This thesis examines how computer modelling matters for policy-making by looking at two case studies of European fisheries management. Based on documentary analysis and ethnographic interviews and observations, the main case is located within the European Union (EU) and centred around the flatfish fishery in the North Sea with a supplementary one from outside the EU and focused on the North East Arctic cod fishery in the Barents Sea. As in other much-contested areas of public policy, fisheries officials in the EU and neighbouring countries seek to develop a universalistic and objective ground by which to depoliticise management decisions. In this sense, modelling has long become their preferred approach to produce policy relevant representations of the otherwise hidden dynamics of a fishery. Social constructivists in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) studying the modelling used in areas of policy-making such as, for instance, climate change have questioned whether models are the right tools for this job given that the modelling may conceal large uncertainties about their accuracy and relevance to policy-making. Some of these scholars argue for producing ‘good’ models for policy-making, and thus more robust policies, by constructively engaging the non-modellers or non-specialists in the quality assurance of the modelling. ‘Fisheries Studies’ literature suggests, however, that modelling can contribute to policy resilience despite its well-known limitations to produce accurate fish counting. It follows that models are doing something else than providing policy-salient real-looking representations. How may modelling count differently for policy-making in fisheries and beyond? Drawing on the ‘co-production’ of science and social order framework from STS, the thesis puts forward three related arguments. First, that the technologies designed to depoliticise decision-making, including modelling, become spaces for political work by policy-makers, stakeholders and scientists. Second, that the role of computer modelling for policy stems from how representational validity and political usefulness are produced together. Third, that the role of modelling for policy is mediated by virtue of being assessed together with other technologies for depoliticising as part of a whole sociotechnical infrastructure to allow evidence-based decisions. As a distinctive contribution, this thesis thus questions the presumption in many social constructivist accounts that modelling alone becomes central to the policy process and its outcomes. The significance of modelling for policy-making should be understood in terms of its contribution to processes of sociotechnical framing. Narratives that foreground the former and background the latter show an analytical bias that needs turning around.

Evidence-based policy and practice (EBPP) in population health in Australia has been promoted largely without sound research. In response, this thesis presents a series of studies undertaken to assess and inform enhancement of capacity for EBPP in Australia. It comprises linked studies designed to examine different yet complementary aspects of capacity for EBPP. Research was conducted at various levels of Australian health care system, from local to national, in order to better understand EBPP and to make a series of recommendations about effective and synergistic response.

Evidence-based policy and practice (EBPP) in population health in Australia has been promoted largely without sound research. In response, this thesis presents a series of studies undertaken to assess and inform enhancement of capacity for EBPP in Australia. It comprises linked studies designed to examine different yet complementary aspects of capacity for EBPP. Research was conducted at various levels of Australian health care system, from local to national, in order to better understand EBPP and to make a series of recommendations about effective and synergistic response.

L’expertise scientifique joue un rôle croissant dans la fabrique du politique dans les démocraties. Elle contribue à façonner et orienter les problèmes publics et leurs solutions, de façon relativement autonome par rapport à l’élection des décideurs. Ce rôle est justifié par la complexité grandissante des problèmes et solutions dans les sociétés techniques. Dans cette thèse, nous investiguons les fonctions de l’expertise scientifique jugée crédible par les décideurs. A contrario des prétentions universalistes de la Knowledge Literature et de l’Evidence-Based Policy, nous construisons une théorie de moyenne portée des usages spécifiques, d’une forme d’expertise particulière, dans un contexte donné. Un tel triptyque permet de réconcilier deux approches contradictoires de l’usage de l’expertise. L’une « externaliste » promue par l’analyse des politiques publiques explique son utilisation par le contexte. L’autre « internaliste » défendue par une variété de courants, la justifie par les caractéristiques propres de l’expertise. Pour ce faire, nous investiguons l’utilisation que font en France dans les années 2000 les ministères de la santé et de l’agriculture des expertises collectives INSERM et INRA – méthode d’expertise proche des revues systématiques de la littérature. Dans cette perspective, nous objectivons successivement : les critères d’appréciation des expertises collectives tels qu’utilisés par les décideurs, les types d’usages qu’ils attendent et font de ces expertises, les contextes dans lesquels ils les mobilisent. Notre investigation est aussi l’occasion de clarifier les indicateurs des types d’usage en même temps que les facteurs contextuels les favorisant. Nous mettons en lumière les effets d’autorité et de vérité des expertises collectives sur les acteurs du débat public et de cadrage sur les problèmes publics et leurs solutions. Nous rendons aussi compte de la façon dont l’expertise gagne sa crédibilité scientifique (et son producteur une légitimité scientifique ou réputation) auprès des décideurs. Croisant les travaux de la sociologie des sciences, et des études de la communication, nous établissons que la crédibilité de l’expertise dépend de la conjugaison d’investissements de forme et de fond. Nous montrons que ces dispositifs rhétoriques et pratiques ne sont pas librement accessibles mais exigent des connaissances et compétences particulières. Renouant avec la sociologie de l’expertise, nous constatons que la nature et la réputation de la méthode et des instituts sont le produit d’une histoire longue dans laquelle les chercheurs – leurs positions et représentations, leurs réflexions, actions et interactions – jouent un rôle clef. Sur un plan empirique, notre thèse constitue une des pièces du puzzle de l’émergence des expertises collectives et revues systématiques de littérature en France au cours des vingt dernières années.D’un point de vue méthodologique, notre thèse mobilise une variété de méthodes : qualitative (entretiens individuels, observations ethnographiques, travail d’archive, études de cas) et quantitative (statistiques descriptives, analyse de correspondances multiples et classification hiérarchique ascendante). / Scientific expertise plays a growing role in the policymaking process in democracies. It shapes public problems and their solutions relatively autonomously from the election process. This role is explained by the increasing complexity of problems and solutions in technical societies.In this thesis, we investigate the function of scientific expertise that is deemed credible by policymakers. Unlike scholars in the Knowledge Literature and the Evidence-Based Policy movement, we do not intend to express universalist claims. Instead, we build a middle range theory: one of a type of use of a specific kind of expertise within a particular context. This triptych (type of use-type of expertise-type of context) permits us to reconcile two contradictory approaches of the use of expertise: one “externalist” explains the type of use of expertise by the particular context in which it is used, another “internalist” explains the type of the use by the intrinsic qualities of the specific kind of expertise.In order to do this, we investigate how policymakers within the French ministries for Health and Agriculture use INSERM and INRA collective expertise – an expertise method close to systematic literature reviews.We successively display: the specific criteria policymakers use to assess the credibility of expertise, their intended and effective use of such knowledge, the context in which they order an experts’ report. Our investigation allows us to test and organize a set of indicators and contextual factors of the type of use.We demonstrate that these INSERM and INRA collective expertise appear as an authoritarian and truthful discourse to actors involved in the public debate. They frame public problems and their solutions.We also explain how expertise gains its scientific credibility in the eyes of policymakers. On the basis of recent works in the fields of science and technology studies and communication studies fields, we establish that the credibility of INSERM and INRA collective expertise derives from the implementation of rhetorical and practical devices in their production. We show that such devices are not ready-to-use: their implementation requires a set of knowledge and know-how.We also demonstrate that the very nature and reputation of the expertise and its producers are the result of a long process in which researchers play a key role: their career, position, representation, thoughts, actions and interactions.This thesis constitutes a missing piece in the systematic exploration of the growth of collective expertise and systematic literature reviews in France in the last twenty years.It is based on a variety of qualitative methods (interviews, observations, archive, case studies) as well as quantitative methods (statistics descriptive, factor analysis, hierarchical cluster analysis).

