De positieve benadering van evaluatie in relatie tot het bereiken van succes is een frisse wind. Het wordt inderdaad tijd dat evaluatoren gebruikers meer helpen en stimuleren om van (beleids)ervaringen te leren. En: dat geëvalueerden zich daarvoor vanaf het begin openstellen. Aandachtspunt is wel dat de evaluator daarbij zijn of haar waardevolle kritische (kennis)blik niet verliest.

In this feature authors review recently published books on subjects of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

Reflection and debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

Transparency is said to be paramount for citizen’s trust in (semi-)governmental organizations, such as regulators and supervisory bodies, yet there is little empirical research in this area.
In an experiment we investigated the effect of different forms of transparency on citizen trust in a Dutch financial regulator. Our measure of trust consisted of three components: Competence, Benevolence and Integrity. Two types of transparency were used (rationale transparency and process transparency) in three different scenarios, one positive for the regulator and two negative.
Transparency, and especially when focused on the ‘why’ (rationale) led to slightly more trust by citizens. This effect was most pronounced in the Competence-component of our trust-measure. Interestingly, even being transparent about negative news – i.e. admitting that mistakes were made and focusing on the ‘why’ – does not necessarily decrease trust. In contrast, negative information that focused on the ‘how’ (process transparency) yielded a negative effect on trust.
We conclude that even when the message portrays negative information about the regulator, it pays to be transparent and communicate about it. Information should focus on explaining the rationale and underlying principles of a decision, and less on how the decision was taken.

In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.
According to many commentators, the system of science is in a crisis: it is characterized by perverse incentives, it is contested and misused, and it has lost its authority. In this essay, I suggest that the answer to this crisis lies in a broadening of the notion of scientific integritiy from the conduct of individual researchers to the wider context of the science-policy-society interface. Specifically, I argue for the need to foster what I call here ‘relations of integrity’. In these relations, science reflects on the role it plays and takes into account the context in which knowledge is produced and used. It has to maintain independence, while fully recognizing that value free knowledge does not exist and that multiple forms of independence are possible, and it needs to be accountable for the decisions it makes and for the consequences of those decisions.

In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.
Good work of any professional, including that of academics, consists of three elements: Ethics, Excellence and Engagement. Psychology professor Howard Gardner from Harvard developed a toolkit to identify the specifics of these three E’s for different professionals. Professor Gabriël van den Brink, Wout Scholten and Thijs Jansen unraveled how excellence, ethics and engagement are defined by Dutch academic scholars. They question the effects of an academic regime in which judgements about scientific quality are replaced by the counting of publications, the education of students is severely neglected and job satisfaction has been affected by bureaucratic obligations. Speaking about the human sciences more specifically, this essay advocates a better understanding of social complexity, a more convincing engagement with problems that influence many people and acknowledgement of the fact that the human sciences can only demonstrate their relevance in the long run.

Reflection and debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

In several countries the number of semi-autonomous agencies is under attack. The Dutch government has also presented plans to reduce the number of so-called ZBOs (zelfstandige bestuursorganen). But do public organizations like ZBOs actually die? Using population ecology theory we formulate a number of hypotheses on the survival and reform of ZBOs. These hypotheses are tested using secondary data on the number of ZBOs in The Netherlands in the past two decades. Results show that the absolute number of ZBOs has increased rather than decreased. Only seldom does a ZBO die. But ZBOs do experience many changes during their lifetime, such as mergers. The politicians’ plans seem targeted at improving their overview of all ZBOs. Whether the implementation of the plans will lead to that remains to be seen. Experiences in other countries do not confirm these expectations so far.

The most relevant part of a discussion is not what is discussed but what cannot be spoken of. The real taboos are those for which it is taboo to call them taboos. The status quo defines itself as non-ideological while denouncing any challenge to itself as radical. Therefore the column ‘De Blinde Vlek’ frames the framers, politicizes the status quo and articulates what is not heard of.

Reflection and debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

Reflection and debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.
‘Fact free politics’ and ‘post-truth politics’ are considered to pose a severe threat to democracies as they seem to ruin shared perceptions of reality and render it impossible to distinguish opinion from fact. However, it is questionable whether fueling public and political debates with scientific facts offers a counterweight. First, scientific facts are not free from interpretation and can be regarded as ‘theory-laden’. Second, scientific research may determine facts but it may not claim the monopoly to determine the public meaning attached to these facts. Third, facts not only function to explain or to describe reality, they also affect reality. Given these considerations, the ‘science versus fact free politics’ debate could profit from a more realistic view on the status of facts.

Een gedegen beleidsvoorbereiding kan beleidsfalen voorkomen. Hoewel deze thematiek al jaren aandacht krijgt in de politiek, lukt het de rijksoverheid nog niet hieraan structureel succesvol invulling te geven. In het licht van de recente Tweede Kamer verkiezingen is er hernieuwde aandacht voor samenspraak bij beleid en beleidsexperimenten om te komen tot beter beleid. Het rendement daarvan is naar verwachting beperkt. Ten eerste omdat samenspraak vaak zodanig ingeperkt is, dat de invloed van kennis voor beleid beperkt blijft. Ten tweede omdat wetenschappelijke kennis prevaleert boven de voor beleidseffectiviteit noodzakelijke tacit knowledge. De rijksoverheid kan meer rendement halen uit investeringen in een betere beleidsvoorbereiding, door de structurele afweging tot de inzet van samenspraak en beleidsexperimenten bij nieuw of gewijzigd beleid; verantwoording van deze afweging, alsmede onafhankelijke toetsing van de te verwachten beleidseffectiviteit. Investeringen in handreikingen zijn weinig zinvol. De gemeente Rotterdam geeft een goed voorbeeld.

De bundel Kennis voor beleid (2015), onder redactie van Peter van Hoesel, Jos Mevissen en Bart Dekker, is een boek voor iedereen die werkzaam is op het snijvlak van onderzoek en beleid. De uitgave is vooral opgezet als leerboek of overzichtswerk voor studenten, beleidsonderzoekers en beleidsmedewerkers die in hun dagelijkse praktijk te maken hebben met beleidsonderzoek.