If evidence is to shape global development policy, it must be used effectively by policymakers. However, a range of barriers hinders the uptake of evidence by decision makers. These include the politicised nature of policymaking, varying levels of institutional capacity, and the volume of evidence at policymakers’ disposal.
“While there is a growing mountain of evidence, there is also less attention for evidence than ever before.”
Surmounting these barriers in totality was recognised by participants as a significant challenge, and it was suggested that the realities of evidence use may bear a resemblance to venture capital; when evidence is taken on board it is capable of having a major impact, however expecting a consistent and linear relationship between evidence and policy is perhaps unrealistic. That said, several strategies were discussed to forge stronger links between researchers and policymakers and to maximise the prospect of evidence informing policy decisions.
Recognise and work with political incentives. Contributors acknowledged that policymakers are often faced with a range of political incentives to follow pathways that counter the evidence, and that it is possible to make rational policy decisions based on factors other than data. An understanding of the political dimension of policymaking was highlighted as key to successfully persuading decision makers to utilise evidence, with researchers encouraged to adopt perspectives from behavioural science and engage critical thought partners to assist in effectively framing evidence as valuable to policymakers.
Focus on transparency of evidence use. Participants discussed the need to move away from supply-side models of evidence uptake where research complexity and scale are seen as the primary barriers to using evidence. While improving accessibility is important, it is vital that there are collective efforts to make policy making processes more transparent, being open about where evidence has (or has not) been used. This accountability to the public and beneficiaries is important in strengthening the demand for better evidence and creates a virtuous cycle of evidence production and use.
Improve knowledge brokering skills. Acknowledging the distance between evidence and those with decision-making powers, researchers were also encouraged to focus efforts on becoming better knowledge brokers by learning to communicate more effectively why evidence is useful and relevant. This may involve packaging findings in a more impactful and accessible way, distilling the generic from a wave of complex findings to supply a clear and consistent message, and introducing evidence into the policy cycle at the optimal time for it to be picked up and used by decision makers. Reflecting the interests and motivations of political actors at the decentralised and local level was flagged by participants as being of particular importance, with recommendations made to demonstrate how projects can change lives locally via experiential communication and storytelling.
Involve evidence users in the production of evidence. Engaging evidence users more deeply with the process of evidence production was also highlighted as an effective strategy for maximising evidence uptake. Involving policymakers from the start of a project may increase levels of buy-in and emphasise the value of findings, while the formal incorporation of evidence use into the design of a project can help define pathways for policymakers to incorporate evidence into the decision-making process. Engaging more deeply with policymakers also helps build trustful and lasting relationships which encourage evidence use, with a series of concrete examples of the value of strategic partnerships offered by participants. Commissioning practices and incentives were also flagged as contributing to low levels of evidence use, with researchers currently incentivised to publish findings but not necessarily to engage directly with donors or policymakers. Reforming the system of commissioning and publication to foster greater levels of engagement between researchers and decision makers was seen as having the potential to further enhance the links between evidence production and evidence use.
Enhance institutional capacity. In addition to engaging with policymakers more effectively, building institutional capacity was pinpointed as vital to increasing levels of engagement with and use of evidence. Participants highlighted several instances where knowledge and capacity-building have been shown to have an observable effect on the uptake of evidence-based interventions, and discussed the benefits of working closely with evidence users to create bespoke tools to help navigate complex data and provide ongoing support to policymakers in understanding and interpreting results.
Synthesise high-quality evidence. Contributors further identified the volume of available evidence as an obstacle to its uptake, with the current body of evidence described as disparate and of varying quality. Increasing efforts to synthesise evidence (eg. in the form of Smart Buys lists such as the Smart Buys on Education) was seen as a route to tackling this issue, while setting quality standards for the production of evidence was also positioned as having the potential to reduce the number of low-quality studies and increase the utility of the evidence base.