What makes evidence‐based policy making such a useful myth? The case of NICE guidance on bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom
研究了循证政策制定（EBPM）为何被政策参与者视为有用神话，以英国NICE关于减重手术的指南为例，揭示其在政治、实用和程序上的作用。
There is widespread skepticism among policy scholars and practitioners about the move to rationalize policy making: The naive vision of “evidence‐based policy” is often contrasted with the reality of “policy‐based evidence.” Yet, the language of evidence‐based policy making (EBPM) continues to dominate policy debate about complex and contested issues. In this paper, I explore this apparent paradox by looking at what makes EBPM such a useful myth for all sorts of policy actors. I do so with reference to the pioneering work of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), focusing specifically on its work in relation to bariatric surgery, a suite of controversial and drastic weight loss procedures. I show that the myth of EBPM has political, pragmatic, and procedural utility in practice, allowing the organization to set and administer guidelines on this uncertain, complex, and contested treatment in ways that sustain buy‐in and enable ongoing contestation.