A lot of people probably think that research findings and evidence are critical factors in government decision making. After all, should not policy be based on evidence and sound knowledge? Existing research surely raises questions about how evidence is used in decision making. This book adds to the body of findings.



It is hardly revolutionary. The basic thesis that evidence is often NOT used to formulate policies has been discussed at length over a period of decades. That evidence is used for political purposes is "old hat." Thus, some of the book's claims are a bit overstated. Also, the cost is enormous (not that that is the author's fault). Still, the case studies of immigration policy are useful additions to the larger literature on the utilization of research.



The blurb at the outset of the book lays out clearly a central point raised by Christina Boswell, the author. "Boswell. . .[argues] that policymakers are just as likely to value expert knowledge for two alternative reasons: as a way of lending authority to their preferences [that is, to support the decision that they already support]; or to signal their capacity to make sound decisions [that is, use evidence to show that you're a smart cookie and on top of things]."



The first part of the book looks at the uses of evidence--from the common sense instrumental view that, of course, decision makers use research in order to make sound decisions to the two factors just mentioned in the quotation. In Part II, Boswell examines case studies of immigration policy in Europe, looking at several organizations, such as the British Home Office, the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, and the European Commission. The book closes with reflections on the variety of uses of expert knowledge.



As already noted, this book is a useful addition to the literature, adding its own contribution to our understanding of the process by which knowledge is used (or misused) in the decision making process.