Asia Canady, Class of 2019, Master of Public Policy

Evidence-Based Research & You

The Dean of the Harris School of Public Policy, Katherine Baicker sat down with Phil Ponce on WTTW’s Chicago Tonight to discuss the role that Evidence-Based Research plays in health care policy. During this talk, Dean Baicker laid out the framework for what Evidence-Based Research is, is not, and why policy analysts should care.

Evidence-Based Research is:

  • Rich with data points that analyze the real world and not just theory;
  • A way to analyze theories and ask more questions;
  • An opportunity to re-evaluate current policies, systems, and approaches across all sectors and make improvements where necessary;
  • A tool to inform policymakers to create comprehensive and thorough policy.

Evidence-Based Research is not:

  • A solution or an answer to a policy problem;
  • A way to insert your personal values about the way the world should work;
  • An opportunity to politicize a viewpoint or stance on a topic.

Used properly, Evidence-Based Research is a powerful tool that policy professionals can use to glean best practices and inform future policy implementation.

Watch the full interview.

Muddying the Water: Why Context Matters

Policy making is as much about using research and data, as it is about understanding the context in which an agenda is set. By understanding context, you get a better sense of what has been done already, what needs to be done in the future, and what resources and tactics you need to get there.

In the article “Why Trump's Offshore Drilling Expansion Won't Be So 'Yuge',” Sam Ori, the Executive Director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) cautions readers against forgetting context as it relates to politics. In the case of the Trump administration, they find themselves in similar predicaments where they make bold policy promises, but don’t necessarily have the context or creativity to roll out their changes effectively. Ori’s article focuses on the current administration’s promise of expanding offshore drilling. Although the quality of the policy is debatable, the implementation could actually be counterproductive to its intended goals.

  • Trump’s offshore drilling plan deviates from at least three previous administrations’ approaches to offshore drilling, including lease sales down the entire east and west coasts. Many of these states are against drilling off their shores and have worked with previous administrations to limit such activity.
  • Since many states have legal jurisdiction over the waters nearest to their shores, any pipelines built to bring resources onshore would likely require state approval.
  • Companies could theoretically avoid the use of pipelines by engineering other forms of technology, however, states also have authority under existing laws to delay the leasing process well past the change of administrations.
  • Researchers estimate that the most lucrative areas are located near an Air Force base where live training is routinely conducted. Further, political actors including the Governor and the U.S. Senator for this region have successfully opposed past drilling efforts.
  • A stall in the leasing process combined with the need to use alternative forms of technology and the political fallout that occur, might be cost and resource prohibitive for some companies, prompting them to conduct business elsewhere.

Without proper context, policymakers find themselves in an uncomfortable situation. The policy that they worked so hard to craft, can not only end up a lemon but also do the exact opposite of its intentions.

Read Sam Ori’s entire article on Forbes. 

Home