Cartwright, N (2016) Scientific models versus social reality. Building Research & Information, 44(3), pp. 334-337. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Policy predictions fail for the very many different kinds of case-by-case local factors described in the Building Research & Information (2015) special issue (vol. 43/4) entitled 'Closing the Policy Gaps: From Formulation to Outcomes'. Work in philosophy of science shows that beyond the case by case, general systematic problems loom that make the gap between theory and practice hard to close. What is needed in response, it is argued here, are ways to cope with the gap and to build an expectation about it into planning predictions, into planning decisions, into the methods of implementing and monitoring, as well as into fallback and failsafe plans. Tracking implementation and outcomes is not only useful for post hoc evaluation but also a powerful tool for getting the intended outcomes in the first place and making the necessary adjustments.;Policy predictions fail for the very many different kinds of case-by-case local factors described in the Building Research & Information (2015) special issue (vol. 43/4) entitled 'Closing the Policy Gaps: From Formulation to Outcomes'. Work in philosophy of science shows that beyond the case by case, general systematic problems loom that make the gap between theory and practice hard to close. What is needed in response, it is argued here, are ways to cope with the gap and to build an expectation about it into planning predictions, into planning decisions, into the methods of implementing and monitoring, as well as into fallback and failsafe plans. Tracking implementation and outcomes is not only useful for post hoc evaluation but also a powerful tool for getting the intended outcomes in the first place and making the necessary adjustments.;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | policy formulation; evidence-based policy; policy implementation; built environment; policy design; public policy; governance; policy making; buildings |
| Index terms: | policy design, evidence-based policy, science, building research, public policy, monitoring, implementation, policy implementation, built environment, scientific model, philosophy, policy making, governance |
| Subjects: | specialized education, philosophical studies, control systems, public policy, modelling and simulation, research management, contractual arrangements, policy studies, business, infrastructure and transport systems |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Research Practice, Governance, Site Management, Education, Procurement, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here