Abstract:Critiques of the 'naïve rationalist' model of policy-making abound in the sociological and political science literature. Yet academic debate on health care policy-making continues to be couched in the dominant discourse of evidence-based medicine, whose underlying assumptions--that policies are driven by facts rather than values and these can be clearly separated; that 'evidence' is context-free, can be objectively weighed up and placed unproblematically in a 'hierarchy'; and that policy-making is essentially an exercise in decision science--have constrained both thinking and practice. In this paper, drawing on theoretical work from political science and philosophy, and innovative empirical work in the health care sector, we argue that health care is well overdue for a re-defining of what policy-making is. Policy-making is the formal struggle over ideas and values, played out by the rhetorical use of language and the enactment of social situations. While the selection, evaluation and implementation of research evidence are important in the policy-making process, they do not equate to that process. The study of argument in the construction of policy has the potential to illuminate dimensions of the process that are systematically occluded when policy-making is studied through a naïve rationalist lens. In particular, a rhetorical perspective highlights the struggle over ideas, the 'naming and framing' of policy problems, the centrality of audience and the rhetorical use of language in discussion to increase the audience's adherence to particular framings and proposals. Rhetorical theory requires us to redefine what counts as 'rationality'--which must extend from what is provably true (by logic) and probably true (by Bayesian reasoning) to embrace, in addition, that which is plausibly true (i.e. can convince a reasonable audience). Future research into health care policy-making needs to move beyond the study of 'getting evidence into practice' and address the language, arguments and discourse through which policy is constructed and enacted.

About pigs?: Decisions, outcomes and project planning

To Pave or Not to Pave: A Framework for Systematic Decision Making in the Choice of Paving Technologies for Rural Roads

What can system dynamics learn from the public policy implementation literature?

Decision Analysis and Political Processes

The Implementation of Public Policy: Still the Missing Link

Moving policy implementation theory forward: A multiple streams/critical juncture approach

An Analysis of Public Policy Implementation

Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges

Same Pig, Different Conclusions: Stakeholders Differ in Qualitative Behaviour Assessment

Exposing weaknesses in interactive planning: the remarkable return of comprehensive policy analysis in The Netherlands

Social Decision-Making Analysis: a general approach to inform decisions on resources in the public sector

Learning From Experience: Lessons From Policy Implementation

Modelling trade offs between public and private conservation policies

Policy implementation: Implications for evaluation

Prolegomena to policy sciences

Phase-out planning for animal experimentation: A definition, an argument, and seven action points

Theoretical Visions Versus Policymaking Realities? Searching For The Logical Grounds Of Expansion And Retrenchment Arguments In Studies On Nordic Social Policy Models From The 1960s To The 2000s

A New Conceptual Framework and Approach to Decision Making in Public Policy

The Principal-Agent Approach to Politics: Policy Implementation and Public Policy-Making

Recognizing rhetoric in health care policy analysis