Suchergebnisse

Wicked policy problems are often said to be characterized by their 'intractability', whereby appeals to evidence are unable to provide policy resolution. Advocates for 'Evidence Based Policy' (EBP) often lament these situations as representing the misuse of evidence for strategic ends, while critical policy studies authors counter that policy decisions are fundamentally about competing values, with the (blind) embrace of technical evidence depoliticizing political decisions. This paper aims to help resolve these conflicts and, in doing so, consider how to address this particular feature of problem wickedness. Specifically the paper delineates two forms of evidentiary bias that drive intractability, each of which is reflected by contrasting positions in the EBP debates: 'technical bias' - referring to invalid uses of evidence; and 'issue bias' - referring to how pieces of evidence direct policy agendas to particular concerns. Drawing on the fields of policy studies and cognitive psychology, the paper explores the ways in which competing interests and values manifest in these forms of bias, and shape evidence utilization through different mechanisms. The paper presents a conceptual framework reflecting on how the nature of policy problems in terms of their complexity, contestation, and polarization can help identify the potential origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias leading to intractability in some wicked policy debates. The discussion reflects on whether being better informed about such mechanisms permit future work that may lead to strategies to mitigate or overcome such intractability in the future.

Introduction -- Evidence-based policymaking : an important first step, and the need to take the next -- Bias and the politics of evidence -- The overt politics of evidence : bias and the pursuit of political interests -- The subtle politics of evidence -- the cognitive-political origins of bias -- What is "good evidence for policy"? From hierarchies to appropriate evidence -- What is the "good use of evidence" for policy? -- From evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence.

IntroductionAlthough biomedical HIV prevention efforts have seen a number of recent promising developments, behavioural interventions have often been described as failing. However, clear lessons have been identified from past efforts, including the need to address influential social, economic and legal structures; to tailor efforts to local contexts; and to address multiple influencing factors in combination. Despite these insights, there remains a pervasive strategy to try to achieve sexual behaviour change through single, decontextualized, interventions or sets of activities. With current calls for structural approaches to HIV as part of combination HIV prevention, though, there is a unique opportunity to define a structural approach to HIV prevention as one which moves beyond these past limitations and better incorporates our knowledge of the social world and the lessons from past efforts.DiscussionA range of interlinked concepts require delineation and definition within the broad concept of a structural approach to HIV. This includes distinguishing between "structural factors," which can be seen as any number of elements (other than knowledge) which influence risk and vulnerability, and "structural drivers," which should be reserved for situations where an empirically established relationship to a target group is known. Operationalizing structural approaches similarly can take different paths, either working to alter structural drivers or alternatively working to build individual and community resilience to infection. A "structural diagnostic approach" is further defined as the process one undertakes to develop structural intervention strategies tailored to target groups.ConclusionsFor three decades, the HIV prevention community has struggled to reduce the spread of HIV through sexual risk behaviours with limited success, but equally with limited engagement with the lessons that have been learned about the social realities shaping patterns of sexual practices. Future HIV prevention efforts must address the multiple factors influencing risk and vulnerability, and they must do so in ways tailored to particular settings. Clarity on the concepts, terminology and approaches that can allow structural HIV prevention efforts to achieve this is therefore essential to improve the (social) science of HIV prevention.

BackgroundThe fact that HIV prevention often deals with politicised sexual and drug taking behaviour is well known, but structural HIV prevention interventions in particular can involve alteration of social arrangements over which there may be further contested values at stake. As such, normative frameworks are required to inform HIV prevention decisions and avoid conflicts between social goals.MethodsThis paper provides a conceptual review and discussion of the normative issues surrounding structural HIV prevention strategies. It applies political and ethical concepts to explore the contested nature of HIV planning and suggests conceptual frameworks to inform future structural HIV responses.ResultsHIV prevention is an activity that cannot be pursued without making value judgements; it is inherently political. Appeals to health outcomes alone are insufficient when intervention strategies have broader social impacts, or when incidence reduction can be achieved at the expense of other social values such as freedom, equality, or economic growth. This is illustrated by the widespread unacceptability of forced isolation which may be efficacious in preventing spread of infectious agents, but conflicts with other social values.ConclusionsWhile no universal value system exists, the capability approach provides one potential framework to help overcome seeming contradictions or value trade‐offs in structural HIV prevention approaches. However, even within the capability approach, valuations must still be made. Making normative values explicit in decision making processes is required to ensure transparency, accountability, and representativeness of the public interest, while ensuring structural HIV prevention efforts align with broader social development goals as well.

Cognitive framing theories explain how individuals understand and apply information in relation to existing experiences and beliefs. Yet these theories have rarely been applied to explore the interpretation and application of evidence in policy development. This paper undertakes a critical discourse analysis of interviews and texts surrounding a highly contested United States policy for international HIV prevention. Analysis illustrates that, rather than speaking for itself, evidence is defined by framing processes, with competing interpretations found to reflect internal consistency with core beliefs about sexual behaviour. This illustrates the importance of making explicit the roles that belief systems play in shaping how evidence is used in policy development.

BACKGROUND: The fact that HIV prevention often deals with politicised sexual and drug taking behaviour is well known, but structural HIV prevention interventions in particular can involve alteration of social arrangements over which there may be further contested values at stake. As such, normative frameworks are required to inform HIV prevention decisions and avoid conflicts between social goals. METHODS: This paper provides a conceptual review and discussion of the normative issues surrounding structural HIV prevention strategies. It applies political and ethical concepts to explore the contested nature of HIV planning and suggests conceptual frameworks to inform future structural HIV responses. RESULTS: HIV prevention is an activity that cannot be pursued without making value judgements; it is inherently political. Appeals to health outcomes alone are insufficient when intervention strategies have broader social impacts, or when incidence reduction can be achieved at the expense of other social values such as freedom, equality, or economic growth. This is illustrated by the widespread unacceptability of forced isolation which may be efficacious in preventing spread of infectious agents, but conflicts with other social values. CONCLUSIONS: While no universal value system exists, the capability approach provides one potential framework to help overcome seeming contradictions or value trade-offs in structural HIV prevention approaches. However, even within the capability approach, valuations must still be made. Making normative values explicit in decision making processes is required to ensure transparency, accountability, and representativeness of the public interest, while ensuring structural HIV prevention efforts align with broader social development goals as well.

AbstractUganda faces continual challenges as a low‐income nation reliant on international donors and non‐state actors. It was also one of the first countries to face a population‐wide HIV epidemic, a disease that can strain state capacity to its limits. One would expect that such a combination would weaken the governance structures in a developing country; yet, if anything, the Ugandan state has emerged from its HIV crisis with its legitimacy bolstered. This article reviews the Ugandan response to HIV/AIDS, analysing the ways in which the epidemic has provided a new arena for the Ugandan state to engage with international actors.

Despite problems with the accuracy of the data at hand, it appears that Uganda is one of the few countries that has been successful in halting the spread of the AIDS/HIV epidemic within its borders. Factors responsible for this success are explored, examining both written policies & unwritten policy dimensions. Implications for other developing countries are considered. K. Hyatt Stewart