how has research help in building a new policy

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How Researchers can Help Shape Policy Decisions

Effective policy decisions require a solid foundation of evidence and expert insights, highlighting the crucial role of research in policy making. For students and early career researchers, understanding how to engage with policymakers is not just about enhancing the societal impact of their work but also about advancing their academic and professional careers. This engagement can make research findings a cornerstone of informed decision-making and demonstrate the tangible benefits of academic work in real-world scenarios.

Researchers play a pivotal role in generating rigorous and reliable knowledge through their scholarly work, offering invaluable insights to those crafting policies. By proactively sharing their findings and building relationships with policymakers, researchers ensure that policies are informed by sound evidence. This article delves into the importance of this engagement, providing a guide on how researchers can help shape policy decisions, thereby increasing their research impact and career opportunities.  

Table of Contents

How does research influence policy decisions?    

At the outset, researchers need to be aware that the work they produce can go on to impact the way people perceive things and also guide policy decisions. Rigorous and well-designed research is an invaluable resource that can provide valuable insights to policymakers. Since policymakers have to confront important issues that arise on a day-to-day basis, they may not have the time to have an intensive study of the complexities of a particular issue.    

It is here that researchers play a crucial role in providing them with requisite evidence-based information and insights that enable them to get a well-rounded understanding of the issue at hand. Researchers working across topics are also able to highlight emerging issues and point to trends across different sectors that may otherwise go unnoticed by policymakers. Researchers also play an essential role in amplifying essential topics and issues and, therefore, are able to influence policymakers, politicians, civil society and non-governmental organizations through their work.   

6 ways in which researchers can inform policy decisions    

• Link research with policy:   Researchers need to work on ideas in their research that are linked to contemporary or topical issues of the day. Ensuring that your research area and questions connect with issues and topics that policymakers are confronting is critical. The policy implications of your research need to be thought through and summarized adequately.       
• Keep it simple and clear:  Researchers should use simple, clear language to articulate their research findings so that policymakers can grasp them quickly. Researchers should be alert to the fact that policymakers do not have the time to read through extensive technical documents. Moreover, there may be instances where the policymaker may not be a specialist on the subject being discussed. Therefore, researchers have to communicate their findings in a way that is easily understood, even by laypeople.   
• Have direct links with policymakers:  A strong network of key people involved in policymaking and other vital officials needs to be built. Along with this, researchers must attend as many meetings as possible or workshops and participate in relevant policy discussions. Researchers should always look out for opportunities to proactively connect and have a sustained engagement with policymakers. 
• Publicize widely:  While journals and publications are vital platforms for disseminating research findings, researchers should also explore other options. Bringing out your research abstracts as policy briefs that summarize your research and also contributing to articles in general publications and online platforms is a potent way to publicize your work. Make sure that you use social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, along with specialized academic portals such as ResearchGate, as tools to highlight your work to a general audience for greater outreach.   
• Building partnerships:  Researchers should always look out for opportunities to collaborate with other researchers and partner with organizations. Working with civil society organizations and non-profit groups that identify with your research is another way to highlight and share your work.    
• Intervening in a timely manner:  Be alert to relevant opportunities and forums where you can share your research. Engaging and participating in discussions related to your work and using appropriate platforms to amplify your research helps your work to be in the limelight. Always remember to be patient as you go about publicizing and disseminating your research. Proactively engaging with policymakers to shape policy decisions takes time to bear fruit. It not only helps increase the impact of your research but can also throw open funding opportunities while advancing your research career.    

Engaging with policymakers and the broader public requires patience and persistence. It’s about building a bridge between research and real-world applications, ensuring that scholarly work contributes to the well-being of society. By adopting these strategies, researchers can enhance the relevance of their work, opening up new funding avenues and advancing their careers in meaningful directions.  

In conclusion, the role of research in policy making is indispensable. For researchers, especially those at the outset of their careers, engaging with policymakers is not only a pathway to increased impact but also an opportunity to contribute to societal progress. By understanding and implementing effective strategies for policy engagement, researchers can ensure that their work resonates beyond the academic realm, influencing decisions that shape the future.

Researcher.Life is a subscription-based platform that unifies top AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline a researcher’s journey, from reading to writing, submission, promotion and more. Based on over 20 years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success.

Try for free or sign up for the Researcher.Life  All Access Pack , a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI academic writing assistant, literature reading app, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional services from Editage. Find the best AI tools a researcher needs, all in one place –  Get All Access now for prices starting at just $17 a month !

Related Posts

How to Write a Research Paper Outline (with Examples)

How Can We Support Underrepresented Groups in Science?

The science of using research: why it starts with the policymaker

Senior Researcher, University of Johannesburg

Professor: Evidence-Informed Decision-Making, University of Johannesburg

Disclosure statement

Laurenz Langer receives funding from from the UK government's Department for International Development for a programme supporting capacity to use research evidence in southern Africa.

Ruth Stewart receives funding from the UK government's Department for International Development for a programme supporting capacity to use research evidence in southern Africa.

University of Johannesburg provides support as an endorsing partner of The Conversation AFRICA.

View all partners

Governments all over the world invest large sums of public money into producing knowledge that helps them understand their countries’ complex socioeconomic issues. This knowledge, in the form of research, can be used to formulate potential solutions through public policies and programmes.

But it’s not enough just to produce research. It must also be considered and drawn from when policies are being created. However, a range of barriers might prevent policymakers from accessing and using evidence in their work. To understand the use of evidence, then, it’s important to understand the policymaker. Who is she? What are her incentives and biases? What is her professional and institutional context?

This is important for two reasons. The first is that it’s wasteful for governments to fund research – with taxpayers’ money – that’s just going to gather dust. The second is that governments may implement programmes and policies that have no impact or are actually detrimental to the very people they’re supposed to help. This isn’t unprecedented: a programme run in the US to scare juvenile delinquents “straight” was implemented even though researchers had shown that it had, on average, previously caused more harm than merely leaving these young people be.

A new global systematic review conducted by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre has shed some light on the important issue of getting more scientific about the practice and study of research use. Our report, “Science of using science: researching the use of research evidence in decision-making”, combined insights from 36 existing systemic reviews that reported on 91 different research-use interventions. It identifies the most effective strategies for increasing and strengthening how research is used to build public policy.

What the review found

A golden thread throughout the review findings is the importance of getting serious about approaching research use from a policymaker’s perspective. For example, we found that programmes supporting practical research-use skills, such as appraising the quality of a study, were effective. Likewise, targeting and tailoring the communication of research findings to policymakers’ preferences yielded positive results. This could be achieved by framing research findings according to policymakers’ mode of decision-making – such as being risk or loss averse.

We also found that policymakers place an opportunity cost on every interaction. They’ll forgo and sacrifice other commitments or work to engage with researchers. If those interactions don’t come with tangible benefits, the policymaker is unlikely to bother making time for researchers again.

Each policymaker will have her own networks of people with whom she engages and shares information. So if researchers engage with the same group of policymakers again and again, there is a risk that the research they share never spreads through the system. Researchers need to target policymakers who can act as bridges between, for instance, different government departments. This creates more effective networks through which evidence can flow.

Lastly, the review identified how important it is to facilitate evidence use through organisational processes. This could involve supervising how the evidence is used and giving policymakers the tools they need to apply evidence effectively.

The South African context

We were particularly interested in how these findings can be applied in South Africa, as this is where we conduct our work through the Africa Evidence Network .

South Africa is one of only a handful of countries that has created government structures that institutionalise the use of research evidence in policymaking. Government policy is organised according to a framework of 14 key outcomes that all departments must work towards. A range of evidence is used to assess government’s progress and the effects of its policies and programmes on contributing to the national key outcomes.

South Africa is in a rare position: there’s a high-level demand for evidence-informed decision-making. The country’s cabinet meetings often discuss impact evaluation reports. Organisational structures and processes are being put in place to nurture this demand.

This approach is yielding results. A number of national policies have already been systematically informed by the best available research evidence. These include the child support grant and the youth wage subsidy .

But, as a survey has shown, the use of evidence is still far from common decision-making practice. Government demand for evidence also relies on a research supply of policy-relevant evidence, which can be a challenge at times. There is still a lot of work to be done. Our review offers some ideas and suggestions that South Africa and other countries could adopt.

Effective strategies

It is crucial to invest in policymakers’ skills to use evidence. If they have the capacity and tools they need, there’s a greater chance they’ll use evidence. In South Africa, a number of different organisations and bodies offer capacity building around research use. But their activities are not homogeneous.

A more systematic approach to capacity building would mean that public servants and policymakers are exposed to similar support, particularly at provincial government level.

Also, if policymaking is to be more frequently informed by scientific evidence, researchers need to understand policymaking. Sadly most researchers don’t often leave their natural habitat at universities to engage and collaborate directly with policymakers. Researchers and policymakers could establish mentoring relationships – an effective strategy for exchanging knowledge.

One thing lies at the heart of all these suggestions: the use of evidence as a salient feature in decision- and policymaking.

Engagement and dialogue

Direct engagement between researchers and policymakers is crucial. There are growing opportunities for this, such as at the 2016 Africa Evidence Network conference . The conference will focus on three themes: engage, understand and impact. These also feature in the discussion around a new landmark report , “Using evidence to reflect on South Africa’s 20 years of democracy”, which was published in March 2016.

This and similar initiatives mean that the time is ripe for South Africa’s research-use community to interrogate how effective its strategies are in supporting evidence-informed decision-making. It’s time to become more scientific about the use of research evidence.

Authors’ note: The Science of Using Science project was led by the Alliance for Useful Evidence, with generous funding and support from the Wellcome Trust and the What Works Centre for Wellbeing. The research was undertaken by Laurenz Langer, Janice Tripney and David Gough of the EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London.

• Research impact
• South Africa
• Evidence based policy
• Policymaking
• Research spending
• AfricaEvidence

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 182,600 academics and researchers from 4,945 institutions.

Register now

• Open access
• Published: 06 March 2021

How to bring research evidence into policy? Synthesizing strategies of five research projects in low-and middle-income countries

• Séverine Erismann 1 , 2 ,
• Maria Amalia Pesantes 3 ,
• David Beran 4 ,
• Andrea Leuenberger 1 , 2 ,
• Andrea Farnham 1 , 2 ,
• Monica Berger Gonzalez de White 1 , 2 , 5 ,
• Niklaus Daniel Labhardt 1 , 2 , 6 ,
• Fabrizio Tediosi 1 , 2 ,
• Patricia Akweongo 7 ,
• August Kuwawenaruwa 1 , 2 , 8 ,
• Jakob Zinsstag 1 , 2 ,
• Fritz Brugger 9 ,
• Claire Somerville 10 ,
• Kaspar Wyss 1 , 2 &
• Helen Prytherch 1 , 2  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  19 , Article number:  29 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

24k Accesses

17 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Addressing the uptake of research findings into policy-making is increasingly important for researchers who ultimately seek to contribute to improved health outcomes. The aims of the Swiss Programme for Research on Global Issues for Development (r4d Programme) initiated by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation are to create and disseminate knowledge that supports policy changes in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This paper reports on five r4d research projects and shows how researchers engage with various stakeholders, including policy-makers, in order to assure uptake of the research results.

Eleven in-depth interviews were conducted with principal investigators and their research partners from five r4d projects, using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews explored the process of how stakeholders and policy-makers were engaged in the research project.

Three key strategies were identified as fostering research uptake into policies and practices: (S1) stakeholders directly engaged with and sought evidence from researchers; (S2) stakeholders were involved in the design and throughout the implementation of the research project; and (S3) stakeholders engaged in participatory and transdisciplinary research approaches to coproduce knowledge and inform policy. In the first strategy, research evidence was directly taken up by international stakeholders as they were actively seeking new evidence on a very specific topic to up-date international guidelines. In the second strategy, examples from two r4d projects show that collaboration with stakeholders from early on in the projects increased the likelihood of translating research into policy, but that the latter was more effective in a supportive and stable policy environment. The third strategy adopted by two other r4d projects demonstrates the benefits of promoting colearning as a way to address potential power dynamics and working effectively across the local policy landscape through robust research partnerships.

Conclusions

This paper provides insights into the different strategies that facilitate collaboration and communication between stakeholders, including policy-makers, and researchers. However, it remains necessary to increase our understanding of the interests and motivations of the different actors involved in the process of influencing policy, identify clear policy-influencing objectives and provide more institutional support to engage in this complex and time-intensive process.

Peer Review reports

Increasingly, research funders are asking their grantees to address the uptake of research findings into decision-making processes and policy-making [ 1 , 2 ]. This growing trend is a response to a need for real-world and context-sensitive evidence to respond to and address complex health systems and health service delivery bottlenecks faced by policy-makers, health practitioners, communities and other actors that require more than single interventions to induce large-scale change [ 3 ]. Moreover, there is growing pressure for applied and implementation research to be relevant, demonstrate value for money and result in high-impact publications. The relevance of ensuring the translation of research into practice is also reflected in growing support for research projects with concrete requirements regarding the evaluation of their impact of science on society [ 4 ].

One example of the above is the Swiss Programme for Research on Global Issues for Development (r4d Programme) initiated by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) covering the period 2012–2022. The r4d Programme is aimed at researchers in Switzerland and low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) conducting projects that specifically focus on poverty reduction and the protection of public goods in developing countries. Its specific objectives are to create and disseminate knowledge that supports policy-making in the area of global development and foster research on global issues in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [ 5 , 6 ].

While the linkage of research to policy is strongly encouraged by research funding agencies, the uptake of research evidence by policy-makers to establish new laws and regulations or to improve policies to solve a problem or enhance implementation effectiveness, especially in LMICs, remains weak [ 2 , 7 ]. This is often referred to as the gap between research and policy [ 8 ]. One of the factors that was identified with the dearth of research uptake in previous studies is a lack of evidence that is context sensitive, timely and relevant for policy-makers; other factors include difficulties in accessing existing evidence, challenges with correctly interpreting and using existing evidence [ 7 , 9 ] and also a lack of interest from policy-makers in the use and uptake of evidence [ 10 ]. Using the SNSF r4d funding scheme, our aim is to show how researchers have engaged with stakeholders, including policy-makers, from the onset of a research project, in order to identify strategies for evidence uptake and use.

As part of the r4d Programme, several synthesis initiatives have been launched to disseminate the research evidence from the r4d projects and increase its impact ( http://www.r4d.ch/r4d programme/synthesis ). The aim of one of these synthesis initiatives is to support knowledge translation and exchange, as well as knowledge diffusion and dissemination among 15 r4d projects focusing on public health. More specifically, the aim is to facilitate the uptake of findings for the benefit of societies in LMICs, especially with regards to social inclusion and gender equity in the drive towards universal health coverage (UHC) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [ 6 ]. The present study and resulting article are part of this synthesis initiative.

In this article, we present—through five case studies—strategies to translate and bridge evidence emerging from research into policy-making and decision-making. We rely on the experiences of five public health projects within the r4d research initiative. This paper describes these experiences, reports on the lessons learnt and outlines important features and challenges of engaging in this process using the researchers’ perspectives. This paper contributes to the body of literature on research translation by highlighting concrete examples and successful strategies for the uptake of research evidence in policy formulation.

Invitations were sent out to researchers working on projects within the r4d Programme to share their experiences with the project. Based on the interest shown by researchers, five projects were selected by the authors to demonstrate the different approaches and strategies used in the r4d projects with the aim to influence policy. Researchers were asked to share descriptions of the different approaches used in seeking to influence the uptake of research results by policy-makers. Each project represents a case study with emphasis on the main features of their translational approaches and the challenges, enablers and successes encountered.

