2007, Marston&Watts; 2003, Locock&Boaz; 2004, Stanhope and Dunn 2011). A gap in the literature is identified recommending additional research on the hierarchy (if any) of knowledge/evidence that influences policy-making. Lastly, there is an examination of the nexus between the policy, research and practice communities, evincing policy-failure cannot be eradicated by evidence-based-policy. Au contraire, policy success can increase by higher engagement and collaboration between the three communities. The paper concludes with some exhortatory commentary on the dangers of politicizing research. .
2. Literature Review.
For advocates of the rational policy model, evidence succumbs to ideology and the focus is on the application of what works (Roberts 2005, Young et al. 2002, Cartwright & Hardie 2012) – this phrase encapsulates positivist managerialist and technocratic notions of process-centricism and productivity improvements (Trinder 2000, Solesbury 2001, 2002). But what works for whom and in what circumstance? Although there is an intuitive, natural attraction to "what works" with an overwhelming, unquestionable acceptance that evidence can improve policy, there is no evidence suggesting it can eradicate policy failure. After all, problem identification and solution selection are underpinned by ideology and values (Greenhalgh & Russell 2009). .
Constructivists challenge these positivist assumptions by stressing the world is irreducibly complex and empirical evidence is an elitist political tool (weaponry even5) for justifying predetermined political-action and strategic control. They remain cynical about the rhetoric of scientific empiricism (Pearson & Mclean 2010, Watts 2014) claiming policy is driven by efficiency, methods and practicality, over justice and trust. Evidence is cherry-picked from amongst what is readily available (Edwards 2010) and research that contradicts dominant paradigms is ignored6 (Smith & Kulynych 2002, Marston & Watts 2003, Solesbury 2002).
