IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v47y2014i4p345-365.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Hoisted with our own petard’: evidence and democratic deliberation on obesity

Author

Listed:
  • John Boswell

Abstract

Key actors engaged in debate on obesity in Australia and the UK subscribe to radically different narratives about the nature, extent and even existence of this public health problem. Yet there is a common thread to these clashing narratives: evidence. All are emphatic that their story is ‘evidence-based’. In this paper, I seek to examine this state of affairs by looking at how actors think about, use and interpret evidence across a range of sites of policy debate on this issue. In doing so, I contribute to academic inquiry about the place of evidence in democratic deliberation. Firstly, I find that there is a high degree of consensus among actors who promote differing interpretations of the issue on what evidence means and entails in the abstract. Secondly, I find that the differing narratives on obesity are underpinned by different interpretations of the evidence, but that internal inconsistencies affect each of these competing narratives as well. As such, I argue that policy actors should not be seen just as strategically marshalling convenient evidence to support a preconceived cause. Overall, I suggest that these findings have mixed implications for democratic deliberation on the issue, enhancing the deliberative side of the equation but undermining the democratic. I then point to ways in which the goals of evidence-based and democratic policymaking on this issue may be further reconciled. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • John Boswell, 2014. "‘Hoisted with our own petard’: evidence and democratic deliberation on obesity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 345-365, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:47:y:2014:i:4:p:345-365
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-014-9195-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-014-9195-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-014-9195-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wood, Martin & Ferlie, Ewan & Fitzgerald, Louise, 1998. "Achieving clinical behaviour change: a case of becoming indeterminate," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(11), pages 1729-1738, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Denitsa Marchevska, 2024. "Enlightenment, politicisation or mere window dressing? Europeanisation and the use of evidence for policy making in Bulgaria," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 281-303, June.
    2. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    3. Stucki, Iris, 2018. "Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 148-156.
    4. Mark Rickinson & Connie Cirkony & Lucas Walsh & Jo Gleeson & Mandy Salisbury & Annette Boaz, 2021. "Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Theresa M Marteau, 2023. "Evidence-neglect: addressing a barrier to UK health and climate policy ambitions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(6), pages 1103-1109.
    6. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    7. E. E. A. Wolf & Wouter Van Dooren, 2017. "How policies become contested: a spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 449-468, September.
    8. Schlaufer, Caroline, 2018. "The contribution of evaluations to the discourse quality of newspaper content," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 157-165.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rhodes, Tim, 2018. "The becoming of methadone in Kenya: How an intervention's implementation constitutes recovery potential," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 71-79.
    2. Lambert, Helen, 2006. "Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2633-2645, June.
    3. Mykhalovskiy, Eric & Armstrong, Pat & Armstrong, Hugh & Bourgeault, Ivy & Choiniere, Jackie & Lexchin, Joel & Peters, Suzanne & White, Jerry, 2008. "Qualitative research and the politics of knowledge in an age of evidence: Developing a research-based practice of immanent critique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 195-203, July.
    4. Rhodes, Tim & Lancaster, Kari, 2019. "Evidence-making interventions in health: A conceptual framing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Moreira, Tiago, 2005. "Diversity in clinical guidelines: the role of repertoires of evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 1975-1985, May.
    6. Prosser, Helen & Walley, Tom, 2006. "New drug prescribing by hospital doctors: The nature and meaning of knowledge," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 1565-1578, April.
    7. King, Gillian & Currie, Melissa & Smith, Linda & Servais, Michelle & McDougall, Janette, 2008. "A framework of operating models for interdisciplinary research programs in clinical service organizations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 160-173, May.
    8. Rashidian, Arash & Eccles, Martin P. & Russell, Ian, 2008. "Falling on stony ground A qualitative study of implementation of clinical guidelines' prescribing recommendations in primary care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 148-161, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:47:y:2014:i:4:p:345-365. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.