The different research–policy engagement strategies were identified through data analysis of the interviews conducted within the framework of the five r4d case studies and were inspired by the work conducted by Uzochukwu and colleagues in Nigeria [ 2 ], who described four detailed strategies to support evidence-informed policy-making: (1) policy-makers and stakeholders seeking evidence from researchers; (2) involving stakeholders in designing objectives of a research project and throughout the research period; (3) facilitating policy-maker–researcher engagement in optimizing ways of using research findings to influence policy and practice; (4) active dissemination of own research findings to relevant stakeholders and policy-makers (see Table 1 ).

In using the term stakeholder, we apply the following definition by Brinkerhoff and Crosby [ 11 ]: “A stakeholder is an individual or group that makes a difference or that can affect or be affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives”. Hence, individual stakeholders can include politicians (heads of state and legislators), government bureaucrats and technocrats from various sectors (e.g. health), but also representatives of civil society organizations and support groups [ 12 ].

Data collection

Eleven in-depth interviews with principal investigators and their research partners from five r4d projects were conducted by the first author, using a semi-structured interview guide. The interview guide covered the following themes: (1) How were stakeholders involved in the research project? (2) Was there uptake of research evidence in national/international policies? (3) How were research results disseminated? (4) What were the challenges or obstacles encountered in disseminating and translating evidence from research to policy? The interview duration was between 30 and 45 min. Seven interviews were conducted with researchers based in Switzerland and four with researchers in LMICs. At least two interviews were conducted for each r4d case study.

Data management and analysis

Of the 11 interviews, nine were audio recorded and notes taken. Audio files were transcribed verbatim by the same researcher. Two interviews were not recorded, but detailed notes were taken during the interview.

A qualitative content analysis method was used in order to organize and structure both the manifest and latent content [ 13 ]. Aligned to overall study questions, essential content was identified by the first author, which involved a process of generating a provisional list of themes of interest that were based on the study objectives, including stakeholder involvement in the generation of research questions, research process, generation of results and dissemination of research findings, as well as challenges to research dissemination and policy uptake. In a next step, the transcripts were sorted and grouped by the first author according to the coding scheme for analysis. This involved using the content summary analysis method, which consists of reducing the textual content and preserving only the essential content in order to produce a short text [ 14 ]. As several co-authors were interviewed, they validated that their perspective was not misinterpreted or misrepresented.

Three key strategies were identified for research uptake into policy and practice throughout the data collection of this synthesis initiative: (S1) stakeholders directly engaged with and sought evidence from researchers; (S2) stakeholders were involved in the design and throughout the implementation of the research project; and (S3) stakeholders engaged in participatory and transdisciplinary research approaches to co-produce knowledge and inform policy. The first two strategies (S1, S2) are in line with Uzochukwu and colleagues’ work [ 2 ], and the third strategy (S3) is an additional category based on the experiences of researchers in r4d projects [ 2 ]. Each r4d project is described in more detail as a case study in one of these three strategies (Table 2 ).

S1: stakeholders directly engaged with and sought evidence from researchers

In this strategy, international stakeholders requested evidence from the research team. This is a unique (and rare) strategy, as stated by Uzochukwu et al. [ 2 ], and often involves a policy window of opportunity in which stakeholders, including policy-makers, are looking to solve a particular problem, which coincides with the publishing of a scientific report or paper and the interests of these same groups [ 15 , 16 ].

Improving the HIV care cascade in Lesotho: towards 90-90-90—a research collaboration with the Ministry of Health of Lesotho

In this r4d project, the research team was approached by the International Aids Society (IAS) and the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, based on the publication of their study protocol [ 17 ], introducing their innovative research approach of same-day antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation in rural communities in Lesotho:

“They [international stakeholders] were all keen of getting the results out and requested evidence of the randomized controlled trials. We shared the results confidentially with WHO as soon as we had the data and thereafter published the results in a journal with a wide reach. WHO as well as other international guidelines and policy committees took up the recommendation of same-day ART initiation and informed global guidelines” (Researcher 1).

As a result, many HIV programmes in sub-Saharan Africa as well as in the global north have adopted the practice of offering rapid-start ART to persons who test HIV positive even outside a health facility. In this example, the policy window and direct stakeholder engagement was crucial for the effective translation and uptake of research evidence.

Furthermore, by closely collaborating with national policy-makers, the research team advocated for the setting up of a research database and of knowledge management units within the Ministry of Health (MoH) of Lesotho, which have been successfully established. The members of the research project consortia have also initiated a national research symposium on a bi-annual basis, which is chaired by the MoH with the aim of facilitating the dissemination and uptake of research findings.

S2: Stakeholders were involved in the design and throughout the implementation of the research project

In this strategy, policy uptake is facilitated through stakeholder engagement from the beginning as well as during the conduct of research activities, through participating at workshops or functioning in the governance of the projects. Two r4d projects illustrate this strategy.

Health system governance for an inclusive and sustainable social health protection in Ghana and Tanzania

This project established a Country Advisory Group (CAG) at the start that included representatives of the main stakeholders of the social health protection systems. The CAGs were involved in all phases of the project, from the definition of the research plans to the dissemination of the results. The specific research questions addressed by the project emerged from the interactions with these main stakeholders, i.e. national policy-makers, healthcare providers and members of the social health protection schemes (the NHIS and the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty schemes in Ghana; and the National Health Insurance Fund, the Community Health Funds and the Tanzania Social Action Fund in Tanzania). Specifically in Ghana, the following stakeholders played a major role in shaping the research plan: the Ministry of Gender Children and Social Protection (MGCSP), the Ghana Health Service (Policy Planning and Monitoring and Evaluation Division; Research and Development Division), the National Health Insurance Authority (NHIA) and the Associations of Private Health Care Providers. In Tanzania, a major role was played by the Ministry of Health, Community, Development, Gender, Elderly and Children, the President’s Office—Regional Administration and Local Government, by representatives of civil society organizations, such as Sikika, by the SDC (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation) Health Promotion and System Strengthening project and by the SDC-supported development programme.

These stakeholders were subsequently involved in steering the research, as captured by a researcher:

“In Ghana, it was a balanced relationship. They were involved since the very beginning of the project in articulating what the information gap at policy level is, formulating the research questions and understanding the methods/what is feasible. In Tanzania, where the policy landscape is more fragmented, it was very important to listen to the voices of several different stakeholders” (Researcher 2).

The stakeholder consultations in Ghana and Tanzania initially involved discussions on the relevance of the research plans to address the existing gaps in strengthening the social health protection scheme, the synergies with other research initiatives and the feasibility of implementing the proposed research. Later on in the project, the consultation process involved reviewing and discussing the focus of the research and the appropriateness of the research aims in light of decisions and reforms that were under discussion by the government but not in the public domain. This led to revision of the research questions as they would have become redundant when such reforms were made public, especially in Ghana. These consultation processes were more formal in Ghana and more informal in Tanzania, but they were very informative and had a tangible impact on the research plans, which were revised according to the feedback received. However, the research teams were always independent in deciding on the research methodology and in interpreting the results. The in-country dissemination of the results at the end of the first phase of the project informed the decisions to be made on the research plan for the second phase and provided the opportunity to discuss policy implications based on the results of the first phase. Because of this close collaboration and engagement with stakeholders, the results of the studies were widely disseminated in Ghana. Two of the main findings of the project were particularly considered by these stakeholders. According to the researcher:

“First, the study results showed that even though people registered with the NHIS they continued to pay out of pocket for health services. The reasons for this were delays in reimbursement by NHIS, escalating prices of drugs and medical products, low tariffs, lack of trust between providers and NHIA and inefficiencies. Secondly, the results showed that the current system of targeting the poor is not working properly, with more than half of people registered in the NHIS as indigents being in the non-poor socio-economic groups. These results contributed to inform decisions regarding the revision of the NHIA reimbursement tariffs, and to improve the identification of the poor to be exempted from paying the NHIS premium, in collaboration with the MGCSP” (Researcher 3).

In Tanzania, research was conducted to assess the effects of the public private partnership, referred as the Jazia Prime Vendor System (Jazia PVS), on improving access to medicines in the Dodoma and Morogoro regions in Tanzania. This is one of the reforms in the area of supply chain management taking place in the country. Results showed that a number of accountability mechanisms (inventory and financial auditing, close monitoring of standard operating procedures) implemented in conjunction with Jazia PVS contributed positively to the performance of Jazia PVS. Participants’ acceptability of Jazia PVS was influenced by the increased availability of essential medicines at the facilities, higher-order fulfilment rates and timely delivery of the consignment [ 18 , 19 , 20 ].

The findings from this study were disseminated during the national meeting attended by various stakeholders, including CAG members, government officials and policy-makers. In addition, the findings were used to inform the national scale-up of the Jazia PVS intervention as the government of Tanzania decided to scale up the Jazia PVS to all the 23 regions in 2018. Moreover, the results/manuscripts were published or submitted to peer-reviewed journals [ 18 , 19 , 20 ], enabling other countries intending to adopt such innovate public–private partnerships for improvement of the in-country pharmaceutical supply chain to learn from Jazia PVS in Tanzania.

Health impact assessment for engaging natural resource extraction projects in sustainable development in producer regions (HIA4SD)

In this r4d project, stakeholders were involved from the outset through their participation in the project launch meeting and in regular consortium meetings. The project is a collaboration between the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH), the Center for Development and Cooperation (NADEL) at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich/Switzerland and national research institutes, namely the Institut de Recherches en Sciences de la Santé in Burkina Faso, the University of Health and Allied Sciences in Ghana, the Centro de Investigação em Saúde de Manhiça in Mozambique and the Ifakara Health Institute in Tanzania [ 21 ]. The involvement of key stakeholders from the government, civil society, private sector and research community in an engaged dialogue from the beginning iss of central importance in this project, as in most cases mining is a highly politicized topic. To promote the immediate integration of research findings into policy, the project is organized into two streams, namely an “impact research stream” and a “governance stream”, that work in parallel. While the impact research stream is focused on evidence generation to support the uptake of health impact assessment (HIA) in Africa, the governance stream is focused on understanding the policy terrain and consequently the pathways that need to be utilized to support translation of the evidence into policy and practice. The second phase of the study is devoted to the dissemination of research findings into policy at the national and local levels, including capacity-building activities for national stakeholders. As the HIA4SD project examines operational questions of relevance for guiding both policy-making and decision-making, team members sought to regularly engage with and inform the national stakeholders. According to the researcher:

“Strategies employed to influence policy vary according to the country, but included regular stakeholder workshops, participation in a new national platform launched to discuss issues around mining in Mozambique, development of policy briefs, strengthened collaborations with national ministries of health, discussion of results and advocacy with policy makers, and conference presentation of findings” (Researcher 4).

In these two case examples, continuous stakeholder engagement was considered essential to translate and disseminate research evidence. Thus, beyond the stage of setting the objectives, contact with stakeholders was active and maintained on a regular basis through regular exchanges with stakeholder groups during workshops or meetings, which facilitated the dissemination and uptake of the research results. While the time and level of meaningful interaction varied across the countries and workshops, all meetings were well attended by participants from varied levels of government, MoHs, nongovernmental organizations and private industry, prompting spirited discussion and insight from these groups. All stakeholders were willing to attend these workshops as part of the scope of their professional duties.

S3: stakeholders engaged in participatory and transdisciplinary research approaches to co-produce knowledge and inform policy

In the two examples presented in this section, the research questions and approaches arose through community and stakeholder participation in the research and intervention design itself. The methodology adopted allowed them to engage, design research, act, share and sustain partnerships between the communities, the involved stakeholders and researchers [ 22 ]. These participatory research approaches facilitated grassroot-level policy and practice changes which were not researcher nor policy maker led, and that show promising approaches for developing culturally aligned solutions [ 23 ]. Policy makers at both the regional and national levels were invited to be part of the participatory research approach: they were interviewed during the initial stage, then the research results were presented and discussed with them; thereafter, we had several meetings to co-create potential interventions to address the identified problems, with the aim to directly engage in the research and intervention design itself in partnerships with the community stakeholders, including local leaders, and the researchers.

Surveillance and response to zoonotic diseases in Maya communities of Guatemala: a case for OneHealth

The research was embedded in a collaboration between the Universidad del Valle in Guatemala, the MoH, the Ministry of Animal Production and Health, the Maya Qéqchi’ Council of Elders, TIGO Telecommunications Foundation and the community development councils. The objective of this r4d programme was to set up integrated animal–human disease surveillance (OneHealth) in Maya communities in Guatemala. The research approach arose from a context of medical pluralism, where communities have access to and use two different medical systems: (1) the modern Western medical system and (2) traditional Maya medicine [ 24 ].

Researchers and community members collaborated at all stages of the research process, including the planning stage. Even before the grant proposal was finalized, researchers met with the communities that, should the funding come through, would be invited to participate in the research. According to the researchers:

“The project was set up through a transdisciplinary process, with academic and non-academic actors—including national, local and traditional authorities—involved in the problem through a collaborative design, analysis, dissemination and research translation. It was a co-producing transformative process—transferring knowledge between academic and non-academic stakeholders in plenary sessions and through group work. These meetings were held every year to continuously follow up the progress of the process” (Researcher 7).

The active engagement and collaboration by the community and stakeholders facilitated the acceptability of the study results and hence its dissemination, captured by the researchers as follows:

“The main result was that they allowed a frank discussion between Maya medical exponents in human–animal health and Western medicine, which allowed the patients and the animal holders to avoid the cognitive dissonance and so that the patients or the animal holders can choose freely what they want. Cognitive dissonance exists if one system dominates the other—or refutes the other” (Researcher 7).

“After all stakeholders discussed the research evidence produced jointly, an unprecedented process of collaboration between Government authorities and communities followed to develop three joint responses: a) education campaigns led by local teachers in tandem with the Ministry of Education, b) communication strategies at regional levels led by the Human and Animal Health authorities along with traditional Maya Ajilonel (medicine specialists), and c) a policy framework for producing a OneHealth approach led by Central Government authorities” (Researcher 8).

The process of mutual learning throughout the project produced a new level of awareness, facilitating culturally pertinent and socially robust responses that overcame a historical tendency of unilateral policy making based solely on Western values and preferences. As the project implemented a new approach to monitoring animal and human populations, the involvement of regional teams from the different ministries (Health, Livestock and Agriculture) throughout all the phases of methodological design, data collection, posterior data analysis and design of specific interventions for the local population (transformation of scientific results into actions for public health improvement) was essential to ensuring that the approach used secured the regional authorities’ commitment to defining new policies for immediate application in their territory. Accordingly, this also contributed towards the development of a OneHealth national strategy for Guatemala in which ministries start to cooperate to take up priority issues.

Addressing the double burden of disease: improving health systems for non-communicable and neglected tropical diseases (Community Health System Innovation [COHESION])

Together with three Swiss academic partners, this r4d project examined the challenges of a double burden of non-communicable and neglected tropical diseases at the primary healthcare level in vulnerable populations in Mozambique, Nepal and Peru. Community participation and co-creation were key elements of the project’s approach. The work conducted in Peru illustrates this approach:

“At the beginning, the people who were involved were respondents, but then they became active participants. So it was this active engagement and the changing of roles, giving feedback not just from the research responses but also from being involved in the process, which helped to design and create interventions together with the research team” (Researcher 5).

This participatory approach to co-creation actively sought a diverse range of stakeholders, including community members, primary healthcare workers, and regional and national health authorities. The co-creation approach to participatory research enables context-specific variation in methodological design, a critical element when studying three very different countries and health systems. Central to all aspects was a feedback loop whereby early findings were shared with research participants for further elaboration and iteration.

As active co-creators of the research process, local communities developed high levels of trust in the methodology and data, with the result that researchers achieved deeper “buy-in” which in turn is known to enhance the uptake of findings by decision-makers [ 25 ] as communities in which research is being undertaken play a central role in the decision-making process [ 26 ].

Challenges to research uptake in health policy identified by r4d researchers

During the interviews, r4d researchers identified several challenges to research utilization and uptake into policy. These challenges are summarized and highlighted in Table 3 .

Three key strategies identified for research uptake in policy and practice are described in this paper, namely: (S1) stakeholders directly engaged with and sought evidence from researchers; (S2) stakeholders were involved in the design and throughout the implementation of the research project; and (S3) stakeholders engaged in participatory and transdisciplinary research approaches to co-produce knowledge and inform policy. These strategies are in line with the overall objectives of the r4d projects, which are to generate scientific knowledge and research-based solutions to reduce poverty and global risks in LMICs, and also to offer national and international stakeholders integrated approaches to solving problems [ 5 ]. In the course of our synthesis work, we found that several lessons could be learned from the three strategies identified for research uptake in policy and practice.

S1: raising awareness of planned research to attract stakeholder involvement

The actual uptake of research findings in policy was most direct in the case of the first strategy (S1), in which IAS and WHO stakeholders were wanting new knowledge on HIV and same-day ART initiation, and were actively seeking new evidence on these specific topics. The findings published in peer-reviewed journals were then taken up by these stakeholders to update international policies and guidelines on rapid ART initiation [ 27 ]. This was also found in other studies, highlighting the importance of the timeliness and relevance of findings and the production of credible and trustworthy reports, among others, as key factors in promoting the use of research evidence in policy [ 2 , 28 ].

S2: sustainable collaborations in a supportive policy environment with stakeholder engagement from early on and throughout the research process

With regards to the second strategy (S2), we found that constant collaboration with an advisory and steering group composed of diverse stakeholders, including policy-makers, from early on promotes the uptake and use of research evidence. In line with findings from other studies [ 2 ], the experiences encountered in the r4d public health projects show that early involvement of stakeholders in the processes to identify the research problem and set the priorities facilitated the continuous exchange of information that might ultimately influence policy. The r4d project on social governance mechanisms in Ghana highlight that the evidence produced influenced policy documents (identification of the poor and tariff adjustments), but that frequent changes government officials made it difficult to maintain a close relationship between the researchers and the governmental agencies/policy stakeholders. From this, we draw the conclusion that research approaches need to be more adaptive and flexible to be successful in an unsupportive or unstable policy environment to ensure continuity in promoting the dissemination and uptake of research evidence in policy-making. One possible manner to secure this transformation is for researchers to apply for additional funding after the grant is finished. Other studies have also come to this conclusion, thereby demonstrating the key role of a supportive and effective policy environment that includes some degree of independence in governance and financing, strong links to stakeholders that facilitate trust and influence and also the capacity within the government workforce to process and apply policy advice developed by the research findings [ 29 ]. By involving stakeholders in the process of identifying research objectives and designing the project, as seen particularly in the r4d case studies on social health protection in Ghana and Tanzania and the HI4SD, but also in the HIV care cascade in Lesotho, the research approach responded to the need of locally led and demand-driven research in these countries, strengthening local research capacities and institutions, but also investing in research that is aligned with the national research priorities. As highlighted by other authors, advantages of this “demand-driven” approach is that it tailors research questions to local needs, helps to strengthen local individual and organizational capacities and provides a realized stringent framework on which a research project should deliver outcomes [ 30 , 31 ].

S3: co-creation and equal partnerships

The third strategy with a strong participatory approach, such as that adopted by two r4d projects, OneHealth in Guatemala and COHESION, demonstrates benefits to promoting co-learning as a way to minimize the impact of unequal power dynamics and to work effectively across the local policy landscape through equal partnerships. It also facilitates identifying solutions that are culturally pertinent, socially more robust and implementable.

The approaches of co-creation, equal participation and stakeholder involvement used in the research projects raise questions of ‘governance’, that is the way rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained and regulated by public and para-public actors to condition the engagement and impact of public involvement activities [ 32 , 33 ]. Through stakeholder involvement in setting the agenda and designing the research projects, as shown in the case studies on social protection in Ghana and Tanzania and the HI4SD project, but particularly in the two projects using a co-creation approach, the engagement of a range of stakeholders serves to make the health research systems a participaant in the endeavor that then has the capacity to promote changes in the healthcare system it aims to serve. By establishing a shared vision with a public involvement agenda and through the collaborative efforts of various stakeholders, as we found particularly in the co-creation approach, supportive health research systems are established. This leads to greater public advancement through collaborative actions, thereby tackling the stated problems of the health systems [ 34 ].

There were four key challenges mentioned by the respondents during the interviews to research uptake in policy making. The first was the necessary time investment by researchers to translate the result and develop policy advocacy products for the different audiences. This challenge is all the more difficult because research evidence and tangible products only become available towards the end of a research project, leaving only a short window of opportunity for exchange and engagement. There seems to be a need for wider discussion on the role of researchers in influencing policy. The concerns raised included whether influencing policy is actually a role for researchers and whether researchers have the right skills to be effective in persuasion or network formation [ 35 ]. Conversely, researchers may be in a good position to engage in the policy process if they enjoy finding solutions to complex problems while working with diverse and collaborative groups in partnerships [ 36 , 37 ]. The rationale for engaging in such a process needs to be clarified in advance: is the aim to frame an existing problem, or is it to simply measure the issues at stake and provide sound evidence according to an existing frame? Regarding the the former, how far should researchers go to be useful and influential in the policy process or to present challenges faced by vulnerable populations [ 37 ]? While fully engaging in the policy process may be the best approach for researchers to achieve credibility and impact, there may also be significant consequences, such as the risk of political interests undermining the methodological rigour of academic research (being considered as academic ‘lightweight’ among one’s peer group) [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. For researchers there is also considerable opportunity costs because engaging in the policy-influencing process is a time-consuming activity [ 35 ], with no clear guarantee of the impact of success [ 37 ]. It is therefore crucial to consider the investment and overall time researchers may have to spend to engage [ 35 ], and how this time and investment can be distributed between actual research and the production of outreach products, such as policy briefs, presentation of research findings as policy narratives [ 35 ] and the setting-up of alliances, building of networks and exploitation of windows of opportunity for policy change [ 37 ].

The second challenge included the issue of scale and objectivity, as most of the projects are not scaled or national-level studies and thus are highly context specific. The difficulty to measure the contributions of a single research project or study in terms of policy outcomes was also highlighted, particularly in view of the different understandings among researchers and funders on the possible policy impacts of the research, which can range from guiding policy-makers to understand a situation or problem (awareness raising) to influencing a particular course of action by establishing new or revising existing policies. This has also been emphasized in the Evidence Peter Principle [ 42 ], showing that single studies are often inappropriately used to make global policy statements for which they are not suitable. To make global policy statements, an assessment of the global evidence in systematic reviews is needed [ 42 , 43 ].

The third challenge mentioned was the frequent changes in staff at the governmental level, which demanded continuous interactions between r4d researchers and stakeholders, highlighting the need for more adaptive and flexible research approaches. These should include a thorough analytical process prior to implementation in historical, sociopolitical and economic aspects, power differentials and context; backward planning exercises to check assumptions; and conflict transformation and negotiation skills in order to be able to constantly adapt to changing contexts. In line with our research findings, when researchers make the time investment needed to engage in the policy-influencing process, an opportunity is provided to getting know the involved stakeholders better and improve their understanding of the policy world in practice, but also to build diverse and longer-term networks [ 37 , 44 ] and to identify policy problems and the appropriate stakeholders to work with [ 45 , 46 ]. Engaging a diverse range of stakeholders through co-designing the research is widely held to be practically the best way to guarantee the uptake and use of evidence in policy through a more dynamic research approach [ 47 ]. However, the development of networks and contacts for collaboration, as well as the skills to do so, takes time and effort and is an ongoing process [ 48 ], factors which need to be acknowledged more widely.

