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

Autores
Heesen, Remco; Rubin, Hannah; Schneider, Mike D.; Woolaston, Katie; Bortolus, Alejandro; Chukwu, Emelda E.; Kaufer, Ricardo; Mitova, Veli; Schwenkenbecher, Anne; Schwindt, Evangelina; Slanickova, Helena; Sogbanmu, Temitope O.; Hewitt, Chad L.
Año de publicación
2024
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
When 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.
Fil: Heesen, Remco. The London School of Economics and Political Science; Reino Unido
Fil: Rubin, Hannah. University of Missouri; Estados Unidos
Fil: Schneider, Mike D.. University of Missouri; Estados Unidos
Fil: Woolaston, Katie. Queensland University of Technology; Australia
Fil: Bortolus, Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto Patagónico para el Estudio de los Ecosistemas Continentales; Argentina
Fil: Chukwu, Emelda E.. Nigerian Institute Of Medical Research; Nigeria
Fil: Kaufer, Ricardo. Bielefeld University; Alemania
Fil: Mitova, Veli. University of Johannesburg; Sudáfrica
Fil: Schwenkenbecher, Anne. Murdoch University; Australia
Fil: Schwindt, Evangelina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto de Biología de Organismos Marinos; Argentina
Fil: Slanickova, Helena. University of Groningen; Países Bajos
Fil: Sogbanmu, Temitope O.. University of Lagos; Nigeria
Fil: Hewitt, Chad L.. Murdoch University; Australia
Materia
EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY
DISGREEMENT
TRANSPARENCY
EPISTEMOLOGY
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/267404

id CONICETDig_ab19a3942a94af7bf8b62b00dfb0a3b5
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/267404
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymakingHeesen, RemcoRubin, HannahSchneider, Mike D.Woolaston, KatieBortolus, AlejandroChukwu, Emelda E.Kaufer, RicardoMitova, VeliSchwenkenbecher, AnneSchwindt, EvangelinaSlanickova, HelenaSogbanmu, Temitope O.Hewitt, Chad L.EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYDISGREEMENTTRANSPARENCYEPISTEMOLOGYhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.7https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1When 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.Fil: Heesen, Remco. The London School of Economics and Political Science; Reino UnidoFil: Rubin, Hannah. University of Missouri; Estados UnidosFil: Schneider, Mike D.. University of Missouri; Estados UnidosFil: Woolaston, Katie. Queensland University of Technology; AustraliaFil: Bortolus, Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto Patagónico para el Estudio de los Ecosistemas Continentales; ArgentinaFil: Chukwu, Emelda E.. Nigerian Institute Of Medical Research; NigeriaFil: Kaufer, Ricardo. Bielefeld University; AlemaniaFil: Mitova, Veli. University of Johannesburg; SudáfricaFil: Schwenkenbecher, Anne. Murdoch University; AustraliaFil: Schwindt, Evangelina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto de Biología de Organismos Marinos; ArgentinaFil: Slanickova, Helena. University of Groningen; Países BajosFil: Sogbanmu, Temitope O.. University of Lagos; NigeriaFil: Hewitt, Chad L.. Murdoch University; AustraliaNature Portfolio2024-08info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/267404Heesen, Remco; Rubin, Hannah; Schneider, Mike D.; Woolaston, Katie; Bortolus, Alejandro; et al.; A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking; Nature Portfolio; Scientific Reports; 14; 1; 8-2024; 1-102045-2322CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-69012-3info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1038/s41598-024-69012-3info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:31:35Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/267404instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:31:35.553CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking
title A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking
spellingShingle A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking
Heesen, Remco
EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY
DISGREEMENT
TRANSPARENCY
EPISTEMOLOGY
title_short A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking
title_full A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking
title_fullStr A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking
title_full_unstemmed A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking
title_sort A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Heesen, Remco
Rubin, Hannah
Schneider, Mike D.
Woolaston, Katie
Bortolus, Alejandro
Chukwu, Emelda E.
Kaufer, Ricardo
Mitova, Veli
Schwenkenbecher, Anne
Schwindt, Evangelina
Slanickova, Helena
Sogbanmu, Temitope O.
Hewitt, Chad L.
author Heesen, Remco
author_facet Heesen, Remco
Rubin, Hannah
Schneider, Mike D.
Woolaston, Katie
Bortolus, Alejandro
Chukwu, Emelda E.
Kaufer, Ricardo
Mitova, Veli
Schwenkenbecher, Anne
Schwindt, Evangelina
Slanickova, Helena
Sogbanmu, Temitope O.
Hewitt, Chad L.
author_role author
author2 Rubin, Hannah
Schneider, Mike D.
Woolaston, Katie
Bortolus, Alejandro
Chukwu, Emelda E.
Kaufer, Ricardo
Mitova, Veli
Schwenkenbecher, Anne
Schwindt, Evangelina
Slanickova, Helena
Sogbanmu, Temitope O.
Hewitt, Chad L.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY
DISGREEMENT
TRANSPARENCY
EPISTEMOLOGY
topic EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY
DISGREEMENT
TRANSPARENCY
EPISTEMOLOGY
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.7
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv When 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.
Fil: Heesen, Remco. The London School of Economics and Political Science; Reino Unido
Fil: Rubin, Hannah. University of Missouri; Estados Unidos
Fil: Schneider, Mike D.. University of Missouri; Estados Unidos
Fil: Woolaston, Katie. Queensland University of Technology; Australia
Fil: Bortolus, Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto Patagónico para el Estudio de los Ecosistemas Continentales; Argentina
Fil: Chukwu, Emelda E.. Nigerian Institute Of Medical Research; Nigeria
Fil: Kaufer, Ricardo. Bielefeld University; Alemania
Fil: Mitova, Veli. University of Johannesburg; Sudáfrica
Fil: Schwenkenbecher, Anne. Murdoch University; Australia
Fil: Schwindt, Evangelina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto de Biología de Organismos Marinos; Argentina
Fil: Slanickova, Helena. University of Groningen; Países Bajos
Fil: Sogbanmu, Temitope O.. University of Lagos; Nigeria
Fil: Hewitt, Chad L.. Murdoch University; Australia
description When 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.
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024-08
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/267404
Heesen, Remco; Rubin, Hannah; Schneider, Mike D.; Woolaston, Katie; Bortolus, Alejandro; et al.; A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking; Nature Portfolio; Scientific Reports; 14; 1; 8-2024; 1-10
2045-2322
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/267404
identifier_str_mv Heesen, Remco; Rubin, Hannah; Schneider, Mike D.; Woolaston, Katie; Bortolus, Alejandro; et al.; A model of faulty and faultless disagreement for post-hoc assessments of knowledge utilization in evidence-based policymaking; Nature Portfolio; Scientific Reports; 14; 1; 8-2024; 1-10
2045-2322
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-69012-3
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1038/s41598-024-69012-3
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Nature Portfolio
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Nature Portfolio
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614326804021248
score 13.070432