Depuis le début des années 2000, le recours à la méthodeexpérimentale par assignation aléatoire pour évaluer les dispositifs publicsconnait un essor mondial sans précédent. Cette méthode scientifique estprésentée par ses promoteurs comme la plus rigoureuse pour estimer l’impactd’une intervention ainsi que la mieux à même de favoriser la prise en comptedes preuves scientifiques par les décideurs politiques. Son utilisation dans lecadre de l’evidence-based policy nous amène à considérer cette méthodecomme un instrument, une institution sociale, visant à organiser unapprentissage commun entre les acteurs de l’action publique et les acteursscientifiques. L’observation de cette interaction constitue le coeur de ce travailde recherche. Ce dernier étudie comment l’inscription de ses parties prenantesdans leurs champs d’action stratégiques respectifs conditionne l’usage de cetteméthode sur le territoire français. Celle-ci se décline alors, en une variété desites institutionnels témoignant des oppositions entre les pratiques, les intérêts,et les modèles d’apprentissages des acteurs la composant. Notre analyse de15 études de cas de son utilisation sur le territoire français, révèle les tensionsinhérentes à l’application de cette méthode sur de nouveaux dispositifsd’intervention sociale, et questionne ses capacités à produire un apprentissagecommun entre acteurs de l’action publique et acteurs scientifiques. / The start of the XXIst century witnessed an unprecedenteduse of randomized controlled trials to assess public programs across theworld. This scientific method has been championed as the most rigorous toassess the impact of public intervention. It has promoted the use ofscientific evidence by policy makers through the evidence-based policymovement. Therefore, this method is to be understood as a socialinstitution whose aim is to organize a joint learning between policy actorsand scientists. The study of this interaction is the core of this dissertation,which analyzes how stakeholders’ memberships to their respective strategicaction fields drive this method's use in France. Through the execution ofthis method, we observe a range of different institutional sites. They aretestimonies of the opposing practices, interests and learning patterns of theactors involved. This dissertation analyses 15 case studies of this method'simplementation in France. It reveals the inherent tensions at work in its useon new social programs, and challenges this method's ability to produce ajoint learning between policy actors and scientists.

Magistro baigiamąjį darbą sudaro 4 skyriai. Pirmajame skyriuje nagrinėta įrodymais grįstos politikos teorinė prieiga. Antrajame – įrodymų naudojimas sveikatos priežiūros srityje. Tuo tarpu trečiasis skyrius skirtas sveikatos priežiūros įstaigų bei paslaugų restruktūrizacijos analizei akcentuojant trečiojo restruktūrizacijos etapo pasiekimus. Galiausiai paskutiniame skyriuje koncentruojamasi į empirinę darbo dalį, išryškinant sveikatos priežiūros specialistų, sveikatos politikos formuotojų požiūrį į trečiojo restruktūrizacijos etapo rezultatus sveikatos priežiūros paslaugų bei trečiosios programos įgyvendinimo kontekste. Užsibrėžtas darbo tikslas: išanalizuoti trečiojo sveikatos priežiūros įstaigų ir paslaugų restruktūrizavimo etapo rezultatus remiantis įrodymais grįstos politikos teorine prieiga. Darbo uždaviniai: išanalizuoti įrodymais grįstos politikos teorinę koncepciją bei jos taikymą sveikatos priežiūros srityje; pasitelkus Lietuvos sveikatos ekspertų vertinimus, teisinį reglamentavimą, išnagrinėti sveikatos priežiūros įstaigų ir paslaugų restruktūrizacijos etapų pasiekimus; atskleisti paslaugų prieinamumo, kokybės ir saugumo pokyčius trečiojo restruktūrizacijos etapo kontekste; išanalizuoti stacionarinių paslaugų, finansavimo bei įstaigų tinklo optimizacijos rezultatus ir jų poveikį sveikatos priežiūrai; atskleisti trečiosios restruktūrizacijos programos tikslo bei uždavinių įgyvendinimo problemas; išnagrinėti trečiojo restruktūrizacijos etapo rezultatų... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The M.A. thesis consists of four chapters. In the first chapter the evidence-based theoretical approach to the political theory is analyzed. In the second chapter the use of evidence in the area of health care is discussed. The third chapter deals with the analysis of the restructuring of health care system, emphasizing results of the third stage of the restructuring. In the last chapter the empirical part of the research is presented. It shows the approaches of health care specialists and creators of health politics concerning the results of the third stage of restructuring in the context of health care delivery system and implementation of the third stage programme. The aim of the M.A. thesis is to analyze the results of the third stage of health care delivery system restructuring regarding the evidence-based theoretical approach to the political theory. In order to achieve the aim the following objectives have been set out: to review the thoretical conception of the evidence-based theoretical approach to the political theory and its application in the area of health care; to analyze the results of the stages of health care delivery system restructuring regarding the evaluation of Lithuanian health care experts and legal regulation; to show the changes in accessibility, quality and safety of health care delivery services in the context of the third stage of restructuring; to analyze the results of health care stationery services, financing and optimization of institution... [to full text]