Lastly, the fourth challenge related to research uptake was the diverging interests between researchers, research funding bodies and stakeholders. Time was identified as a limiting factor from the perspective of the design of the research project. Most research projects, including the r4d projects, are funded for 3–4 years [ 5 ]. It takes a considerable amount of time to generate new research results, and often these are more likely to be produced for further use at the end of a project. If researchers should engage more fully in the policy process to secure meaningful impact, it is critical to discuss the extent to which they have the skills, resources and institutional support to do so [ 37 ], as well as how projects could be set up differently. This could be done either by the funders in providing the necessary support that allows researchers to have the means to impact policy, or by the researchers in the design of their project to take on board the different strategies to influence evidence use and uptake. In moving forward, defining shared goals from the outset between funders and the researchers might translate to more achievable milestones in terms of which policy issue, theme or process a research project aims to change in order to effectively influence policy [ 49 ]. This would help to identify the resources and budget needed by the funders in order for the researchers to engage with more resources over a longer time span in this process.

Limitations

Interviews were limited to researchers of the r4d projects and did not include local stakeholders. Therefore, the synthesis work, including the analysis and results, reflects solely the perspective of researchers. We are aware that had we included a range of stakeholders, including policy-makers, in the sample, we would have potentially been able to identify additional factors relating to social, cultural and political barriers to the use and uptake of research findings in politics and practice. However, constraints such as access to local stakeholders, language barriers and time zones drove our decision to focus on researchers. A future synthesis effort would need to include the other voices.

There is ever growing awareness of how critical it is to close the gap between policy-makers, practitioners and researchers. Using the researchers’ perspectives, in this article we give insight into three different strategies that can facilitate this process, with the first strategy requiring proactive searching for the latest findings on the part of well-informed policy-makers, the second requiring researchers to take steps to ensure an active exchange of ideas and information with diverse stakeholders when designing the research project and ensuring the latter’s involvement throughout; and the third using a transdisciplinary and/or co-creation approach to establish equal partnerships and trust among all involved stakeholders.

The five case studies reported here also show some of the difficulties that prevail for research to be taken up into policy and practice, despite everyone’s best intentions and efforts. Researchers may not always be best placed for communication, dissemination and advocacy work, all activities which are very time intensive or become important only towards the end of a research project when clear and high-quality evidence is produced. Moreover, it takes a strong body of evidence, advocacy and coalition building with appropriate stakeholders to influence policy, and then a further major effort of resources to see policy followed through into practice. It is through experiences such as this synthesis initiative that precious insights and learning can be gained for the common good of all involved moving forward, and it is crucial that funders continue to support and/or adapt their funding schemes to ensure some of these strategies are implemented.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Antiretroviral therapy

Country Advisory Group

Community Health System Innovation

Health impact assessment

Health impact assessment for engaging natural resource extraction projects in sustainable development in producer regions

Human immunodeficiency virus

International Aids Society

Jazia Prime Vendor System

Low- and middle-income countries

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Gender Children and Social Protection

Center for Development and Cooperation at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

National Health Insurance Authority

National Health Insurance Scheme

Swiss Programme for Research on Global Issues for Development

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

Swiss National Science Foundation

Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute

Universal health coverage

World Health Organization

Court J, Young J. Bridging research and policy in international development: an analytical and practical framework. J Dev Pract. 2006;16(1):85–90.

Article   Google Scholar  

Uzochukwu B, Onwujekwe O, Mbachu C, Okwuosa C, Etiaba E, Nyström ME, Gilson L. The challenge of bridging the gap between researchers and policy makers: experiences of a Health Policy Research Group in engaging policy makers to support evidence informed policy making in Nigeria. Glob Health. 2016;12(1):67.

Di Ruggiero E, Edwards N. The interplay between participatory health research and implementation research: Canadian research funding perspectives. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:1519402.

Rau H, Goggins G, Fahy F. From invisibility to impact: recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research. Res Policy. 2018;47(1):266–76.

Swiss National Science Foundation: Swiss Programme for Research on Global Issues for Development (r4d programme). http://www.r4d.ch/r4d programme/portrait . Accessed 20 Jan 2020.

United Nations: Sustainable Development Goals. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ . Accessed 17 Dec 2019.

Shroff ZC, Javadi D, Gilson L, Kang R, Ghaffar A. Institutional capacity to generate and use evidence in LMICs: current state and opportunities for HPSR. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):94.

McKee M. Bridging the gap between research and policy and practice Comment on “CIHR health system impact fellows: reflections on ‘driving change’ within the health system.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(9):557–9.

World Health Organization. Sound choices: enhancing capacity for evidence-informed health policy. In: Bennett S, Green A, editors. Geneva: WHO; 2007.

Stoker G, Evans M. Evidence-based policy making in the social sciences: methods that matter. Bristol: Policy Press; 2016.

Book   Google Scholar  

Brinkerhoff DW, Crosby B. Managing policy reform: concepts and tools for decision-makers in developing and transitioning countries. Sterling: Kumarian Press; 2002.

Google Scholar  

Hardee KFI, Boezwinkle J, Clark B. A framework for analyzing the components of family planning, reproductive health, maternal health, and HIV/AIDS policies. Wilmette: The Policy Circle; 2004.

Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Mey G, Mruck K, editors. Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2010. pp. 601–613.

Mayring P, Fenzl T. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Baur N, Blasius J, editors. Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2014. pp. 543–556.

Rose DC, Amano T, González-Varo JP, Mukherjee N, Robertson RJ, Simmons BI, Wauchope HS, Sutherland WJ. Calling for a new agenda for conservation science to create evidence-informed policy. Biol Conserv. 2019;238:108222.

Shiffman J, Smith S. Generation of political priority for global health initiatives: a framework and case study of maternal mortality. Lancet. 2007;370(9595):1370–9.

Labhardt ND, Ringera I, Lejone TI, Klimkait T, Muhairwe J, Amstutz A, Glass TR. Effect of offering same-day ART vs usual health facility referral during home-based HIV testing on linkage to care and viral suppression among adults with HIV in Lesotho: the CASCADE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(11):1103–12.

Kuwawenaruwa A, Wyss K, Wiedenmayer K, Metta E, Tediosi F. The effects of medicines availability and stock-outs on household’s utilization of healthcare services in Dodoma region, Tanzania. Health Policy Plan. 2020;35(3):323–33.

Kuwawenaruwa A TF, Metta E, Obrist B, Wiedenmayer K, Msamba V, Wyss K. Acceptability of a prime vendor system in public healthcare facilities in Tanzania. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020. (in press).

Kuwawenaruwa ATF, Obrist B, Metta E, Chiluda F, Wiedenmayer K, Wyss K. The role of accountability in the performance of Jazia prime vendor system in Tanzania. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2020;2020(13):25.

Farnham A, Cossa H, Dietler D, Engebretsen R, Leuenberger A, Lyatuu I, Nimako B, Zabre HR, Brugger F, Winkler MS. Investigating health impacts of natural resource extraction projects in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mozambique, and Tanzania: protocol for a mixed methods study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020;9(4):e17138.

Beran D, Lazo-Porras M, Cardenas MK, Chappuis F, Damasceno A, Jha N, Madede T, Lachat S, Perez Leon S, Aya Pastrana N, Pesantes MA, Singh SB, Sharma S, Somerville C, Suggs LS, Miranda JJ. Moving from formative research to co-creation of interventions: insights from a community health system project in Mozambique, Nepal and Peru. BMJ Gob Health. 2018;3(6):e001183.

Mertens DM. Advancing social change in South Africa through transformative research. S Afr Rev Sociol. 2016;47(1):5–17.

