The features of research results have altered over the time and the issue has grown with the greater eminence in recent decades. Although the debate on the use of research results for policy decision-making and implementation processes is not new. The major processes that change the world are increasingly demanding for concrete evidence for backing or for challenging the revolutions that are applied in a variety of contexts, comprising of health policies and systems.
The initial stages of this debate were laid in the mid-20th century and it overlays the following points:
- The discussions about the approach of social sciences and the methods which are applied upon a variety of fields of knowledge, including health services research.
- The formulation of political science as a precise categorization in the social sciences and Thus it also overlaps the field of public policy analysis.
There has always been a clear consent about what is being analyzed in public policy, and thus stated policy; there is less agreement (particularly more recently) as to the scope of such policy and whether health policies (or at least part of their content) belong to the roll of social policies and these confusions are being created because however the literature on the analysis of health and health systems public policy does not delivers a clear, single definition of either health policy or health services and systems.
Importantly, Latin American literature (in Spanish or Portuguese) defines a single term namely (política), with numerous uses and meanings that incorporates both the senses: “policy” & “Politics”. unlike the English-language literature, which discriminates between "politics" (the political decision-making process, which involves a wide range of loci and actors) and "policy" (policy content, a framework of guidelines which is set for action).
Particularly in the United States, as a science of action, which is a contribution by experts (analysts) for the governmental decision-making processes emerged as a Public policy analysis. The essential concern of this policy was to lead research in such a way that it should be relevant as well as useful for action. And the practical view of political science came, against the abstract rationalism of Homo economicus 2 and in turn, as a reaction to a prevailing formalism. Originating such an approach was obviously a gullible conception that intended to experience a simplistic view of relationship between better government performance and improved thought process of action.
This facilitated in focusing the attention towards crafting the tools that are made available to politicians and decision-makers for better functions, while theoretical contemplations were referred to secondary importance. Because It was supposed that this particular relationship between policymakers and experts (policy analysts) in the late 1950s and early 60s would provide solutions to society's complications.
According to some authors in the United States this particular trend was enormously robust in the 1960s and 70s and it led to the creation of "practical" knowledge. This submissive, a-theoretical view of political science was challenged, and has ignited interests in other concerns which are more important to this debate, and making it possible to drive out of this vicious circle that threatened to restrain public policy analysis to the "function of a decision-making aid, [placing experts in the role of] 'consultant' and prince's helper" 2 . This dilemma between research and the operations of approach led to a differentiation (and separation) of functions between "consultants" and scientists.
As the public policy theories are not innovative therefore Illogically, however, during the subsequent decades the revival of theory returned to the same theoretical models which have been rejected initially. These policies are rooted in economic thinking and political philosophy with the significant and original difference that they are based on empirical research i.e., they address those fields which was by then very less explored but do not disrespect the implications for action, therefore it overcomes both the confusion between false, radical opposition between theory and practice i.e, the "recipe for government" and "practical usefulness"