Political Ideas and Scientific Analysis

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The interaction of science and policy cannot but interest researchers, since the material possibilities for conducting the studies that appeal to them depend on state policy, and the provision of such opportunities by the state depends on whether science meets its demands. Within the framework of this broad topic, there is also a narrower problematic – the impact of scientific research on political ideas, and this article dwells upon its analysis. After clarifying concepts important for the analysis, such as policy, political problem and political idea, the article outlines the possibilities of science for developing new political ideas and analyzing those already being implemented, as well as the criteria for assessing the results proposed by politicians, both those already in power and those who claim such positions. Thus, a version of the analytical apparatus has been developed and presented, which can be used in specific areas of research to identify opportunities for productive interaction between science and political ideas.

About the authors

Vitaly L. Tambovtsev

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Email: vitalytambovtsev@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0667-3391
SPIN-code: 5938-6806
ResearcherId: U-4980-2017
Doctor of Economics, Professor Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Sartori G. Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review. 1970;64(4):1033–1053. doi: 10.2307/1958356.
  2. Sartori G., ed. Social science concepts: A systematic analysis. Beverly Hills, CA ; London ; New Delhi : Sage Publications; 1984. 455 p. ISBN 0-8039-2177-2.
  3. Gerring J. What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences. Polity. 1999;31(3):357–393. doi: 10.2307/3235246. EDN GZLPVL.
  4. Collier D., Hidalgo F. D., Maciuceanu A. O. Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications. Journal of Political Ideologies. 2006;11(3):211–246. doi: 10.1080/13569310600923782.
  5. Rittel H. W. J., Webber M. M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973;4(2):155–169. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730.
  6. Gallie W. B. Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 1956;56(1):167–198. doi: 10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167.
  7. Tambovtsev V. L. On political policy [O politicheskoy politike]. In: Zaostrovtsev A. P., ed. Economic theory and political science: Disregard, competition, or cooperation? [Ekonomicheskaya teoriya i politologiya: ignorirovaniye, konkurentsiya ili sotrudnichestvo?] : Proceedings of the anniversary 15th annual conference from the cycle “Leontief Readings”. St. Petersburg : International Centre for Social and Economic Research “Leontief Centre”; 2016. P. 61–72. (In Russ.). EDN XVKRPV.
  8. Milgrom P., Roberts J. An economic approach to influence activities in organizations. American Journal of Sociology. 1988;94(1S):S154–S179.
  9. Chay Y.-W., Aryee S. Potential moderating influence of career growth opportunities on careerist orientation and work attitudes: Evidence of the protean career era in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1999;20(5):613–623. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199909)20:53.0.CO;2-A.
  10. Sabatier P. A., Jenkins-Smith H. C., eds. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO : Westview Press; 1993. xii, 290 p. ISBN 0-8133-1648-0.
  11. Hall P. A., ed. The political power of economic ideas: Keynesianism across nations. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press; 1989. vi, 406 p. ISBN 0-691-07799-1.
  12. Hall P. A. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics. 1993;25(3):275–296. doi: 10.2307/422246.
  13. Fisher F., Forester J., eds. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham ; London : Duke University Press; 1993. viii, 327 p. ISBN 0-8223-1354-5.
  14. Garcé A. Policy ideas. In: van Gerven M., Rothmayr Allison C., Schubert K., eds. Encyclopedia of public policy. Cham : Springer; 2024. P. 1–6. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-90434-0_84-1.
  15. Newell A., Shaw J. C., Simon H. A. Elements of a theory of human problem solving. Psychological Review. 1958;65(3):151–166. doi: 10.1037/h0048495.
  16. Bruner G. C., Pomazal R. J. Problem recognition: The crucial first stage of the consumer decision process. Journal of Services Marketing. 1988;2(3):43–53. doi: 10.1108/eb024733.
