Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Jan;1(2):34-42.

Reframing evidence synthesis as rhetorical action in the policy making drama

Trisha Greenhalgh  1 , Jill Russell
Affiliations

Reframing evidence synthesis as rhetorical action in the policy making drama

Trisha Greenhalgh et al. Healthc Policy. 2006 Jan.

Abstract
in English, French

This paper presents a novel conceptualization of policy making as social drama. The selection and presentation of evidence for policy making, including the choice of which questions to ask, which evidence to compile in a synthesis and which syntheses to bring to the policy making table, should be considered as moves in a rhetorical argumentation game and not as the harvesting of objective facts to be fed into a logical decision-making sequence. Viewing policy making as argument does not mean it is beyond rationality--merely that we must redefine rationality to include not only logical inference and probabilistic reasoning, but also the consideration of plausibility by a reasonable audience. We need better evidence, but we also urgently need better awareness by policy makers of the language games on which their work depends.

Cet article présente une nouvelle conceptualisation de l’élaboration de politiques en tant que drame social. La sélection et la présentation des preuves servant de base à l’élaboration de politiques, y compris le choix des questions à poser, des données à compiler dans une synthèse et des synthèses à amener à la table d’élaboration de politiques devraient être considérées comme faisant partie d’un jeu d’arguments rhétoriques et non comme une collecte de faits objectifs qui iront alimenter un processus logique de prise de décisions. Le fait d’envisager l’élaboration de politiques comme un argument ne signifie pas qu’elle est dénuée de rationalité, mais simplement que nous devons redéfinir la rationalité pour y inclure non seulement l’inférence logique et le raisonnement probabiliste, mais également la plausibilité aux yeux d’un auditoire raisonnable. Nous avons besoin de meilleures preuves, mais il existe aussi un besoin urgent de sensibiliser les décideurs aux jeux de langue dont dépend leur travail.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Angell M. Evaluating the Health Risks of Breast Implants: The Interplay of Medical Science, the Law, and Public Opinion. New England Journal of Medicine . 1996;334:1513–1518. - PubMed
    1. Birch S. As a Matter of Fact: Evidence-Based Decision-Making Unplugged. Health Economics . 1997;6:547–559. - PubMed
    1. Crawshay-Williams R. Methods and Criteria of Reasoning: An Inquiry into the Structure of Controversy . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1957.
    1. Czarniawska B. Narratives in Social Science Research . London: Sage; 2004.
    1. Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence: A Review of Possible Methods. Journal of Health Services Research Policy . 2005;10:45–53. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources