This resurgence of evidence-based-policy dominates a plethora of public administration domains4; this paper however, does not provide a context-specific analysis. It focuses instead on "making sense of the conceptual muddle"(Watts 2014: p9), illustrating that evidence-based-policy is not a scientifically empirical, apolitical process, devoid of ideology. It notes, in the social sciences arena (as distinct from the fields of applied sciences), that each endeavour to understand reality is contingent on the "sociological viewpoint" of the endeavourer (Marston & Watts 2003: p157). .
A literature review is provided examining dominant paradigms and illustrating that despite some contestation, there is widespread agreement of the significant role evidence plays (and in a more normative sense should play) in policy-making (Smith & Kulynych 2002, Young et al. 2002, Cartwright & Hardie 2012). Further, it is highlighted that stringent adherence to evidence-based policy is not synonymous with rational governance that is devoid of controversy (Packwood 2002, Parsons 2001, Marston & Watts 2003; Greenhalgh & Russell 2009). A discussion on the use and usefulness of evidence-based-policy, further emphasizes this point, revealing a high degree of political rhetoric relating to the novelty and infallibility of evidence-based-policy. It is argued that this positivist adherence to evidence-based-policy and a rhetoric of "what matters is what works"(Solesbury 2001: p7), is incongruous with the requirement to remain context-sensitive, focusing on negotiated approaches that consider a multiplicity of actors. Later, a discussion on what counts as "evidence" discloses a pluralist meaning, with empirical knowledge being merely one of many types of evidence that require consideration and balancing. It follows that the best that can be hoped for is policy that is informed by and aware of evidence, with context being the raison-d'être of evidence utilization (Nutley et al.
