Appreciating the responsibilities of researchers and governments in “evidence-informed policy”: Commentary on “Helping distressed people with intellectual disabilities to manage their chaotic emotions” (Clegg Lansdall-Welfare, 2022)

摘要

Clegg and Lansdall-Welfare (Citation2022) have suggested that behavioural intervention is a “historical precedence” (p. 3), and that a particular interpretation of trauma-informed care “has made it acceptable to change-resistant policy-makers” (p. 11). In this brief commentary I argue that more than just precedence and policymakers influence government policies. Using programs of Australian research about the use of social science research (https://issr.uq.edu.au/utilisation-social-science-research) and positive behaviour support policy (Hayward, Citation2022), in the context of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS; www.ndis.gov.au), I argue that both researchers and governments share the responsibility for evidence-informed disability policy. It is difficult to legitimately argue against the use of evidence in policymaking, but the association between good information and good policymaking is undermined by political (harnessing arguments during the political decision-making process) and organisational (administrative practices in individual organisations for obtaining information) mechanisms, leading to the phrase “evidence-informed policy” as an alternative to “evidence-based policy” (Head, Citation2016).