It has recently been argued that successful evidence-based policy should rely on two kinds of evidence: statistical and mechanistic. The former is held to be evidence that a policy brings about the desired outcome, and the latter concerns how it does so. Although agreeing with the spirit of this proposal, we argue that the underlying conception of mechanistic evidence as evidence that is different in kind from correlational, difference-making or statistical evidence, does not correctly capture the role that information about mechanisms should play in evidence-based policy. We offer an alternative account of mechanistic evidence as information concerning the causal pathway connecting the policy intervention to its outcome. Not only can this be analyzed as evidence of difference-making, it is also to be found at any level and is obtainable by a broad range of methods, both experimental and observational. Using behavioral policy as an illustration, we draw the implications of this revised understanding of mechanistic evidence for debates concerning policy extrapolation, evidence hierarchies, and evidence integration.
What is mechanistic evidence, and why do we need it for evidence-based policy?
Published 2018 in Studies in history and philosophy of science
ABSTRACT
PUBLICATION RECORD
- Publication year
2018
- Venue
Studies in history and philosophy of science
- Publication date
2018-08-01
- Fields of study
Medicine, Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology
- Identifiers
- External record
- Source metadata
Semantic Scholar, PubMed
CITATION MAP
EXTRACTION MAP
CLAIMS
- No claims are published for this paper.
CONCEPTS
- No concepts are published for this paper.
REFERENCES
Showing 1-55 of 55 references · Page 1 of 1
CITED BY
Showing 1-46 of 46 citing papers · Page 1 of 1