When Evidence is not Taken for Granted: The Use and Perception of “Evidence” in the Czech Republic Ministries

Open access


The role of evidence in policy-making is one of the most researched topics in public policy and public administration. However, surprisingly little research has been done on how public officials actually use evidence in everyday life practice. Moreover, these studies have been limited to countries that have been influenced by the evidence-based policy movement (EBP). Little is known about how the evidence is conceptualized and utilized in other countries which have not been so strongly influenced by EBP movement. This paper addresses this gap. Using a large-N survey on the Czech ministerial officials and in-depth interviews with them, we explore what is understood under the term of “evidence”, what kind of evidence is used and preferred by public officials and why. In doing so, we use four theoretical perspectives on the use of evidence. We show that despite the long-established tradition of using research in policy-making the importance of research evidence in the Czech Republic is far from being taken for granted. On the contrary, the immediate and personal experience is often preferred over the research findings. The exception to that are census-like statistical data and comparative data published by international organizations. We find some support for the two-communities metaphor, though these communities are not defined by their socio-demographic characteristics, but rather by their internal discourse and understanding of evidence.

Belli, Robert F, Michael W. Traugott and Matthew N. Beckmann. 2001. “What Leads to Voting Overreports ? Contrasts of Overreporters to Validated Voters and Admitted Nonvoters in the American National Election Studies.” Journal of Official Statistics 17(4), 479.

Braun, Virginia. and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Th ematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77 - 101.

Caplan, Nathan. 1979. “Th e Two-Communities Th eory and Knowledge Utilization.” American Behavioral Scientist 22(3), 459 - 470. doi:

Ganster, Daniel C, Harry W. Hennessey and Fred Luthans. 1983. “Social Desirability Response Eff ects: Th ree Alternative Models.” Academy of Management Journal 26(2), 321 - 331.

Gibson, Brendan. 2003. “Beyond Two Communities.” In Vivian Lin and Brendan Gibson (eds). Evidence-Based Health Policy: Problems and Possibilities. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 18 - 30.

Hanney, Stephen R., Miguel A. Gonzalez-Block, Martin J. Buxton and Maurice Kogan. 2003. “Th e Utilisation of Health Research in Policy-Making: Concepts, Examples and Methods of Assessment.” Health Research Policy and Systems 1(1), 2. doi:

Head, Brian W. 2008. “Th ree Lenses of Evidence: Based Policy.” Th e Australian Journal of Public Administration 67(1), 1 - 11.

Head, Brian W. 2010. “Reconsidering Evidence-Based Policy: Key Issues and Challenges.” Policy and Society 29(2), 77 - 94.

Head, Brian. 2013. “Evidence–Based Policymaking - Speaking Truth to Power ?” Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72(4): 397 - 403.

Innvar, Simon, Gunn Vist, Mari Trommald and Andrew Oxman. 2002. “Health Policy-Makers’ Perceptions of their Use of Evidence: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 7(4), 239 - 244. doi:

Lomas, Jonathan. 1997. Improving Research Dissemination and Uptake in the Health Sector: Beyond the Sound of One Hand Clapping. Hamilton, Ontario: Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Hamilton.

Lomas, Jonathan. 2000. “Using ‘linkage and exchange’ to Move Research into Policy at a Canadian Foundation.” Health Aff airs 19(3), 236.

McClintock, Charles and Staci T. Lowe. 2007. “And the Question is ? Knowledge Growth in Welfare Policy Research.” Policy Sciences, 40(1), 35 - 54. doi:

Nederhof, Anton J. 1985. “Methods of Coping with Social Desirability Bias: A Review.” European Journal of Social Psychology 15(3), 263 - 280.

Newman, Joshua. 2014. “Revisiting the ‘Two Communities’ Metaphor of Research Utilisation.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 27(7), 614 - 627. doi:

Newman, Joshua and Brian Head. 2015. “Beyond the Two Communities: A Reply to Mead’s ‘Why Government oft en Ignores Research’.” Policy Sciences 48(3), 383 - 393.

Nutley, Sandra, Sarah Morton, Tobias Jung and Annette Boaz. 2010. “Evidence and Policy in Six European Countries: Diverse Approaches and Common Challenges.” Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate & Practice 6(2), 131 - 144.

Nutley, Sandra M, Isabel Walter and Huw To Davies. 2007. Using Evidence: How Research can Inform Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press.

Oliver, Kathryn, Th eo Lorenc and Simon Innvar. 2014. “New Directions in Evidence- Based Policy Research: A Critical Analysis of the Literature.” Health Research Policy and Systems 12(1), 34. doi:

Oliver, Kathryn A. and Frank de Vocht. 2017. “Defi ning ‘Evidence’ in Public Health: A Survey of Policymakers’ Uses and Preferences.” Th e European Journal of Public Health, 27 (suppl_2):112 - 117

Stevens, Alex. 2011. “Telling Policy Stories: An Ethnographic Study of the Use of Evidence in Policy-Making in the UK.” Journal of Social Policy 40(2), 237 - 255. doi:

Vesely, Arnošt. 2016. “Policy Analysis in the Czech Republic: Th e State of the Art.” In Arnošt Vesely, Martin Nekola and Eva Hejzlarova (eds). Policy Analysis in the Czech Republic. Bristol: Policy Press, 1 - 14.

Vesely, Arnošt and Martin Nekola. 2016. “Policy Analysis and Policy Work in the Central Public Administration.” In Arnošt Vesely, Martin Nekola and Eva Hejzlarova (eds). Policy Analysis in the Czech Republic. Bristol: Policy Press, 107 - 123.

Weiss, Carol H. 1979. “The Many Meanings of Research Utilization.” Public Administration Review 39(5), 426 - 431.

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.60

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.234
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.285


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 99 99 28
PDF Downloads 60 60 19