The strategic uses of evidence in UK e-cigarettes policy debates

Abstract

Background Current debates on e-cigarette policy in the UK are highly acrimonious and are framed in terms of evidence-based policymaking. Aims and objectives The article aims to understand the use of evidence in policymaking in the context of both political controversy and limited policy-relevant evidence via a case study of UK e-cigarette debates. Methods The study draws on a series of semi-structured interviews with policy actors to examine their positions on e-cigarette policy process and their use of evidence to support this. Findings Policy actors articulate a strong commitment to evidence-based policymaking and claim that their positions are evidence-based. Some actors also claim emerging consensus around their positon as a rhetorical tool in the debate. Respondents argued that actors adopting opposing policy positions fail to follow the evidence base. This is attributed to a lack of understanding or disregard for the relevant evidence for political or ideological reasons. Discussion Respondents adhere to a rationalist understanding of policymaking in which policy disputes can be settled by recourse to ‘the evidence’. Interpretative policy analysis suggests that multiple legitimate framings of policy issues, supported by different bodies of evidence, are possible. Policy differences are thus not due to bad faith but to policy actors framing the issue at stake in different terms and thus advocating different policy responses. Conclusions Process of ‘frame reflection’ may help to overcome the acrimony of current policy leading to more effective engagement by public health actors in the e-cigarettes policy debates.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 30 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.