime’, Policy Studies, 21: 3, 213–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tombs, J. (2003), ‘Evidence in the policymaking process’, Paper presented at the Department of Criminology, 7 May, Keele University, unpublished.Google Scholar
Tombs, S. and Whyte, S. (2003), ‘Why bad new is no news and crime is big business’, The Times Higher, 21 November.Google Scholar
Tonry, M. (2004), Punishment and Politics: Evidence and Emulation in the Making of English Crime Control Policy, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
Valentine, K. (2009), ‘Evidence, values and drug treatment policy’, Critical Social Policy, 29: 443–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, R. (2003), Deviant Knowledge: Criminology, Politics and Policy, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H. (1977), ‘Research for policy's sake: the enlightenment function of social research’, Policy Analysis, 3: 531–47.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H. (1999), ‘The interface between evaluation and public policy’, Evaluation, 5: 468–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2008), The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Wyatt, A. (2002) ‘Evidence based policy making: the view from a centre’, Public Policy and Administration, 17: 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. (2003), ‘Winning the fight against crime? New labour, populism and lost opportunities’, in Matthews, R. and Young, J. (eds.), The New Politics of Crime and Punishment, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
Young, J. (2007), The Vertigo of Late Modernity, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar