Understanding evidence in policy-making

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.
Continue reading

Investigating stakeholder rationales for participating in collaborative interactions at the policy–science nexus 

by Helena Seibicke


Contemporary politics has become increasingly reliant on scientific knowledge. In evidence-based policymaking, science is invoked to address complex, ‘wicked’ problems. Yet, policymakers do not necessarily base decisions on the best-available evidence, and models of knowledge used in policymaking have long been criticised as simplistic.  

Therefore, collaboration with non-scientific actors (so called ‘stakeholders’) has emerged as a possible way forward. The increasing emphasis on prolonged and formalised engagement of stakeholders in research projects is subjected to public expenditure justifications, improvement of the input, throughput and output of funded research to inform policymaking processes and address societal challenges. It also reflects the view that an effective response to these challenges requires multi-partner collaborations between academic experts and various interests and perspectives.  

On both sides of the policy–science nexus, collaborative interactions are extended to include stakeholders to improve the impact (i.e. the usability and applicability) of knowledge. And while stakeholder involvement often follows this overarching justification, the question of stakeholder rationales for participating in these processes has previously received little scholarly attention. The scarce literature that does exist largely focuses on improving the transfer of knowledge outcomes of collaborative innovation, and knowledge production, rather than the involved actors’ interactions. 

Continue reading

Policy & Politics announces the 2024 winners of the Early Career and Best Paper Prizes

We are delighted to announce this year’s prizes for award winning papers published in Policy & Politics in 2023. 

The Bleddyn Davies Prize, which acknowledges scholarship of the very highest standard by an early career academic, is awarded to joint winners: 

Michael Gibson, Felix-Anselm van Lier and Eleanor Carter (Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, UK) for their article entitled Tracing 25 years of ‘initiativitis’ in central government attempts to join up local public services in England. 

AND  

Ville Aula (London School of Economics (LSE, UK) for his article on Evidence-based policymaking in the legislatures – Timeliness and politics of evidence in Finland. 

In celebration of these winning articles, we present summaries of each of their distinct contributions to the field. 

Continue reading

Why Study Sub-national Policy Advisory Systems?

by Andrew Connell, James Downe, Hannah Durrant, Eleanor MacKillop and Steve Martin


The study of Policy Advisory Systems sheds light on the wider network of actors, beyond government, who are involved in generating evidence that informs policy. Early studies of Policy Advisory Systems focused on national governments in Anglophone countries. More recently the concept has been reinvigorated by research in European countries and the global South. But there is a dearth of studies of Policy Advisory Systems at sub-national level.

Our recent research article, entitled Externalising policy advice within subnational governments, addressed this gap by using the concept of a Policy Advisory System to examine the role of a knowledge brokering organisation: the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP). The WCPP provides ministers in the devolved Welsh Government with independent evidence and expertise.

Our study revealed significant differences in the ways that this initiative to externalise policy advice in Wales has played out compared to the results reported by previous studies of externalising policy advice in other settings. And we trace the differences we observed to three key features of the historical, institutional and political context in which the Welsh Government operates.

Continue reading

Evidence-based policymaking in the legislatures

by Ville Aula


Evidence-based policymaking is a popular approach to policy that has received widespread public attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as in the fight against climate change. It argues that policy choices based on rigorous, preferably scientific evidence should be given priority over choices based on other types of justification. However, delegating policymaking solely to researchers goes against the idea that policies are determined democratically.

In my recent article published in Policy & Politics: Evidence-based policymaking in the legislatures we explored the tension between politics and evidence in the national legislatures. While evidence-based policymaking has been extensively studied within governments, the legislative arena has received much less attention. The focus of the study was on understanding how legislators, legislative committees, and political parties together shape the use of evidence. We also wanted to explore how the interviewees understand timeliness and relevance of evidence, because lack of time is a key challenge within legislatures. The study is based on 39 interviews with legislators, party employees, and civil servants in Eduskunta, the national Parliament of Finland.

Continue reading

How evidence-based policymaking helps and hinders policy conflict

by Lars Dorren and Eva E.A Wolf

Although one would expect evidence based policy making (known as ‘EBPM’: meaning the introduction of facts and figures in policy processes) to help bring clarity to policy conflicts, this is not always the case. In fact, it can have the very opposite effect, as our recently published research article argues: “How evidence-based policy making helps and hinders policy conflict”.

Previous research has shown that evidence can help conflicting parties move past their differences by temporarily offering them a set of principles to which they all can ascribe. EBPM also gives people the tools to scrutinise decisions, and comes with transparent procedures. However, our study shows that working based on EBPM principles does not always help policy conflict. We looked at the way in which a piece of evidence called the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) impacted existing conflicts in three large infrastructure projects in Flanders. The observed processes revolved around determining the preferred option among multiple proposed solutions for an infrastructural issue that needed to be addressed. We found that, in these processes, the introduction of an EBPM-type instrument such as the EIA also created confusion.

Continue reading

Updating your course reading lists? Check out our essential reading recommendations for Public Policy, Politics and Social Policy from Policy & Politics

All articles featured in this blog post are free to access until 31 October 2021

KoebeleIntroducing Elizabeth Koebele: our new Digital Associate Editor for Policy & Politics, and Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Nevada, Reno.

I am thrilled to have begun serving as Digital Associate Editor for Policy & Politics in January 2021. I have spent the last few months taking over this position from my colleague, Oscar Berglund, who now serves as one of the journal’s co-editors. As many of us are beginning to plan for our policy and politics-focused courses next semester, I figured what better way to celebrate joining the P&P team than to share with you some of my favorite Policy & Politics articles that make a great fit on a variety of syllabi? I hope this saves you time and effort in mining our recent articles, while also ensuring your course materials reflect the latest research from the frontiers of the discipline.

My initial suggestions are structured around two general topics that I hope many of you find yourself teaching or studying: one focused on knowledge, and one focused on actors/influence. I’m also sharing my top picks for readings on an increasingly popular policy topic: policy diffusion/transfer. In each case, I’ve recommended three articles that represent some of the most significant research we’ve published recently. Please let me know what you think when you’re compiling your reading lists for the start of the academic year. I’d value your feedback and suggestions for future topics to cover! Continue reading

Experts – how influential are they in policymaking?

Feb highlightsJohan Christensen with Sarah Brown

Highlights collection free to access from 1 February 2021 – 30 April 2021

Experts – how influential are they? By Johan Christensen based on his P&P article on Expert knowledge and policymaking: a multi-disciplinary research agenda

“We have to listen to the experts.” During the coronavirus pandemic, this phrase has been repeated by politicians across the world. Only a few years ago, we were told that “people have had enough of experts”. Now experts are back in demand. At press conferences, prime ministers are flanked by public health experts. And governments have set up a dizzying number of expert groups and task forces to examine policy measures to stop the spread of the virus, to formulate strategies to exit the crisis, and even to investigate the government response to the crisis. Continue reading