This article draws on rich qualitative data from two national parliaments—the UK House of Commons and the German Bundestag—to examine knowledge practices in political institutions. This is an important topic, not only because parliaments play a significant role in democratic decision-making, but because it sheds light on debates about how such decision-making is based on and interacts with knowledge and evidence. By adopting an interpretive analytical approach, I analyze the ways in which those practices are shaped by the beliefs and values of parliamentary actors. Indeed, in better understanding everyday practices, beliefs, and ideational traditions, it also contributes to better explaining how components of political and parliamentary cultures contribute to knowledge use more broadly. In the House of Commons, MPs draw on a highly trusted and independent parliamentary administration; meanwhile, committees have become fruitful avenues for MPs to develop policy expertise and engage with knowledge and evidence in a non-partisan way. In the German Bundestag, MPs also develop policy expertise—in fact, they interpret their role as specialists in a “working” parliament—but their knowledge practices are more openly partisan through the structuring role of parliamentary party groups and the skepticism of “neutral” advice from research services. Consequently, committees tend to be sites of political bargaining and conflict, rather than evidence-gathering. In both cases, parliaments’ knowledge practices are shaped by wider webs of beliefs about the role of MPs within the institutions. This suggests that knowledge use in political and policy settings is shaped by broader cultural factors.

中文翻译：

---

比较议会中的证据使用：英国和德国信仰、传统和实践的相互作用


本文利用来自两个国家议会（英国下议院和德国联邦议院）的丰富定性数据来研究政治机构中的知识实践。这是一个重要的话题，不仅因为议会在民主决策中发挥着重要作用，而且因为它揭示了有关此类决策如何基于知识和证据并与知识和证据相互作用的辩论。通过采用解释性分析方法，我分析了议会行为者的信仰和价值观塑造这些实践的方式。事实上，在更好地理解日常实践、信仰和观念传统的过程中，它也有助于更好地解释政治和议会文化的组成部分如何促进更广泛的知识利用。在下议院，议员们利用高度信任和独立的议会管理机构；与此同时，委员会已成为议员们发展政策专业知识并以无党派方式参与知识和证据的富有成效的途径。在德国联邦议院，议员们也发展政策专业知识——事实上，他们将自己的角色解释为“工作”议会中的专家——但他们的知识实践通过议会党派团体的结构性作用和对“中立”的怀疑主义而更加公开地呈现党派之争。研究服务的建议。因此，委员会往往是政治讨价还价和冲突的场所，而不是收集证据的场所。在这两种情况下，议会的知识实践都是由关于议员在机构内的角色的更广泛的信念网络塑造的。这表明政治和政策环境中的知识使用受到更广泛的文化因素的影响。