Berger-González M, Stauffacher M, Zinsstag J, Edwards P, Krütli P. Transdisciplinary research on cancer-healing systems between biomedicine and the Maya of Guatemala: a tool for reciprocal reflexivity in a multi-epistemological setting. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(1):77–91.

Theron LC. Using research to influence policy and practice: the case of the pathways-to-resilience study (South Africa). In: Abubakar A, van de Vijver FJR, editors. Handbook of applied developmental science in sub-Saharan Africa. New York: Springer; 2017. pp. 373–87.

Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(10):854–7.

WHO. Guidelines for managing advanced HIV disease and rapid initiation of antiretroviral therapy. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.

Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health policymaking (STP) 3: setting priorities for supporting evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(S1):I3.

Bennett S, Corluka A, Doherty J, Tangcharoensathien V, Patcharanarumol W, Jesani A, Kyabaggu J, Namaganda G, Hussain AMZ, de-Graft Aikins A. Influencing policy change: the experience of health think tanks in low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy Plan. 2011;27(3):194–203.

Kok MO, Gyapong JO, Wolffers I, Ofori-Adjei D, Ruitenberg EJ. Towards fair and effective North–South collaboration: realising a programme for demand-driven and locally led research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):96.

Wolffers I, Adjei S. Research-agenda setting in developing countries. Lancet. 1999;353(9171):2248–9.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dodgson R, Lee K, Drager N. Global health governance: a conceptual review. London: Centre on Global Change and Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine/World Health Organization; 2018.

Saltman RB, Ferroussier-Davis O. The concept of stewardship in health policy. Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78(6):732–9.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Miller FA, Patton SJ, Dobrow M, Marshall DA, Berta W. Public involvement and health research system governance: a qualitative study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):87.

Lloyd J. Should academics be expected to change policy? Six reasons why it is unrealistic for research to drive policy change. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/05/25/should-academics-be-expected-to-change-policy-six-reasons-why-it-is-unrealistic/ . Accessed 28 May 2020.

Petes LE, Meyer MD. An ecologist’s guide to careers in science policy advising. Front Ecol Environ. 2018;16(1):53–4.

Oliver KCP. The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Commun. 2019;5(1):21.

Hutchings JA, Stenseth NC. Communication of science advice to government. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016;31(1):7–11.

Maynard A. Is public engagement really career limiting?. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/public-engagement-really-career-limiting . Accessed 27 May 2020.

Haynes AS, Derrick GE, Chapman S, Redman S, Hall WD, Gillespie J, Sturk H. From “our world” to the “real world”: exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(7):1047–55.

Crouzat E, Arpin I, Brunet L, Colloff MJ, Turkelboom F, Lavorel S. Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy. Ambio. 2018;47(1):97–105.

White H. The Evidence Peter Principle: the misuse and abuse of evidence Reflections on the evidence architecture. https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/blog/the-evidence-peter-principle-the-misuse-and-abuse-of-evidence.html?utm_source=Campbell+Collaboration+newsletters&utm_campaign=4dfa01ec7d-Newsletter+September+2019&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ab55bacb0c-4dfa01ec7d-199138457 . Accessed 29 Jan 2020.

Caird J, Sutcliffe K, Kwan I, Dickson K, Thomas J. Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach? Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2015;11(1):81–97.

Evans MC, Cvitanovic C. An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Commun. 2018;4(1):88.

Echt L. Context matters:” a framework to help connect knowledge with policy in government institutions. LSE Impact Blog. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/12/19/context-matters-a-framework-to-help-connect-knowledge-with-policy-in-government-institutions/ . Accessed 13 July 2020.

Lucey JM, Palmer G, Yeong KL, Edwards DP, Senior MJM, Scriven SA, Reynolds G, Hill JK. Reframing the evidence base for policy-relevance to increase impact: a case study on forest fragmentation in the oil palm sector. J Appl Ecol. 2017;54(3):731–6.

Green D: How academics and NGOs can work together to influence policy: insights from the InterAction report. LSE Impact blog https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/09/23/how-academics-and-ngos-can-work-together-to-influence-policy-insights-from-the-interaction-report/ . Accessed 13 July 2020.

Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, O’Shea A, Kok M. How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):60.

Tilley HSL, Rea J, Ball L, Young J. 10 things to know about how to influence policy with research. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr Claudia Rutte from the r4d programme/SNSF for her inputs to the history and background of the r4d programme.

The r4d synthesis initiative is implemented by the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, which funded the costs of publishing this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland

Séverine Erismann, Andrea Leuenberger, Andrea Farnham, Monica Berger Gonzalez de White, Niklaus Daniel Labhardt, Fabrizio Tediosi, August Kuwawenaruwa, Jakob Zinsstag, Kaspar Wyss & Helen Prytherch

University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

CRONICAS Centre of Excellence in Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru

Maria Amalia Pesantes

Division of Tropical and Humanitarian Medicine, University of Geneva and Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

David Beran

Centro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala, Guatemala

Monica Berger Gonzalez de White

Department of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland

Niklaus Daniel Labhardt

School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana

Patricia Akweongo

Ifakara Health Institute, Plot 463, Kiko Avenue Mikocheni, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

August Kuwawenaruwa

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Fritz Brugger

Gender Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland

Claire Somerville

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the writing of this manuscript. Each author contributed with synthesizing their project experiences and with the discussion and recommendations. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Séverine Erismann or Helen Prytherch .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Erismann, S., Pesantes, M.A., Beran, D. et al. How to bring research evidence into policy? Synthesizing strategies of five research projects in low-and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Sys 19 , 29 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00646-1

Download citation

Received : 15 July 2020

Accepted : 15 October 2020

Published : 06 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00646-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Evidence-based policy-making
• Research for development

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Impact of research on policy and practice

It is difficult to feed research-based evidence into policy and practice. This article discusses which capacities need to be strengthened to increase the impact of research on policy.

The world is changing rapidly in ways that often affect poor countries most. Economic, climate and population changes over the coming decades will have enormous implications for the challenge of reducing poverty by threatening access to food and water, worsening migration pressures and possibly increasing the chances of conflict. New research is essential for finding ways to prevent or mitigate the impact of these changes.

Donors are already spending over US $2 billion annually on development-related research. Yet there is widespread recognition that research alone is not enough. For research to have any impact, the results must inform and shape policies and programmes, and be adopted into practice.

Research donors increasingly acknowledge this. The UK Department for International Development (DFID), for example, will double spending on development research from US $200 to $400 million per year over the next five years, and will invest equally in generating new knowledge and working to ensure it is used in policy and practice.

The challenge of maximising the impact of research on policy and practice is not unique to multilateral and bilateral donors. Civil society organisations in developed and developing countries are not only engaged in practical programmes delivering services and strengthening systems to combat poverty directly, but are increasingly engaged in work to foster better development policies and programmes. Effective use of research-based knowledge is vital for both tasks.

This article outlines why it is so difficult to get research-based evidence into policy and practice. It provides some examples of what seems to work, describes a practical approach to developing effective strategies and identifies some of the capacity issues that need to be addressed.

Why is it so difficult?

Research results often need to be contested, debated and tested again before a consensus can be reached on recommendations for policy and practice. Even then many obstacles remain. Policy processes are very rarely linear and logical. Simply presenting research results to policymakers and expecting them to put the evidence into practice is very unlikely to work. Although most policy processes do involve a sequence of stages from agenda-setting through decision-making to implementation and evaluation, they rarely take place in an orderly fashion. Many agents are involved in affecting the process directly, and in trying to influence each other. While the whole process of policy has been described as ‘a chaos of purposes and accidents’, I prefer to use the terms complex, multifactorial and non-linear.