It is conventional to argue that the autonomy and reputation of regulatory agencies depend on their expertise. Yet the studies on how independent regulatory agencies (IRAs) create and deploy their knowledge capacity are few and far apart. Normatively, the justification for delegating decision-making powers to IRAs is that they operate by using technical analysis and expertise rather than political considerations. But yet again, although delegation has been discussed as a design principle, systematic evidence on the conditions under which IRAs make use of knowledge and how is still scarce. The literature on knowledge utilization portrays a rather complex link between expertise and policy, where relevant knowledge is not always reflected in policy outcomes and plays several functions besides facilitating the solution of policy problems. Unfortunately, scholars of IRAs have not exploited the insights of this literature yet. This dissertation addresses the under-explored question of the usage of economic knowledge by IRAs. We identify four possible uses of expertise: instrumental (i.e., to solve problems); strategic (e.g. to advocate a position); symbolic (e.g., to gain legitimacy), and non-use. Our aim is to explain under which conditions a certain usage is more likely to occur. To do so, we draw on the methodological device of explanatory typologies (Elman 2005). Specifically, we select two explanatory dimensions that reflect both the context and the content of policy: the level of conflict in the policy arena, and the degree problem tractability. We use different combinations of these two dimensions to derive four hypotheses on the possible uses of expertise mentioned above. The elusive nature of knowledge utilization makes the identification and measurement of these different usages highly dependent on an in-depth understanding of the institutional, organisational, and political context in which a regulatory decision is taken. We have thus opted for a qualitative approach based on case studies and process tracing (Bennett 2010; Brady 2010; Freedman 2010) to appraise the four hypotheses. Empirically, we performed three case studies on regulatory policy decisions taken by the UK Office of Communications (Ofcom) between 2005 and 2010. We find that, given certain scope conditions, the prevalent use of economic analysis is instrumental - a finding that contradicts previous research that labelled instrumental learning as extremely rare, if not a sort of technocratic utopia. Other uses still exist however, and given other scope conditions regulators can be strategic and symbolic in their approach to knowledge and expertise. This is not surprising if we accept the notion that regulators operate in a policy environment that is eminently but not exclusively technical: to survive in a (at least partially) political environment, regulators have to deploy usages of knowledge that deviate from the instrumental type.

