What counts as evidence for policy? An analysis of policy actors' perceptions
使用Q方法和结构化问卷分析政策行动者对证据的认知，发现多数人并非证据决策派，而是持实用、包容或政治视角，且认知随经验与职业轨迹变化。
Abstract Evidence plays a growing role in public administration worldwide. We analyze the perceptions of policy actors, using Q methodology and a structured questionnaire, which reveals four types of profiles. Most policy actors did not fit neatly into an Evidence‐Based Policy‐Making (EBPM) group. Instead, they either had a pragmatic view where context and policy issues influence what counts as evidence, an inclusive position which emphasized the importance of considering a range of different types of evidence, or a political perspective where power relations and politics influence what counts as evidence. Our research also illustrates how different actors in the same community can have different perceptions of evidence, and how this can change over time due to experience and career trajectory.