Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 21
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Cairney, Paul 2016. The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making.


    Cain, Tim 2015. Teachers’ engagement with research texts: beyond instrumental, conceptual or strategic use. Journal of Education for Teaching, Vol. 41, Issue. 5, p. 478.


    Monaghan, Mark 2014. Drug Policy Governance in the UK: Lessons from changes to and debates concerning the classification of cannabis under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. International Journal of Drug Policy, Vol. 25, Issue. 5, p. 1025.


    Singleton, Nicola and Rubin, Jennifer 2014. What is good governance in the context of drug policy?. International Journal of Drug Policy, Vol. 25, Issue. 5, p. 935.


    Smith, K. E. 2014. The politics of ideas: The complex interplay of health inequalities research and policy. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 41, Issue. 5, p. 561.


    Tieberghien, Julie 2014. The role of the media in the science-policy nexus. Some critical reflections based on an analysis of the Belgian drug policy debate (1996–2003). International Journal of Drug Policy, Vol. 25, Issue. 2, p. 276.


    Zampini, Giulia Federica 2014. Governance versus government: Drug consumption rooms in Australia and the UK. International Journal of Drug Policy, Vol. 25, Issue. 5, p. 978.


    Measham, Fiona 2013. Novel Psychoactive Substances.


    Shortall, Sally 2013. Using Evidence in Policy: The Importance of Mediating Beliefs and Practices. Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 53, Issue. 3, p. 349.


    Stevens, Alex and Ritter, Alison 2013. How can and do empirical studies influence drug policies? Narratives and complexity in the use of evidence in policy making. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, Vol. 20, Issue. 3, p. 169.


    Tieberghien, Julie and Decorte, Tom 2013. Understanding the science–policy nexus in Belgium: An analysis of the drug policy debate (1996–2003). Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, Vol. 20, Issue. 3, p. 241.


    Gordon, R. Heim, D. and MacAskill, S. 2012. Rethinking drinking cultures: A review of drinking cultures and a reconstructed dimensional approach. Public Health, Vol. 126, Issue. 1, p. 3.


    Kleinhans, Reinout 2012. A Glass Half Empty or Half Full? On the Perceived Gap between Urban Geography Research and Dutch Urban Restructuring Policy. International Journal of Housing Policy, Vol. 12, Issue. 3, p. 299.


    Maddison, Sarah 2012. Evidence and Contestation in the Indigenous Policy Domain: Voice, Ideology and Institutional Inequality. Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 71, Issue. 3, p. 269.


    McDONALD, DAVID 2011. Evidence versus Politics: Exploiting Research in UK Drug Policy Making?. Drug and Alcohol Review, Vol. 30, Issue. 6, p. 690.


    Murji, Karim 2011. Race policy and politics: two case studies from Britain. Policy Studies, Vol. 32, Issue. 6, p. 585.


    Randall, Niamh 2011. Drug policy and rationality: An exploration of the research–policy interface in Ireland. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, Vol. 18, Issue. 4, p. 285.


    STEVENS, ALEX 2011. Telling Policy Stories: An Ethnographic Study of the Use of Evidence in Policy-making in the UK. Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 40, Issue. 02, p. 237.


    Monaghan, Mark 2010. The Complexity of Evidence: Reflections on Research Utilisation in a Heavily Politicised Policy Area. Social Policy and Society, Vol. 9, Issue. 01, p. 1.


    Smith, Katherine 2010. Research, policy and funding - academic treadmills and the squeeze on intellectual spaces1. The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 61, Issue. 1, p. 176.


    ×

Survival of the Ideas that Fit: An Evolutionary Analogy for the Use of Evidence in Policy

  • Alex Stevens (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1474746406003319
  • Published online: 04 January 2007
Abstract

This paper explores bias in the use of evidence in policy. It argues that existing models of the evidence–policy relationship neglect the tendency for attention to be paid only to that evidence helpful to the interests of powerful social groups. An evolutionary analogy is used to explain how this bias arises, without the need for irrationality or conspiracy on the part of policy makers. Examples are given in the fields of drug, asylum and other policies, and the possible responses by researchers to the biased use of research evidence are discussed.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Social Policy and Society
  • ISSN: 1474-7464
  • EISSN: 1475-3073
  • URL: /core/journals/social-policy-and-society
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×