title: Persistent misunderstandings about evidence-based (sorry: informed!) policy-making.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The field of research on knowledge mobilization and evidence-informed policy-making has seen enduring debates related to various fundamental assumptions such as the definition of 'evidence', the relative validity of various research methods, the actual role of evidence to inform policy-making, etc. In many cases, these discussions serve a useful purpose, but they also stem from serious disagreement on methodological and epistemological issues.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This essay reviews the rationale for evidence-informed policy-making by examining some of the common claims made about the aims and practices of this perspective on public policy. Supplementing the existing justifications for evidence-based policy making, we argue in favor of a greater inclusion of research evidence in the policy process but in a structured fashion, based on methodological considerations. In this respect, we present an overview of the intricate relation between policy questions and appropriate research designs.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  By closely examining the relation between research questions and research designs, we claim that the usual points of disagreement are mitigated. For instance, when focusing on the variety of research designs that can answer a range of policy questions, the common critical claim about 'RCT-based policy-making' seems to lose some, if not all of its grip.
authors.affiliation: Department of Economics, Université Laval, 1025, Avenue des Sciences-Humaines, Québec, G1V 0A6 Canada.
authors.forename: Pierre-Olivier
authors.initials: PO
authors.lastname: Bédard
authors.affiliation: Department of Political Science, Université Laval, 1030, Avenue des Sciences-Humaines, Québec, G1V 0A6 Canada.
authors.forename: Mathieu
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Ouimet
keywords: Critical rationalism; Evidence-based policy-making; Research methods