Abstract
Background:Debates about evidence-based policy (EBP) were revived in the UK in the 2010s in the context of civil service reform and changing practices of policy making, including institutionalisation of public participation in science policy making. Aims and objectives:This paper aims to explore this revival of interest in EBP in the context of the Government-funded public participation programme Sciencewise, which supports and promotes public dialogues in science policy making. It is based on in-depth ethnographic study of the programme during 2013, considering the impacts on Sciencewise practices and working understandings of engaging in the EBP debate. There is a particular focus on the advantages and disadvantages of categorising public participation as a source of evidence-based policy as opposed to presenting participation as a democratic act which is separate from discussions of EBP. Key conclusions:At different times Sciencewise actors moved between these stances in order to gain credibility and attention for their work, and to situate the outcomes of public participation processes in a broader policy context. In some instances the presentation of outputs from public participation processes as legitimate evidence for policy gave them greater influence and enriched broader discussions about the meaning and practice of open policy. However, it also frequently led to their dismissal on methodological grounds, inhibiting serious engagement with their outputs and challenging internal frameworks for evaluation and learning.
Highlights
The announcement of civil service reform in the UK Government – encompassing a smaller and reshaped workforce of civil servants, increased focus on policy implementation and Government accountability, and the introduction of new skills to the civil service – coincided with the start of the 2012–2015 contract of the Sciencewise programme
This paper explores the relationship between debates about evidence-based policy (EBP) at this time and increasingly institutionalised forms of public participation in UK Government policy making,in the context of the Civil Service Reform Plan.It will do this by first linking the current literature concerning the re-emergence of the EBP debate in the UK with recent literature on the concurrent institutionalisation of public participation.Three ethnographic vignettes will be presented, based on a multi-sited ethnography carried out around the Sciencewise programme during 2013, including semistructured interviews, participant observation and document analysis.These vignettes illustrate the multiple challenges and effects of the Sciencewise programmes attempts to contribute to and benefit from the EBP debate
This paper has presented a case study of the Sciencewise programme’s interactions with a revived EBP debate in and around the British Government.While the programme was arguably already influential, having overseen more than 30 public dialogue projects around important areas of policy making, revived EBP debates presented the potential to improve the legitimacy of public dialogue and the Sciencewise programme among policy makers
Summary
The announcement of civil service reform in the UK Government – encompassing a smaller and reshaped workforce of civil servants, increased focus on policy implementation and Government accountability, and the introduction of new skills to the civil service – coincided with the start of the 2012–2015 contract of the Sciencewise programme. The work of the programme is overseen by civil servants but carried out by third-party contractors (during the period of study it was the consultancy firm Ricardo-AEA, the British Science Association, and the charity Involve) and self-employed participation and evaluation experts This public participation organisation can be seen as a part of a broader move across much ofWestern Europe and North America to institutionalise practices of public participation since the early 2000s (Irwin, 2006). Aims and objectives: This paper aims to explore this revival of interest in EBP in the context of the Government-funded public participation programme Sciencewise, which supports and promotes public dialogues in science policy making It is based on in-depth ethnographic study of the programme during 2013, considering the impacts on Sciencewise practices and working understandings of engaging in the EBP debate. It frequently led to their dismissal on methodological grounds, inhibiting serious engagement with their outputs and challenging internal frameworks for evaluation and learning
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
