In the world of academic research, the phrase “evidence-informed policymaking” is often held up as a gold standard. It suggests a rational, orderly process – and may even presuppose that academic evidence is the only type that matters.

The truth is altogether more inconvenient, according to Paul Cairney, Professor of Politics and Public Policy at the University of Stirling.

He presented at a recent Health Research Board webinar entitled, Inconvenient truths: the reality about engaging with policy-makers.

To understand some of these inconvenient truths, Prof Cairney invited attendees to first consider them in the context of more fundamental questions, such as:

  1. What is good evidence, and how do you gather it?
  2. What other knowledge is policy relevant?
  3. How do you put it all together to make policy evidence-informed?
  4. What exactly is the researcher’s purpose in the first place?

Not so simple

Perhaps the most fundamental inconvenient truth is that there is no consensus on what “evidence-informed” means, Prof Cairney said.

Researchers often assume their work is inherently valuable. From the point of view of decision-makers, it is not so simple. To succeed in getting research to inform policy, the needs of policy-makers must be taken into account.

Prof Cairney said these needs include being responsive to realpolitik, manifesto commitments, public demand, timing, and established policy-making processes which may include knowledge brokers and usually involves civil servants or people in similar roles.

Time is also a major consideration. This inconvenient truth may sting for researchers: most policy-makers are not reading academic work at all. They often are working under intense pressure and overloaded with information, Prof Cairney said.

Human nature is inevitably at play. Policy-makers often lean on cognitive shortcuts. For instance, they often look to trusted sources.

“Sometimes those are called cognitive biases. They’re described as negative things we’ve to do something with. Sometimes they are called fast and frugal heuristics.

“Regardless of what we call them, I think we need to work out how to share information in a way that fits in with the shortcuts that policy-makers would use to process that information,” Prof Cairney told the webinar.

What is evidence?

Recognising that evidence as a concept is not universally agreed upon is another inconvenience to the narrative that academic rigour – methodologies, peer review, systematic review, publication in recognised journals etc. – is the only type of evidence, he said.

In the eyes of policy-makers, it certainly is not. They consider other knowledge sources such as surveys, feedback from stakeholders and service users, information from interest groups and lobbyists.

“I think it’s striking that there is such a disconnect between what researchers and policymakers think they are trying to do in the name of evidence-informed policy,” said Prof Cairney.

The academic ideal of policy-making involves a one-way, linear flow of evidence from researcher to policymaker in which policy formulation is followed by legitimation, resource allocation, implementation and evaluation.

However, this is notional, according to Prof Cairney. A further inconvenient truth is that policy-making typically involves an intricate web of interactions among multiple entities in civil society, business, and the political class.

This is the policy ecosystem – a term Prof Cairney is sceptical of – into which researchers are pitching.

Knowledge brokers

Knowledge brokerage is often proposed as a solution to the research-policy gap by filtering complexity, navigating tensions and building trust.

But Prof Cairney said the inconvenient truth is that brokerage too, is full of dilemmas. For instance, what kind of brokers are needed? Should their competencies be research-based or policy-based or somewhere in between? And what precisely, is effective knowledge brokerage?

Like all the other inconvenient truths, there are no easy answers, according to Prof Cairney. But these questions must be considered if brokers are to consistently act as an effective bridge between knowledge and policy.

Task and purpose

This relates to the last question Prof Cairney posed. What do researchers regard as their purpose? There is a convenient image of academics providing information independent of policymakers, whereas others see themselves as much more invested in trying to influence policy.

This raises another dilemma faced by academic researchers, he said. Should researchers rigorously follow academic standards and maintain credibility among their peers but have little influence? Or should they give up some of that credibility to get inside the room?

These five inconvenient truths, so full of questions with few definitive answers, could drive researchers to despair.

But Prof Cairney suggests that recognising the political and human realities of engaging with policy-makers, and respecting that other forms of input and evidence have a role in decision-making, might help researchers navigate the labyrinth of policy formulation more effectively.