  17. Dewey J. How we think. Boston ; New York ; Chicago : D. C. Heath & Co Publishers; 1910. vi, 228 p.
  18. Runco M. A., Chand I. Problem finding, evaluative thinking, and creativity. In: Runco M. A., ed. Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ : Ablex Publishing Corporation; 1994. P. 40–76.
  19. Hill C. J. The nature of problem recognition and search in the extended health care decision. Journal of Services Marketing. 2001;15(6):454–479. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006100.
  20. Abdulla A. M., Cramond B. The creative problem finding hierarchy: A suggested model for understanding problem finding. Creativity: Theories – Research – Applications. 2018;5(2):197–229. doi: 10.1515/ctra-2018-0019.
  21. Tkachenko S. B. Moscow – unrealised garden city in “New Moscow” plan. Architecture and Modern Information Technologies. 2019;(2):232–250. (In Russ.). EDN KQVEUA.
  22. Kermack W. О., McKendrick A. G. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. 1927;115(772):700–721.
  23. Rogers E. M. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York : Free Press; 1995. xvii, 519 p. ISBN 0-0287-4074-2.
  24. Tambovtsev V. L. Ideas, narratives and economic change. Terra Economicus. 2019;17(1):24–40. (In Russ.). doi: 10.23683/2073-6606-2019-17-1-24-40. EDN VZIFTR.
  25. Schroeder T. Desire: Philosophical issues. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2010;1(3):363–370. doi: 10.1002/wcs.3.
  26. Fried I., Haggard P., He B. J., Schurger A. Volition and action in the human brain: Processes, pathologies, and reasons. Journal of Neuroscience. 2017;37(45):10842–10847. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2584-17.2017.
  27. Braun D., Gilardi F. Taking ‘Galton’s problem’ seriously: Towards a theory of policy diffusion. Journal of Theoretical Politics. 2006;18(3):298–322. doi: 10.1177/0951629806064351.
  28. Nicholson-Crotty S., Carley S. Effectiveness, implementation, and policy diffusion: Or “Can we make that work for us?” State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 2015;16(1):78–97. doi: 10.1177/1532440015588764.
  29. Venkatesh V., Morris M. G., Davis G. B., Davis F. D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003;27(3):425–478. doi: 10.2307/30036540.
  30. Marangunić N., Granić A. Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society. 2015;14(1):81–95. doi: 10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1.
  31. Taffesse A. S., Tadesse F. Pathways less explored – locus of control and technology adoption. Journal of African Economies. 2017;26(suppl_1):i36–i72. doi: 10.1093/jae/ejx013.
  32. Rittel H. W. J., Webber M. M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973;4(2):155–169. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730.
  33. Head B. W. Wicked problems in public policy: Understanding and responding to complex challenges. Cham : Palgrave Macmillan; 2022. vii, 176 p. ISBN 978-3-030-94579-4. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0.
  34. Head B. W. Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society. 2019;38(2):180–197. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2018.1488797.
  35. Lönngren J., van Poeck K. Wicked problems: A mapping review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 2021;28(6):481–502. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2020.1859415.
  36. Turnbull N., Hoppe R. Problematizing ‘wickedness’: A critique of the wicked problems concept, from philosophy to practice. Policy and Society. 2019;38(2):315–337. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2018.1488796.
  37. Peters B. G. What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society. 2017;36(3):385–396. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633.
  38. Pretorius C. Exploring procedural decision support systems for wicked problem resolution. South African Computer Journal. 2017;29(1):191–219. doi: 10.18489/sacj.v29i1.448.
  39. Finlayson A. Political science, political ideas and rhetoric. Economy and Society. 2004;33(4):528–549. doi: 10.1080/0308514042000285279.
  40. Prewitt K. Political ideas and a political science for policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2005;600(1):14–29. doi: 10.1177/0002716205276660.
  41. Eulriet I. Analysing political ideas and political action. Economy and Society. 2008;37(1):135–150. doi: 10.1080/03085140701760916.
