Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias

Wicked policy problems are often said to be characterized by their ‘intractability’, whereby appeals to evidence are unable to provide policy resolution. Advocates for ‘Evidence Based Policy’ (EBP) often lament these situations as representing the misuse of evidence for strategic ends, while critical policy studies authors counter that policy decisions are fundamentally about competing values, with the (blind) embrace of technical evidence depoliticizing political decisions. This paper aims to help resolve these conflicts and, in doing so, consider how to address this particular feature of problem wickedness. Specifically the paper delineates two forms of evidentiary bias that drive intractability, each of which is reflected by contrasting positions in the EBP debates: ‘technical bias’ - referring to invalid uses of evidence; and ‘issue bias’ - referring to how pieces of evidence direct policy agendas to particular concerns. Drawing on the fields of policy studies and cognitive psychology, the paper explores the ways in which competing interests and values manifest in these forms of bias, and shape evidence utilization through different mechanisms. The paper presents a conceptual framework reflecting on how the nature of policy problems in terms of their complexity, contestation, and polarization can help identify the potential origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias leading to intractability in some wicked policy debates. The discussion reflects on whether being better informed about such mechanisms permit future work that may lead to strategies to mitigate or overcome such intractability in the future

Security cafés : a deliberative democratic method to engage citizens in meaningful two-way conversations with security authorities and to gather data

The Security Café is a deliberation and data collection method developed for security authorities and researchers to access the opinion of the general public on issues of importance to their safety and security. It is based on the ideals of deliberative democracy, and the method derives from Citizens’ Juries and World Cafés. A Security Café typically lasts for 3–5 h and involves receiving information, facilitated small group discussions and the use of idea rating sheets, or pre- and post-deliberation attitudinal surveys. This study examines three projects conducted in Finland and concludes that the method has both intrinsic and extrinsic value: it empowers ordinary citizens and gives them an opportunity to engage in the construction of safer and more secure societies. At the same time, it offers authorities the opportunity to inform the public and most importantly to harvest the opinion of the public. For researchers, the method offers a feasible way to gather extensive reliable qualitative data quickly and effectively.fi=vertaisarvioitu|en=peerReviewed

A review of pesticide policies and regulations for urban amenity areas in seven European countries

An analysis of the regulations of herbicide use for weed control in non-agricultural/urban amenity areas, including actual pesticide use, was carried out as a joint survey of seven European countries: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom. Herbicides constitute the major part of the pesticides used in urban amenity areas. Herbicide use on hard surfaces is the largest in terms of volume and potential contamination of surface and groundwater. The aim of the study was to investigate the differences in political interest and public debate on the 'use of pesticides in public urban amenity areas', regulations within each country at national, regional and local levels, possible use of alternative weed control methods and the amounts of pesticides used on urban amenity areas. A comparative analysis revealed major differences in political interest, regulations and availability of statistics on pesticide use. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany have, or have had, a strong public and political interest for reducing the use of herbicides to control weeds in urban amenity areas and also have very strict regulations. The UK is currently undergoing a period of increasing awareness and strengthening regulation, while Latvia and Finland do not have specific regulations for weed control in urban amenity areas or on hard surfaces. Statistics on pesticide/herbicide use on urban amenity areas were only available in Denmark and the Netherlands. Developing this kind of information base reveals the differences in herbicide use, regulations and policies in European countries and may enhance the transfer of knowledge on sustainable weed control across countries