Iris Stucki

Arguing about smoking bans: the role of evidence in the social construction of conflicting policy ideas

ABSTRACT The theory of discursive institutionalism requires support from empirical work. This article analyzes how evidence is used in conflicting ideas about smoking bans and how social constructions are affected by this. The study is set in the context of 16 public debates that took place during Swiss direct-democratic campaigns on smoking bans between 2005 and 2012. A qualitative content analysis of campaign material revealed that the form of benefit allocated to target groups depends on the degree of contestation of evidence included in ideas. Powerful ideas are based on uncontested evidence allowing problems of target groups to be socially constructed as important for the public. By means of ideas, actors may have an effect on policies even when the actors themselves are not evident in the discourse. Observing discourse over ideas enables to track the agents that have the power to promote their ideas at the expense of others.

Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland.

This article analyses the use of evidence, such as policy evaluation studies, in arguments in direct-democratic campaigns. Set in the context of 16 Swiss direct-democratic campaigns on smoking bans, the article compares evidence-based arguments with arguments that do not refer to evidence. The study adds to the argumentative direction in evaluation and program planning by showing that in direct-democratic campaigns, the political use of evaluation results to substantiate policy preferences is rare. The study shows that around 6% of the arguments refer to evidence and that evaluation results are mostly cited in support of causal arguments referring to the effects of policy interventions. Above all, the results show that policy information is available, at least for causal arguments, and apparently known in the public discourse but only cited explicitly when the speaker wants to raise credibility. This applies especially to researchers, such as evaluators. The results further indicate that the political use of evaluation results fosters an informed discourse and the evidence may eventually become common public knowledge. The credentials of evaluators make them suitable not only for bringing more evaluation results into the direct-democratic discourse but also for acting as teachers in this discourse.

Efficacy of an Internet-based, individually tailored smoking cessation program: A randomized trial

Introduction Self-help computer-based programs are easily accessible and cost-effective interventions with a great recruitment potential. However, each program is different and results of meta-analyses may not apply to each new program; therefore, evaluations of new programs are warranted. The aim of this study was to assess the marginal efficacy of a computer-based, individually tailored program (the Coach) over and above the use of a comprehensive Internet smoking cessation website. Methods A two-group randomized controlled trial was conducted. The control group only accessed the website, whereas the intervention group received the Coach in addition. Follow-up was conducted by e-mail after three and six months (self-administrated questionnaires). Of 1120 participants, 579 (51.7%) responded after three months and 436 (38.9%) after six months. The primary outcome was self-reported smoking abstinence over four weeks. Results Counting dropouts as smokers, there were no statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups in smoking cessation rates after three months (20.2% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.25, odds ratio (OR) = 1.20) and six months (17% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.52, OR = 1.12). Excluding dropouts from the analysis, there were statistically significant differences after three months (42% vs. 31.6%, p = 0.01, OR = 1.57), but not after six months (46.1% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.081, OR = 1.41). The program also significantly increased motivation to quit after three months and self-efficacy after three and six months. Discussion An individually tailored program delivered via the Internet and by e-mail in addition to a smoking cessation website did not significantly increase smoking cessation rates, but it increased motivation to quit and self-efficacy.

The Political Use of Evaluations in Democratic Discourse: Enrichment or Exclusion?

This article asks the question of how the political use of evaluations enriches democratic discourse. It builds on the results of a multi-year research project on the use of evaluations in direct-democratic debates in Switzerland in the fields of health and education. The results of quantitative and qualitative content analyses of documents related to 221 votes and a split-ballot survey show that the use of evaluations provides policy-relevant information and substantive justifications, leads to less normative arguments, and increases interactivity of discourse. However, evaluations are particularly used by elite actors in their argumentation, but also to receive information on policies. This leads to a separation of the arena of deliberation in an expert discourse that includes empirical evidence and a lay discourse that eschews empirical knowledge.