by Grace Piddington, Eleanor Mackillop & James Downe
Different views of evidence
The role of evidence in the policy-making process is contentious. Those who design policy have different perspectives on what constitutes rigorous evidence – whether that is a preference for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or lived experience. Our recent research article, published in Policy & Politics aims to improve understanding of how policy actors in Scotland and Wales view evidence. It finds that perceptions of evidence are not bounded by institutional, professional, or territorial criteria. Rather, they are much more fluid, with the individual’s understanding evolving over time.
Evidence profiles
Our research found four profiles which can help us to understand what constitutes evidence for policy actors. Each profile outlined describes one possible way to understand evidence and its role in the policy-making process. This list is not exhaustive but provides insight into some of the ways that evidence is viewed.
- Evidence based policy making Idealists: this profile typically prioritises rigorous and clear evidence in decision-making processes. Their preference for high-quality research and systematic reviews can lead to a greater emphasis on evidence-based practices and interventions.
- Pragmatists: They tend to take a more flexible and context-specific approach toevidence. Pragmatists value practical experience and local knowledge in addition to research findings.
- Inclusive: Members of this profile emphasise a broad range of evidence sources, including individual stories and lived experiences. They value diverse perspectives and the incorporation of multiple forms of evidence in decision-making.
- Political: This profile is characterised by a critical view of evidence and a focus on power relations in decision-making. They may question traditional hierarchies of evidence and challenge dominant narratives.
We found similarities in perceptions of evidence in Scotland and Wales which are likely due to historical, political, and contextual factors such as having limited advisory capacity. Views on how evidence was understood were more dispersed in Scotland, which may suggest that the practice of evidence use in Scotland is more open and linked to the ‘Scottish approach’ to policy-making which places a greater role on consensus-building than in Wales.
The classic evidence based policy making view that evidence is what can be counted and measured was not ranked positively in either country, suggesting that a single focus on quantitative data does not apply in the real world. There was some support for Randomised Controlled Trials being the gold standard of evidence, but overall, policy actors believed that evidence should include a mix of data analysis and other types of qualitative data. Respondents explained that their perceptions of what could be considered evidence had become broader over time, illustrating that a pragmatic view is gained through experience.
Opportunity to improve evidence use
Our study improves understanding of how evidence is perceived by those who design policy. Being aware of these different views is crucial for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners and can help to inform the creation of more usable and impactful knowledge. By recognising the preferences, values, and perspectives of each profile, stakeholders can tailor their research dissemination strategies, communication efforts, and knowledge translation activities to engage effectively with diverse audiences and enhance the use of evidence in policy-making and practice.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at
Piddington, G., MacKillop, E., & Downe, J. (2024). Do policy actors have different views of what constitutes evidence in policymaking?. Policy & Politics, 52(2), 239-258 from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000032
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read:
Bates, G., Ayres, S., Barnfield, A., & Larkin, C. (2023). What types of health evidence persuade policy actors in a complex system?. Policy & Politics, 51(3), 386-412 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16814103714008
Dorren, L., & Wolf, E. E. (2023). How evidence-based policymaking helps and hinders policy conflict. Policy & Politics, 51(3), 486-507 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16836237135216
Koga, N. M., Loureiro, M., de Moura Palotti, P. L., da Silva Lins, R., Gontyjo do Couto, B., & Nogueira Lima, S. (2022). Analysing the information sources Brazilian bureaucrats use as evidence in everyday policymaking. Policy & Politics, 50(4), 483-506 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16588356122629
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 