Abstract
AbstractEvidence plays a growing role in public administration worldwide. We analyze the perceptions of policy actors, using Q methodology and a structured questionnaire, which reveals four types of profiles. Most policy actors did not fit neatly into an Evidence‐Based Policy‐Making (EBPM) group. Instead, they either had a pragmatic view where context and policy issues influence what counts as evidence, an inclusive position which emphasized the importance of considering a range of different types of evidence, or a political perspective where power relations and politics influence what counts as evidence. Our research also illustrates how different actors in the same community can have different perceptions of evidence, and how this can change over time due to experience and career trajectory.
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
