Cited by 1,068Evaluation and Performance AssessmentPublic Policy and Administration ResearchPolicy Transfer and Learning

Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence‐Based Policy Making

Open access
Sanderson, Ian·2002·Public Administration

Abstract

The increasing emphasis on the need for evidence‐based policy indicates the continuing influence of the ‘modernist’ faith in progress informed by reason. Although the rationalist assumptions of evidence‐based policy making have been subject to severe challenge from constructivist and post‐modernist perspectives, it is argued that the attempt to ground policy making in more reliable knowledge of ‘what works’ retains its relevance and importance. Indeed, its importance is enhanced by the need for effective governance of complex social systems and it is argued that ‘reflexive social learning’ informed by policy and programme evaluation constitutes an increasingly important basis for ‘interactive governance’. The expanded use of piloting of new policies and programmes by the current UK Government is considered to provide limited scope for evaluation to derive reliable evidence of whether policies work. There is a need for greater clarity about the role of evaluation in situations where piloting essentially constitutes ‘prototyping’. More emphasis should be placed on developing a sound evidence base for policy through long‐term impact evaluations of policies and programmes. It is argued from a realist position that such evaluation should be theory‐based and focused on explaining and understanding how policies achieve their effects using ‘multi‐method’ approaches.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-9299.00292

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many models guiding the policy making process assume policy makers are capable of accurately analyzing decision information, understanding the relevant evidence, are resistant to influences and biases, and seek to make decisions that maximize societal benefit.

    “many models guiding the policy making process assume policy makers are capable of accurately analyzing decision information, understanding the relevant evidence, are resistant to influences and biases, and seek to make decisions that maximize societal benefit [5,19,27,28].”

    From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [27]

    The section “Rationalist Assumptions of Evidence-Based Policy Making and Management” describes a long-dominant rational model in which policy is based on careful assessment of alternatives. The discussion of instrumental rationality also describes an apolitical use of research and evaluation. But the paper does not say that these models assume policymakers are resistant to biases or seek to maximize societal benefit; it treats political influences as a challenge to the rational model. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Archer, M.S. 1995. Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Archer, M.S., R. Bhaskar, A. Collier et al. 1998. Critical realism: essential readings. London: Routledge.
  3. Bernstein, R. 1991. The new constellation: the ethical-political horizons of modernity/postmodernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  4. Bulmer, M. (ed.) 1987. Social science research and government: comparative essays on Britain and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5.  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002 14679299, 2002, 1, · DOI
  6. Chen, H.-T. 1990. Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
  7. Chitty, C. 2000. 'Why Pilot?' Paper presented to Royal Statistical Society Conference: The evaluation of econ- omic and social policies, RSS, London, 4th July.
  8. Colebatch, H.K. 1998. Policy. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  9. Crotty, M. 1998. The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage Publications.
  10. Davies, H.T.O., S.M. Nutley and P.C. Smith. 1999. 'Editorial: What works? The role of evidence in public sector policy and practice', Public Money and Management, Vol. 19, No. 1, 3-5.
  11. --. 2000c. A review of the evidence base for regeneration policy and practice. London: Department for the Environment, Transport and Regions. DfEE. 2000a. Influence or irrelevance: can social science improve government? London: Department for Education and Employment.
  12. Dryzek, J.S. 1990. Discursive democracy: politics, policy and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.
  13. Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  14. HM Treasury. 2000. 2000 spending review: public service agreements. Cm. 4808. London: HM Treasury.
  15. Kirk, R. 1999. Relativism and reality: a contemporary introduction. London: Routledge.
  16. Kogan, M. 1999. 'The impact of research on policy', in F. Coffield (ed.), Research and policy in lifelong learning. Bristol: Policy Press.
  17. Martin, S. and I. Sanderson. 1999. 'Evaluating public policy experiments: measuring outcomes, monitoring progress or managing pilots?' Evaluation, Vol. 5, No. 3, 245-58.
  18.  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002 14679299, 2002, 1, · DOI
  19. Nutley, S. and J. Webb. 2000. 'Evidence and the policy process', in H.T.O. Davies, S.M. Nutley and P. Smith (eds), What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: Policy Press.
  20. --. 2000. Experiments in knowing: gender and method in the social sciences. Cambridge: Polity Press. OECD. 1994. Performance management in government: performance measurement and results-oriented management, Public Management Occasional Papers, No. 3, Paris: OECD.
  21. Pawson, R. 2000. A realist approach to meta-analysis and research review, Paper presented to UK Evaluation Society Annual Conference, Church House, London, 7/8 December.
  22. Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. 1997. Realistic evaluation, London: Sage Publications.
  23. Plewis, I. 2000. 'Educational inequalities and education action zones', in C. Pantazis and D. Gordon (eds), Tackling inequalities: where are we now and what can be done. Bristol: Policy Press.
  24. Riccio, J.A. 2000. 'Extending the reach of randomized social experiments: new directions in evaluations of American welfare-to-work and employment initiatives', Paper presented to Royal Statistical Society Conference: The evaluation of economic and social policies, RSS, London, 4th July.
  25. Sanderson, I. 2000. 'Evaluation in complex policy systems'. Evaluation, Vol. 6, No. 4, 433-54.
  26. Schmid, G. 1996. 'Process evaluation: policy formation and implementation', in G. Schmid, J. O'Reilly and K. Schomann (eds), International Handbook of Labour Market Policy and Evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  27. Schwandt, T.A. 1997. 'Evaluation as practical hermeneutics'. Evaluation, Vol. 3, No. 1, 69-83.
  28. Searle, J.R. 1995. The construction of social reality. London: Penguin Books.
  29. Smart, B. 1999. Facing modernity: ambivalence, reflexivity and morality. London: Sage Publications.
  30. Trigg, R. 2001. Understanding social science: a philosophical introduction to the social sciences, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
  31. Van der Knaap, P. 1995. 'Policy evaluation and learning: feedback, enlightenment or argumentation?' Evalu- ation, Vol. 1, No. 2, 189-216.
  32. Walker, R. 2000. 'Welfare policy: tendering for evidence' in H.T.O. Davies, S.M. Nutley and P. Smith (eds), What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: Policy Press.
  33. Weiss, C.H. 1995a. 'The haphazard connection: social science and public policy', International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, 137-50.
  34.  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002 14679299, 2002, 1, · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sanderson, I.
Affiliations
Leeds Beckett University (GB)
Corresponding author
Sanderson, Ian
Venue
Public Administration
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-01
Volume
80
Issue
1
Pages
1-22
ISSN
  • 0033-3298 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9299
OpenAlex
W2067807542
Cited by
1,068
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 80 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 75 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 37
FWCI
19.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Administration (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policy Transfer and Learning
Keywords
evidence-based policy making, policy evaluation, policy learning, interactive governance, prototype development, long-term impact evaluation, realist evaluation, postmodernist critique, multi-method evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review