Policymaking as a "craft"? if so, what are the implications?

The relation between research and policymaking is an intriguing part of the ongoing debates on how to deal with Covid-19. The Swedish government for example seem, if the media and press releases are to be believed, to let the scientists in the public health institute implement the response largely following pre-made plans rooted in research.

Meanwhile in Norway, there has emerged some tensions between the public health institute and government over the strategy, with the former recommending schools not be closed for example. However, the institute has also been clear that they respect the governments’ choices, and that they make decisions based on wider concerns and advice than what the institute provides. It should also not be overlooked that mayors in different parts of the country went against government wishes in the early stages of the pandemic and closed schools. Another presented argument in favour of the stricter approach was policies adopted in France, Italy, and Spain. In terms of uncertainty, one looks to others for solutions it would seem.

As a contrast, in France it seems the public institutions coordinate their message around government policy, making it hard to discern what conflict there may be behind the scene. Moreover, France, as a contrast to Sweden, has closed down most of society. In both countries, policy is said to be based on the advice of national experts and research.

Lastly it may be worth mentioning the UK, where state experts indicated the Swedish approach was desired initially, until "new" research in the midst of the pandemic done at UCL, as well as public pressure, caused a change in approach from an open herd immunity model towards strict lockdowns. In other words, there are seemingly varied responses, both from researchers and politicians, in the face of the same event. Perhaps not hard to imagine given how research or politics work.

So, in light of these events and the difficulty of having Science determine policy as I have discussed in previous blogs, how may we think of the relation between research and policy? I would proposition we may think of policymaking as a "craft".

In the book “Culture & Pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education” Robin Alexander conceptualizes a craft as something that is research informed but performed as an art. His example here was the teaching profession and why that, per his definition, was an art. Mainly, Alexander found teaching to be dependent on some fundamental knowledge from the world of research, be it how children may behave or be educated (psychology, behavioural sciences, pedagogy) or subject knowledge (the scientific underpinnings of physics, biology, social science, or language etc.). However, it is also a form of art in so far as every context differs to some degree. One class is different from another as any child may be said to have slight differences to other children. Thus, to him teaching was a craft in so far as it was research informed and performed as an art by an adaptable professional who read the context.

I would argue that seems an apt illustration of what the realities of policymaking seemingly are as well. Policy can be research informed (and perhaps should be) in so far as research may provide knowledge from a range of disciplines and fields to help us make a form of rational decision, but policy is also highly dependent on different contexts and actor constellations, as well as shifting goals (also an issue in education) as the morals and cultures of a group or a society changes across time and place, and in relation to issue. This relates to questions of why do people want what they want when they want it, and not only how do they go about to achieve it.

Importantly, if policymaking is a craft, we really ought to stop using the phrase "evidence shows" tout court to justify policy, as it is immensely more complicated and situationally dependent than what "evidence" may indicate to be an approximation of truth. Instead, we may think of evidence A showing X, but we must also consider evidence B showing Y and so on and so forth- and then we get towards our desired outcome of Z - we hope!

The complexities of social life likely means good public policy is greater than the sum of its parts.