Tracing the Evidence: The Use of Evaluation Results in Direct-Democratic Campaigns

Although research on direct-democratic campaigns in Switzerland has intensified in the last decade, detailed information on the use of evidence in campaigns is still lacking. Our research aims to contribute both to research on direct democracy and to research on evidence-based policy making, by analyzing how evaluation results are used in directdemocratic campaigns. In this conceptual paper, the formulation of our hypothesis is based on a model of evaluation influence that traces the different uses of evaluation results in the process of a direct-democratic campaign. We assume that the policy analytical capacity of individual members in parliament, government and administration in the (pre)-parliamentary process fosters the use of evidence in campaigns. In the course of the campaign, symbolic use of evaluation in the form of justification, persuasion or mobilization prevails. We assume that the media is an important player in making transparent how political actors use evidence to support their positions. Evidence itself often remains ambiguous and uncertain, and evaluations are influenced by the values of the evaluator. To be able to make the right decisions, therefore, citizens should learn about possible interpretations in argumentative processes. For us, the context of direct democracy in Switzerland provides the setting for such a discourse that, besides evidence, brings up different opinions, values and beliefs.

The use of evidence in public debates in the media: the case of Swiss direct-democratic campaigns in the health policy sector

This article analyses the reporting of evidence in Swiss direct-democratic campaigns in the health policy sector, assuming that an informed public helps democracy function successfully. A content analysis of the media’s news reporting shows that of 5030 media items retrieved, a reference to evidence is found in 6.8%. The voter receives evidence in the form of substantiating arguments, equally distributed among proponents and opponents. Experts have the highest chance of providing evidence, but appear most rarely. Integrating more evidence might provide voters with the diversity of arguments needed to make a truly informed decision.

Global evidence in local debates: the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in Swiss direct-democratic debates on school policy

This article analyses the use of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and other evidence in educational policy discourse in the context of direct-democratic votes in Switzerland. The results of a quantitative content analysis show that PISA is used by all actors to support a wide range of policy measures and ideological positions. Other evidence, however, is only used to support single specific policy positions. These findings demonstrate the ubiquity of PISA. The article discusses these results in view of the question of whether the incorporation of evidence into policy debates contributes to informed discourse.

The direct-democratic challenge to evidence-based policy making: Questioning the governmental PISA narrative in Swiss school policy

The democratic deficit of evidence-based policymaking and the little attention the approach pays to values and norms have repeatedly been criticized. This article argues that direct-democratic campaigns may provide an arena for citizens and stakeholders to debate the belief systems inherent to evidence. The study is based on a narrative analysis of Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reports, as well as of newspaper coverage and governmental information referring to PISA in Swiss direct-democratic campaigns on a variety of school policy issues. The findings show that PISA reports are discursive instruments rather than ‘objective evidence’. The reports promote a narrative of economic progress through educational evidence that is adopted without scrutiny by governmental coalitions in direct-democratic campaigns to justify school policy reforms. Yet, the dominant PISA narrative is contested in two counter-narratives, one endorsed by numerous citizens, the other by a group of experts. These counter-narratives question how PISA is used by an ‘expertocracy’ to prescribe reforms, as well as the performance ideology inherent to. Overall, these findings suggest that direct-democratic campaigns may make more transparent how evidence is produced and used according to existing belief systems. Evidence, on the other hand, may be a stimulus for democratic discourse by feeding the debate with potential policy problems and solution. Thus, direct-democratic debates may reconcile normative positions of citizens with the desire to base decisions on empirical evidence.

Does a reference to evaluations contribute to discourse quality? The case of Swiss direct-democratic campaigns on school policy: a conceptual framework

This article examines how references to evaluations in school policy debates contribute to discourse quality. The article consists of two parts: First, it presents a descriptive overview of the references to evidence in direct-democratic campaigns. These results are based on a quantitative content analysis of the newspaper coverage and governmental information documents of 103 direct-democratic Swiss school policy votes. In a second step, it discusses these findings in view of the question of whether the incorporation of evaluation results in policy debates contributes to discourse quality. It presents a conceptual framework, including hypotheses and a research design to answer this question.