  42. Dobbins M., Rosenbaum P. L., Plews N., Law M., Fysh A. Information transfer: What do decision makers want and need from researchers? Implementation Science. 2007;2(1):20. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-2-20.
  43. Edler J., Karaulova M., Barker K. Understanding conceptual impact of scientific knowledge on policy: The role of policymaking conditions. Minerva. 2022;60(2):209–233. doi: 10.1007/s11024-022-09459-8.
  44. Cao Z., Zhang L., Huang Y., Sivertsen G. How does scientific research influence policymaking? A study of four types of citation pathways between research articles and AI policy documents. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2025, forthcoming. doi: 10.1002/asi.25006.
  45. Moore G., Redman S., Haines M., Todd A. L. What works to increase the use of research in population health policy and programmes: A review. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2011;7(3):277–305. doi: 10.1332/174426411X579199.
  46. Dagenais C., Laurendeau M.-C., Briand-Lamarche M. Knowledge brokering in public health: A critical analysis of the results of a qualitative evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2015;53:10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.003.
  47. White J., Grant K., Sarkies M., Haines T., Evidence Translation in Allied Health (EviTAH) Group. Translating evidence into practice: A longitudinal qualitative exploration of allied health decision-making. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2021;19:38. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00662-1.
  48. Nutley S. M., Walter I., Davies H. T. O. Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol : Policy Press; 2007. xii, 363 p. ISBN 978-1-847-42232-3. doi: 10.56687/9781847422323.
  49. Cairney P. The politics of evidence-based policy making. London : Palgrave Macmillan; 2016. xv, 137 p. ISBN 978-1-137-51780-7. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4.
  50. Kelstrup J. D., Jørgensen J. V. Explaining differences in research utilization in evidence-based government ministries. Policy Sciences. 2024;57(2):257–280. doi: 10.1007/s11077-024-09529-6.
  51. Jørgensen J. V. Knowledge Utilisation Analysis: Measuring the utilisation of knowledge sources in policy decisions. Evidence & Policy. 2024;20(2):205–225. doi: 10.1332/174426421X16917585658729.
  52. White K. L., Murnaghan J. H. Health care policy formation: Analysis, information and research. International Journal of Health Services. 1973;3(1):81–91. doi: 10.2190/P39K-XH92-EUVF-9VFK.
  53. Orosz E. The impact of social science research on health policy. Social Science & Medicine. 1994;39(9):1287–1293. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90360-3.
  54. Fafard P., Cassola A., de Leeuw E., eds. Integrating science and politics for public health. Cham : Palgrave Macmillan; 2022. xviii, 345 p. ISBN 978-3-030-98984-2. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-98985-9.
  55. Keynes J. M. The general theory of employment, interest and money. Moscow : Eksmo; 2007. 957, [1] р. (In Russ.). ISBN 978-5-699-20989-7. EDN QSKYFV.
  56. Frey B. S. Does economics have an effect? Towards an economics of economics. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik. 2000;1(1):5–33.
  57. Frey B. S. How influential is economics? De Economist. 2006;154(2):295–311. doi: 10.1007/s10645-006-9005-2.
  58. Rubin P. H. Folk economics. Southern Economic Journal. 2003;70(1):157–171. doi: 10.2307/1061637.
  59. Różycka-Tran J., Boski P., Wojciszke B. Belief in a Zero-Sum Game as a social axiom: A 37-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2015;46(4):525–548. doi: 10.1177/0022022115572226.
  60. Swedberg R. Folk economics and its role in Trump’s presidential campaign: An exploratory study. Theory and Society. 2018;47(1):1–36. doi: 10.1007/s11186-018-9308-8.
  61. Hellström T., Jacob M. Scientification of politics or politicization of science? Traditionalist science-policy discourse and its quarrels with Mode 2 epistemology. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy. 2000;14(1):69–77. doi: 10.1080/02691720050199315.
  62. Bolsen T., Druckman J. N. Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication. 2015;65(5):745–769. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12171.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).