The current welfare-to-work reform in Britain is activating lone parents with older children and marks a step-change in the treatment of lone parents. While there has been some support for using age of child as selection criterion for the activation of lone parents, it is not clear whether this equates to selecting by ‘ability to work’ if interpreted as ability to obtain a job. The commitment of the current government to evidence-based-policy-making and the large amount of research available in this area form the justification for carrying out a policy appraisal of this aspect of the current welfare-to-work reform. The potential and likelihood to make substantial progress towards the lone parent employment and the child poverty target of the selection criteria will be assessed and compared to alternative approaches. Five selection models are identified in the international policy review: selection by age of child, transition status, employability or by caseworkers and finally, a voluntary model. The analysis is based on a critical discussion of the available evidence, an international policy review and secondary analysis of the Families and Children Study. I argue that the current approach of selecting lone parents by the age of child is unlikely to result in substantial progress towards the lone parent employment target and instead likely to create a substantial group of long-term unemployed lone parents. Alternative approaches, such as using different selection criteria that take into account the employability of lone parents are more likely to make progress towards the employment and child poverty target.

Public policy analysts are often tasked with reviewing research or other forms of evidence in order to provide advice for policy decisions. Many have argued that systematic reviews that include meta-analyses (SRMAs) are the most rigorous forms of evidence, and thus, when possible, should form the basis of policy decisions. However, it is not yet clear to what extent policy analysts are aware of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, or to what extend they use them to inform policy work. Moreover, given the importance of evaluating the quality of research before using it for policy, it is not clear to what extent policy analysts feel able to judge the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. An online survey was used to provide initial estimates of the extent to which policy analysts a) are familiar with SRMAs; b) use these reviews to inform their policy work; and c) are able to evaluate them. It further sought to explore other correlates of use, barriers to use, methods to increase use, and knowledge of factors that influence quality. Thirty-nine Ministerial policy analysts responded to the survey, 18 from the Ministry of Health, 9 from the Ministry of Environment, and 12 from other ministries. Policy analysts reported being fairly familiar with both systematic reviews and meta-analyses, although they were more familiar with systematic reviews than with meta-analyses. There were no differences between the Health, Environment, or Other groups with respect to familiarity. Respondents reported moderate scores on most indicators of use, with results suggesting the Health group having the highest rates of use, followed by the Environment group and then the Other group. Finally, there were relatively high self-ratings on ability to judge the quality of SRMAs, with no differences found between groups. The results of other exploratory analyses are also presented, and implications and recommendations are discussed. / Graduate

The term “evidence-based” is ubiquitous in practice and policy-making settings around the world; it is de rigueur to claim this approach. This dissertation is an inquiry into the work of evidence-based policy-making with a particular focus on the social practices of policy work/ers involved with developing policies relating to chronic disease at the Ministry of Health in British Columbia (B.C.), Canada. I begin with an examination of tensions in the policy-making literature germane to the relationship between knowledge, its production, and policy-making: the environment into which evidence-based policy-making emerged in the 1990s. Drawing on the theorising of knowledge, discourse, and power – particularly from Foucault’s work – for the analytic approach, I present the commitment to claims of “evidence-based” practices found in key government policy framework documents and policy workers’ accounts of their practices, gathered through interviews. I then show the unravelling of this commitment in those accounts. This research reveals how the policy frameworks construct chronic disease as a financial burden on the health care system and direct policy workers to develop policies with this construction in mind. The discourses associated with evidence-based policy-making narrow how policy workers can think about evidence and its production to positivist, scientific methods and numerical measures that will provide proof of cost cutting. Proponents of evidence-based policy-making laud it as keeping politics and ideology out of the policy-making process. However, the policy workers I interviewed reveal the power relations organising their deeply political work environment. Furthermore, the minutiae constituting policy-making practices produce a “managerialist approach to governance” (Edwards, Gillies, and Horsley, 2015, p. 1) in which people with chronic disease are noticeable by their near-absence. When they do appear, they are responsibilised to decrease the burden on the health/care system and the economy. I argue that as a governing project with an appearance of failure, given the many cracks in the commitment to the claim and the practices of being evidence-based, the discourse of evidence-based policy-making is actually quite successful. It has continuous effects: people are separated (so-called apolitical policy workers into imagined neutral space and decision-makers into political space), knowledge is divided, costs and responsibilities are downloaded to individuals, and evidence-based discourses appear in countless settings. The governing works. / Graduate