Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 14:2 (2025) ► pp.222–251

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Analogical reasoning and evidence transfer in evidence-based policy

ORCiD logo with link | Ghent University
 | Ghent University
Published online: 19 August 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.24016.web
Abstract
Evidence-based policy often involves a kind of reasoning by analogy, which starts from the established success of an intervention on a given occasion (= source domain S). Policy makers infer that the same intervention is likely to be successful on another occasion (= target domain T). The practical goal of this paper is to develop, defend and illustrate a model detailing the reasoning steps that policy makers should go through in order to perform this type of analogical reasoning properly. Our model also offers tools for diagnosing flaws in the reasoning process for past cases where this kind of analogical reasoning went wrong. We illustrate the practical utility and diagnostic power of the model by means of two well-known failed evidence transfers. The theoretical goal of this paper is to investigate the ramifications of our model for general theorising on analogical reasoning.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Evidence transfer as a type of analogical reasoning
    • 1.2Goals of this paper
    • 1.3Structure of this paper
  • 2.The core of the HMVA model
    • 2.1Introduction
    • 2.2Mary Hesse on horizontal and vertical relations in analogical reasoning
    • 2.3The PICO framework
    • 2.4The core of the HMVA model
    • 2.5The added value of the HMVA model
  • 3.Elaboration and defence of the HMVA model
    • 3.1Introduction
    • 3.2Heuristic policy reasoning
    • 3.3Vertical analysis
    • 3.4Projective and dissociative policy reasoning
    • 3.5Full characterisation of the HMVA model
    • 3.6Conflated policy reasoning
  • 4.First example: Evidence transfer from TINP to BINP
    • 4.1Introduction
    • 4.2How the World Bank should have reasoned: Heuristic policy reasoning
    • 4.3How the World Bank should have reasoned: Vertical analysis
    • 4.4Actual reasoning of the World Bank
    • 4.5Epistemic luck
  • 5.Second example: Class size reduction in Tennessee and California
    • 5.1Introduction
    • 5.2Heuristic policy reasoning in California CSR
    • 5.3Vertical analysis: Why did CSR succeed in Tennessee?
    • 5.4Counteracting mechanisms triggered by the California CSR policy
    • 5.5Implications
    • 5.6Brief comparison
  • 6.Middle range theories of analogical reasoning
    • 6.1Results with respect to the practical goal
    • 6.2The structure of analogical reasoning in bioethics
  • 7.The theoretical goal
    • 7.1Introduction
    • 7.2The HMVA model and criteria of adequacy
    • 7.3Argument schemes for analogical reasoning
    • 7.4Bartha’s articulation model
  • 8.Epilogue
  • Notes
  • References
References (22)
References
Arras, John. 2017. Methods in Bioethics. The Way We Reason Now. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartha, Paul. 2010. By Parallel Reasoning: The Construction and Evaluation of Analogical Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Analogy in the natural sciences: Meeting Hesse’s challenge. Philosophical Inquiries, 31, pp. 47–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beauchamp, Tom & Childress, James. 2019. Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th edition). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohrnstedt, G., & Stecher, B. (eds.). 2002. What we have learned about class size reduction in California (Capstone Report). Sacramento: California Department of Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 2012. Presidential Address: Will This Policy Work for You? Predicting Effectiveness Better: How Philosophy Helps. Philosophy of Science, 791, 973–989. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy, & Hardie, Jeremy. 2012. Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Karen Sue. 2011. “Formulating the Evidence Based Practice Question: A Review of the Framework”. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), pp. 75–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duarte d’Almeida, Luís, and Claudio Michelon. 2017. The structure of arguments by analogy in law. Argumentation, 311, 359–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finn, J., & Achilles, C. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 271, 557–577. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guarini Marcello, Butchart Amy, Smith Paul & Moldovan Andrei. (2009). ‘Resources for Research on Analogy: A Multi-disciplinary Guide’, in Informal Logic 291, pp. 84–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 1966. Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ioannidis, Stavros & Psillos Stathis. 2017. In Defense of Methodological Mechanism: The Case of Apoptosis’. Axiomathes, 271, pp. 601–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton, and Christopher Tindale. 2017. Analogical arguments: Inferential structures and defeasibility conditions. Argumentation, 311, 221–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merton, Robert. 1949. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richardson, W., Wilson, M., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. (1995). The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club, 123(3), A12–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shelley, Cameron. 2004. Analogy Counterarguments: A Taxonomy for Critical Thinking. Argumentation, 181, pp. 223–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
World Bank. 1994. Impact Evaluation Report: India — Tamil Nadu Integrated Nutrition Project (Report No. 13783). Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005a. Project Performance Assessment Report: Bangladesh Integrated Nutrition Project (Report No. 32563). Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005b. Maintaining momentum to 2015: an impact evaluation of interventions to improve maternal and child health and nutrition in Bangladesh (Report No. 34462) Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weber, Erik, & Wang Qianru. (2023). The structure of analogical reasoning in bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 261: 69–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue