A framework for implementing evidence in policymaking: Perspectives and phases of evidence evaluation in the science-policy interaction

The use of scientific knowledge in policymaking has been a subject of debate in the environmental sector. An essential task for the effective use of evidence in policymaking is for scientists and policymakers to share a common understanding of how evidence should be produced and used. The purpose of this study is to establish a reference framework that enables scientists and policymakers to align their sights to deal with evidence in policymaking. To develop the framework, we introduced five perspectives that cover the domains of science, policy, and the science-policy interface as: (1) methodological rigorousness; (2) consistency; (3) proximity; (4) social appropriateness; and (5) legitimacy. We then examined how the issues from these perspectives will transit through three phases of interaction between scientific investigation and political institutionalization via: (1) a pre-institutionalization phase, in which the academic and social framing of an issue was unclear; (2) a mid institutionalization phase, in which the academic and social framing of an issue was established and institutionalization was advanced; and (3) a post-institutionalization phase, in which issues were recursively defined within the evidence evaluation system itself. The framework encourages scientists and policymakers to shift their perspectives to each phase of institutionalization. A case study on mercury pollution shows how the framework serves as a checklist for the comprehensive evaluation of evidence, which provides specific guidance that appropriately promotes evidence-based policymaking and its implementation.

Automated summary

The study establishes a framework for scientists and policymakers to handle evidence in policymaking, focusing on five perspectives including methodological rigorousness, consistency, proximity, social appropriateness, and legitimacy. It explores how these perspectives interact through three phases of scientific investigation and political institutionalization, encouraging shifts in perspectives between different institutionalization phases. A case study on mercury pollution demonstrates how the framework serves as a checklist for comprehensive evidence evaluation, providing specific guidance for evidence-based policymaking and implementation.