A Critical Perspective on Evidence‐Based Policy Making

• Author: Samantha J. Larson
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12829
• Published date: 01 September 2017
• Date: 01 September 2017

Book Reviews 787

A Critical Perspective on Evidence-Based Policy Making

Danny L. Balfour, Editor

Samantha J. Larson

University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh

Samantha J. Larson is assistant

professor in the department of public

administration at the University of

Wisconsin-Oshkosh. Some of her recent

honors include ASPA ’ s Section on Ethics

and Integrity in Governance (SEIGOV)

Outstanding Student Paper Award and the

Wallace O. Keene Conference Scholarship

in 2017. She earned her PhD from the

University of Colorado–Denver.

E-mail: larsonsj@uwosh.edu

Justin Parkhurst ,  e Politics of Evidence: From

Evidence-Based Policy to the Good Governance

of Evidence ( New York : Routledge , 2017 ) . 182 pp.

$111.00 (cloth), ISBN: 9781138939400.

I s expertise dead? As a subject matter expert

entrusted with reporting to the Department of

Labor (DoL), this question has been ringing in

my mind since day one of the Trump administration.

Numerous examples—and executive orders—

illustrate why. For instance, although more than

97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate

change is manmade and poses serious threats to

humankind (Maibach, Myers, and Leiserowitz

2014 ), the current administration has acted to lift

environmental regulations, rescind the climate action

plan, cancel billions in aid to United Nations climate

change programs, and is working to withdraw from

the Paris Agreement. Despite mounting evidence,

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Administrator Scott Pruitt has authorized deletion

of web pages that acknowledge anthropogenic global

environmental change. These actions have manifested

in multiple acts of resistance on the side of science,

from the rogue National Park Service Twitter account

to the People ’ s Climate March on April 29, 2017.

Climate policy is thus one of many domains that calls

into question the role of evidence in our post-truth

world.

This book offers a timely, critical examination of

the political nature of evidence-based policy making

(EBP). Parkhurst ( 2017 ) channels the facts versus

values debate, arguing for the need to reconcile the

preoccupation with doing “what works” with the

bias inherent in the production and consumption

of research-based knowledge. He establishes his

standpoint that there is potential for the good use

of evidence in policy making. Yet, he argues that

current EBP practices operate with a naiveté that

information is value-neutral. Differing interests

confine the effective use of science throughout

the policy process. Hinging on this argument,

and drawing from theories of the policy process

and cognitive psychology, he tackles the problem

through eight chapters that are divided into three

sections.

Understanding the Politics of Evidence

In Part I, Parkhurst establishes his thesis by first

examining how evidence matters. It is a necessary

component for good public policy. Yet, the

book critiques the current state of EBP because

it lacks the thoughtfulness necessary to ensure

democratic representation. He sees ample room

for improvement, explaining: “to move the EBP

field forward, it is necessary to consider how to

establish evidence advisory systems that promote the

good governance of evidence —working to ensure

that rigorous, systematic and technically valid

pieces of evidence are used within decision-making

processes that are inclusive of, representative of and

accountable to the multiple social interests of the

population served” (8). The path toward effective

and equitable EBP systems is thus considered

through an institutional lens, dependent on rules and

routines that direct and shape the way in which data

is produced, processed, and used.

There are many challenges to creating systems that

are at once scientifically valid and democratically

representative. Parkhurst notes that doing “what

works” fails because it does not consider how social

desirability impacts policies and the outcomes that

they are designed to provide. Furthermore, the issue

of generalizability always plagues this approach.

What works in one jurisdiction may fail miserably in

another.

To improve the use of evidence, the book argues

that additional steps must be taken. First, policy

actors must address the political sources of bias.

Second, they must deconstruct evidence hierarchies

that suggest randomized trials are the gold standard

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 77, Iss. 5, pp. 787–790. © 2017 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12829.