Pretend it works

Abstract

This article is about the use of evidence from evaluation research undertaken on, and as part of, the Home Office Reducing Burglary Initiative. More generally, it is a case study about the uses and status of ‘scientific’ evidence in politics. The article reports methods and findings regarding burglary reduction projects evaluated by the ‘Midlands Consortium’ of academic researchers. These are compared with interpretations derived from re-analysis of the data presented in reports published by the Home Office. Specifically, it illustrates what might happen when responsibility for validating policy - that is, for establishing ‘what works’ - is placed in the hands of (social) science, but the evidence produced is not, apparently, congenial to the particular ‘network of governance’ that is responsible for the policy. The outcome for evidence-based policy making in these circumstances is that scientific discourse and method itself falls victim to policy pressures and values. The concerns of this article are placed in the context of Ulrich Beck’s (1992) discussion of ‘reflexive scientization’ in the governance of risk society.