Heesen, Remco and Rubin, Hannah and Schneider, Mike D. and Woolaston, Katie and Bortolus, Alejandro and Chukwu, Emelda E. and Kaufer, Ricardo and Mitova, Veli and Schwenkenbecher, Anne and Schwindt, Evangelina and Slanickova, Helena and Sogbanmu, Temitope O. and Hewitt, Chad L. (2024) A Model of Faulty and Faultless Disagreement for Post-Hoc Assessments of Knowledge Utilization in Evidence-Based Policymaking. Scientific Reports, 14. p. 18495. ISSN 2045-2322
![[img]](https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
Heesen et al 2024 A Model of Faulty and Faultless Disagreement for Post Hoc Assessments of Knowledge Utilization in Evidence Based Policymaking.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (1MB) |
Abstract
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.
| Export/Citation: | EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL |
| Social Networking: |
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Altmetric.com
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}