The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
To Bridge the Divide between Evidence and Policy: Reduce Ambiguity as Much as Uncertainty
Abstract
Policy makers cannot consider all evidence relevant to policy. They use two shortcuts—emotions and beliefs to understand problems and “rational” ways of establishing the best evidence on solutions—to act quickly in complex, multilevel policy‐making environments. Many studies only address one part of this problem. Improving the supply of evidence helps reduce scientific and policy maker uncertainty. However, policy makers also combine their beliefs with limited evidence to reduce ambiguity by choosing one of several possible ways to understand and solve a problem. We use this insight to consider solutions designed to “close the evidence–policy gap.”
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies
Perry, J., & Kingdon, J. W. (1985) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.2307/3323801 · Cited by 11,225
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
Cairney, P. (2012) · doi:10.1007/978-0-230-35699-3 · Cited by 2,378
Self-citationUniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868309341564 · Cited by 1,629
Theories of the Policy Process
Rippner, J. A. (2015) · doi:10.4324/9781315728247-10 · Cited by 1,397
A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers
Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J., & Thomas, J. (2014) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-2 · Cited by 1,346
Self-citationTheories of the policy process
Steen-Johnsen, K., & Schanke Sundet, V. (2024) · Handbook of Media and Communication Governance · doi:10.4337/9781800887206.00016 · Cited by 711
The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making
Cairney, P. (2016) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4 · Cited by 506
Self-citationCvitanovic, C., Hobday, A. J., van Kerkhoff, L., Wilson, S. K., Dobbs, K., & Marshall, N. A. (2015) · Ocean & Coastal Management · doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.002 · Cited by 504
New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature
Oliver, K., Lorenc, T., & Innvær, S. (2014) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-12-34 · Cited by 471
Self-citation
Cited by
Cairney, P., & Oliver, K. (2017) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x · Cited by 526
Self-citationSchiff, D. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00270-2 · Cited by 489
“While this approach to identifying research questions and producing evidence can be unfamiliar, it will help to reduce ambiguity (Cairney et al. 2016) and provide actionable information for policymaking.”
BackgroundLessons, narratives, and research directions for a sustainable circular economy
Leipold, S., Petit‐Boix, A., Luo, A., Helander, H., Simoens, M., Ashton, W. S., Babbitt, C. W., Bala, A., Bening, C. R., Birkved, M., et al. (2023) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.13346 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Cairney, P., Oliver, K., & Wellstead, A.
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-04-08
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 399-402
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6210
- OpenAlex
- W2317591260
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 33.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: To Bridge the Divide between Evidence and Policy: Reduce Ambiguity as Much as Uncertainty. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/puar.12555
- The paper
- Cairney, P., Oliver, K., & Wellstead, A. (2016). To Bridge the Divide between Evidence and Policy: Reduce Ambiguity as Much as Uncertainty. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12555
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
