A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHeesen, R.
dc.contributor.authorRubin, H.
dc.contributor.authorSchneider, M.D
dc.contributor.authorWoolaston, K.
dc.contributor.authorBortolus, A.
dc.contributor.authorChukwu, E.E.
dc.contributor.authorKaufer, R.
dc.contributor.authorMitova, V.
dc.contributor.authorSchwenkenbecher, A.
dc.contributor.authorSchwindt, E.
dc.contributor.authorSlanickova, H.
dc.contributor.authorSogbanmu, T. O.
dc.contributor.authorHewitt, C.L.
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-25T16:16:44Z
dc.date.available2024-11-25T16:16:44Z
dc.date.issued2024-08
dc.descriptionScholarly article
dc.description.abstractWhen evidence-based policymaking is so often mired in disagreement and controversy, how can we know if the process is meeting its stated goals? We develop a novel mathematical model to study disagreements about adequate knowledge utilization, like those regarding wild horse culling, shark drumlines and facemask policies during pandemics. We find that, when stakeholders disagree, it is frequently impossible to tell whether any party is at fault. We demonstrate the need for a distinctive kind of transparency in evidence-based policymaking, which we call transparency of reasoning. Such transparency is critical to the success of the evidence-based policy movement, as without it, we will be unable to tell whether in any instance a policy was in fact based on evidence.
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors would like to thank Hannah Metzen, Li-An Yu, participants in the Bielefeld Philosophy of Science seminar, and an audience at the workshop “(Mis)interpretation of Scientific Evidence” in Bielefeld for valuable comments and discussion. All authors acknowledge funding from the Center for Interdisciplinary Research (Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung, ZiF) at Bielefeld University through grant RG2023/1 “The Epistemology of Evidence-Based Policy: How Philosophy can Facilitate the Science-Policy Interface”. EEC and TOS acknowledge funding from the Volkswagen Foundation through a Norbert Elias Fellowship. HS acknowledges funding from the Dutch Research Council and the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Society through grant 024.003.025 “Sustainable Cooperation – Roadmaps to Resilient Societies”. ES acknowledges funding from Proyectos de Investigación Plurianuales, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (PIP-CONICET) through grant 11220210100507CO. HR acknowledges funding from the National Science Foundation through grant 2045007.
dc.identifier.citationHeesen, R., Rubin, H., Schneider, M., Woolaston, K., Bortolus, A., Chukwu, E., Kaufer, R., Mitova, V., Schwenkenbecher, A., Schwindt, E., Slanickova, H., Sogbanmu, T. O. and Hewitt, C. (2024). A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking. Scientific Reports 14: 18495.
dc.identifier.issn2045-2322
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.unilag.edu.ng/handle/123456789/13045
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer Nature
dc.relation.ispartofseries14
dc.titleA model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking
dc.typeArticle
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Heesen et al 2024 - Scientific Reports.pdf
Size:
1.28 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Zoology-Scholarly Publications