Form follows function in evidence-based public policy: the pragmatic alternative to the positivist orthodoxy

Pablo Garcés

Abstract


For quite some time now there has been a push for more evidence-based public policy. The premise has been that policies informed by reliable data and analysis will achieve their expected results. In great measure, this demand has been answered by evidence built on the dominant approach in science: «positivism». In this paper, it is argued that positivism has important shortcomings which make it detrimental to that project. Thus, it makes the case for pragmatism as a plausible alternative. The argument departs from the philosophy of science, establishing the principles underlining each approach and then elaborates how they translate to the production and evaluation of evidence. The abandonment of the positivist pursuit of certainty for a pragmatic recognition of the plurality of human experience and the diversity of contexts allows to set a clearer scope for the use of evidence, potentially enhancing the effectiveness of policies based on it.

References


Bacon M (2012). Pragmatism, an introduction. Polity, Cambridge, UK

Bryman A (1984). The Debate about Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A Question of Method or Epistemology?

The British Journal of Sociology 35(1): 75-92

Caldwell B (1994). Beyond Positivism. Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century. Routledge, New York, US

Cochran M (2002). Deweyan Pragmatism and Post-Positivist Social Science in IR. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 31(1): 525

Comte A (2009). A General View of Positivism. Cambridge University Press, New York, US

Comte A (2012). System of Positive Polity. Forgotten Books, London

Creswell J (2015). A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Sage Publications, London, UK

Descartes R (1993). Meditations on the first philosophy. Third edition. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, US

Descartes R (1956). Discourse on Method. Pearson, New York, US

Dewey J (1985). The Middle Works of John Dewey 1899-1924, Volume 12. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, US

Dewey J (2008). The Later Works of John Dewey 1925-1953, Volume 4. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, US

Dicker G (1998). Hume’s Epistemology and Metaphysics: an introduction. Routledge, New York, US

Felizer M (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4(1): 6-16.

Fogelin R (1993). Hume’s Scepticism. In: Norton D (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Hume. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 90-116

Friedman M (1953). The Methodology of Positive Economics in Essays on Positive Economics. Chicago University Press, Chicago, US, pp 3-46.

Friedrichs J, Kratochwil F (2009). On acting and Knowing: how pragmatism can advance International Relations research and methodology. International Organization. 63(): 701-731

Garcés P (2016a).

Neither “Mind” nor “Things” but Acting: Some Philosophical Implications of Pragmatism for International Relations Inquiry. Analecta Política 6(11): 227-248.

Garcés P (2016b). Beyond Positivism: Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Pragmatist Research. Revista PUCE 103: 439-459

Hands D (2004). Pragmatism, knowledge and Economic Science, Deweyan pragmatic philosophy and contemporary economic methodology. In: Khalil E (ed.) Dewey, Pragmatism, and Economic Methodology. Routledge, New York, US, pp 255-270

Head B (2008). Three Lenses of Evidence-Based Policy. The Australian Journal of Public Administration 67(1): 1-11

Hildebran D (2008). Dewey: a beginner’s guide. Oneworld Publications, Oxford, UK

Hollis M (1994). The Philosophy of Social Science: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Jackson P (2011). The Conduct of inquiry in International Relations, philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. Routledge, New York, US

James W (1904). The Pragmatic Method. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 1(25): 673-687.

Johnson B, Onwuegbuzie A (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher 33(7): 14-26

Johnson R, Onwuegbuzie, A, Turner, L (2007). Towards a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(2): 112-133

Kaboub F (2008). Positivist Paradigm. In: Leong F (ed.). Encyclopedia of Counseling. Sage. London, UK, pp 785

Khalil, Elias. 2004. John Dewey, the transactional view and the behavioral sciences. In: Khalil E (ed.) Dewey, Pragmatism, and Economic Methodology. Routledge, New York, US, pp 1-12

Kratochwil F (2011). Ten points to ponder about Pragmatism. In: Bauer H, Brighi E (eds). Pragmatism in International Relations. Routledge, New York, US, pp 11-25

Levi I (2004). Corrigibilism without solidarity. In: Khalil E (ed.) Dewey, Pragmatism, and Economic Methodology. Routledge, New York, US, pp 240-251

Morgan D (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 48-76.

Noor K (2008). Case Study: A Strategic Research Methodology. American Journal of Applied Sciences 5(11): 1602-1604

Pawson R (2002). Evidence-based Policy: In Search of a Method. Evaluation 8(2): 157-181

Peirce C (1905). What Pragmatism is. The Monist 15(2): 161-181

Putnam H (2002). The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and other essays. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, US

Quine W (1951). Main trends in recent philosophy: Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review 60(1): 20-43

Quinton A (2010). Inquiry, thought and action: John Dewey’s theory of knowledge.” Pp: 1-11, in R.S. Peters (ed.) John Dewey Reconsidered. New York, US: Routledge

Rosenberg A (1993). Hume and the philosophy of science. In: Norton D (ed). The Cambridge Companion to Hume. Cambridge University Press, New York, US, pp 64-89

Rosenthal S (2004). Pragmatic naturalism, knowing the world, and the issue of foundations, beyond the modernist – postmodernist alternative. In: Khalil E (ed.) Dewey, Pragmatism, and Economic Methodology. Routledge, New York, US, pp 153-164

Sanderson I (2002). Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-based Policy Making. Public Administration 80(1): 1-22

Solesbury W (2002). The ascendancy of evidence. Planning Theory and Practice 3(1): 90-96

Smith J (2004). Dewey on inquiry and language. In: Khalil E (ed.) Dewey, Pragmatism, and Economic Methodology. Routledge, New York, US, pp. 133-152

Suppe F (1977). Afterword. In: Suppe F (ed). The Structure of Scientific Theories. Second Edition. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, US

Talisse R, Aikin S (2011). Introduction. In: Talisse R, Aikin S (eds.) The Pragmatism Reader. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, US, pp 4-11

Uebel T (2014). Logical Empiricism. In: Curd M, Psillos S (eds). The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. Second Edition. Routledge, New York, US, Pp. 90-103

Varone F, Rihoux B, Marx A (2006). A New Method for Policy Evaluation? Longstanding Challenges and the Possibilities of

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). In: Rihoux B, Grimm H (eds). Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis: Beyond the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide. Springer, New York, US, pp 213-236

Waugh J, Ariew R (2008). The History of philosophy and the philosophy of science. In: Curd, M, Psillos S (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. Second Edition, Routledge New York, US, pp 27-38




DOI: https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_ried/ijds.310

Full Text: PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.