Research-based evidence often plays a very minor role in policy processes. A recent ODI study of factors influencing chronic poverty in Uganda found that only 2 of 25 were researchable issues. In a talk on evidence-based policymaking at ODI in 2003, Vincent Cable, a senior member of the UK parliament, said that politicians are practically incapable of using research-based evidence because, among other things, few are scientists, and they don’t understand the concept of testing a hypothesis. In another ODI meeting, Phil Davies, then deputy director of the governmental and social research unit in the UK Cabinet Office, described how policymakers tend to be more heavily influenced by their own values, experience, expertise and judgement, the influence of lobbyists and pressure groups and pragmatism based on the amount of resources they have available rather than by research-based evidence. In developing country contexts, national policy processes are often disorted by international factors. Donor policies, for example, can be hugely influential in highly indebted countries.

Researchers wishing to maximise the impact of their work have to attract the interest of policymakers and practitioners and then convince them that a new policy or different approach is valuable, and foster the behavioural changes necessary to put them into practice.

Research-based evidence can contribute to policies and practices that have a dramatic impact on peoples’ lives. One example is the Tanzania Essential Health Interventions Project (TEHIP), in which the results of household disease surveys were used to inform the development of health services focusing on the most common conditions, especially those affecting mothers and young children. This contributed to a 43 and 46% reduction in infant mortality in two districts of rural Tanzania between 2000 and 2003. Another example is the Decentralised Livestock Services in the Eastern Regions of Indonesia Project, in which a careful combination of pilot field-level projects, institutional research and proactive communication contributed to a 250% increase in farmer satisfaction with livestock services. Success stories quoted in DFID’s new research strategy include a 22% reduction in neonatal mortality in Ghana by having women begin breastfeeding within the first hour after birth and a 43% reduction in deaths among HIV positive children using a commonly available antibiotic.

These and other case studies from around the world illustrate the complexity of engaging with policy processes. There is no simple blueprint for what will work. What works in one context may not work in another. But it does appear that research projects and programmes are more likely to be successful when they:

• focus on current policy problems and have clear objectives;
• engage closely with policymakers throughout the process, from identifying the problem, undertaking the research itself and drawing out recommendations for policy and practice from the results;
• understand the political factors which may enhance or impede uptake and develop appropriate strategies to address them;
• invest heavily in communication and engagement activities as well as the research itself and build strong relationships with key stakeholders.

Individual champions and opponents frequently play a major role, as does serendipity – or chance.

The implications of this are that engaging with policy requires more than just research skills. According to Simon Maxwell, director of ODI, if researchers want to be good policy entrepreneurs, they also need to synthesise simple, compelling stories from the results of the research. They need to be good networkers to work effectively with all the other stakeholders involved in the process, good engineers to build programmes that can generate convincing evidence at the right time and political ‘fixers’ who know who is making the decision and how to get to them. Or they need to work in multidisciplinary teams with others who have these skills.

A practical approach

Based on more than five years’ experience providing advice to researchers, bilateral and multilateral development organisations and NGOs, ODI’s Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) has come up with an iterative approach to developing a strategy to maximise the influence of research-based evidence on policy and practice (see Figure 1). It draws on concepts of complexity, on outcome-mapping tools developed by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and Tools for Policy Engagement assembled and developed by the RAPID programme itself. It has been field tested through more than 30 workshops and training courses worldwide.

To use research-based evidence for promoting a specific policy or practice, the first step is to map the policy context around that issue and identify the key factors that may influence the policy process. RAPID has developed a simple checklist of questions to accomplish this, including questions about the key external agents, the political context itself, the research-based evidence and the other stakeholders who can help.

The second step is to identify the key influential stakeholders. RAPID’s Alignment, Interest and Influence Matrix (AIIM) can be used to map agents along three dimensions (see Figure 2): the degree of alignment with the proposed policy (on the y axis), their level of interest in the issue (on the x axis) and their ability to exert influence on the policy process (on the z axis – or by otherwise indicating their degree of influence on the 2-dimensional matrix). Agents that are highly interested and aligned should be natural allies and collaborators. Those who are highly interested but not aligned need to be brought into alignment or somehow prevented from creating obstacles. Prompting enthusiasm among powerful agents that are highly aligned but not interested can increase the chance of success. Prompting enthusiasm among agents that are not highly aligned risks creating more tensions.

The third step is to identify the changes needed among the key stakeholders if they are to support the desired policy outcome. IDRC’s Outcome Mapping approach emphasises that long-term impact only occurs through behavioural change that surpasses the lifetime of the project. Focusing on those agencies that it is possible to influence, it is important to describe as precisely as possible their current behaviour. Equally important is to describe the behaviour necessary to contribute to the required policy process (the ‘outcome challenge’) and to monitor the short- and medium-term intermediate behaviours (or ‘progress markers’) to ensure that priority stakeholders are moving in the right direction and responding to the programme’s efforts.

Having identified the necessary behavioural changes, the fourth step is to develop a strategy to achieve the milestone changes in the process. There are many strategic planning tools that can be used for this. Force Field Analysis is a flexible tool that helps identify the forces supporting and opposing the desired change and suggest concrete responses (see Figure 3). The forces can be ranked first according to their degree of influence over the change, and then according to the degree of control it is possible for the project team to exert over them. Activities can then be identified to reduce the negative forces and increase the positive ones. Sometimes it is not possible to influence agents directly and it is necessary to target others who can do so. This might mean rethinking the priority stakeholders. More sophisticated tools also exist for visualising strategies and actions for example strategy maps.

The fifth step is to consider whether the project or programme has the necessary capacity to implement the strategy. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis is a well-known tool that can be used to identify whether a project has the necessary resources to achieve its objectives, and that also recognises the potential impact of external influences. Complexity theory conceptualises competence as an evolving set of systems, processes and skills to enable agents to make the right decisions and act, rather than as a predetermined set of capabilities. Competency frameworks can be used to map the existing and the desired competencies needed to influence policy and to track progress toward achieving them.

The sixth and final step is to develop a monitoring and learning system. This is not only to track progress, make any necessary adjustments and assess the effectiveness of the approach, but also to learn lessons for the future. Recording the results of these planning steps, noting the attainment of progress markers and achievement of improved competency levels, and keeping simple logs of unexpected events should allow the team to produce and use knowledge about policy content, context, the strategy and activities, outcomes (behaviour changes), the skills, competencies and systems necessary. Crucial to the collection of knowledge are sharing it and using it. Intranet systems can be very useful, but sometimes the most basic face-to-face or telephone interactions can produce the best results. Understanding how people learn is also important.

Capacity development

Most of RAPID’s work to date has been focused on building capacity at the individual level, partly through workshops and training courses, but also through longer-term partnerships and collaboration on national and global action research projects. RAPID has also been instrumental in creating two worldwide communities of practice of organisations and individuals keen to learn from each other about how to do it:

• the Evidence-based Policy Development Network, which now has 20 core member organisations and over 400 people working to promote evidence-based policies across Asia, Africa and Latin America, and
• the Outcome Mapping Learning Community, which provides an online platform for outcome-mapping practitioners to learn new skills, share ideas and showcase good practice.

Substantial improvement in the use of research-based evidence in development policy and practice also requires effort at the institutional level. The aim is to improve organizational structures, processes, resources, management and governance issues so that local institutions are able to attract, train and retain capable staff. At the system level, effort should be made to improve national and regional innovation environments. A recent review of research donor approaches to capacity development identified a wide range of approaches to achieve this improvement including:

• research partnerships between Northern and Southern research institutions/universities;
• institutional support for universities in developing countries (particularly in sub-Saharan Africa);
• support for national research councils;
• funding for developing country institutions to access research and technical services of developing country partners;
• supporting communities of practice among researchers and policymakers working on a specific development problem or sector;
• supporting policymakers to become more aware of research-based evidence and more discerning consumers of it; and
• collaborative regional Masters and PhD programmes.

But donors need to adopt a more joint approach, both with each other and with different elements of the system. The informal International Forum of Research Donors provides an opportunity for research donors to start doing this, and many donors are developing more integrated approaches. DFID’s Research into Use Programme, for example, uses an innovation system approach that includes work to the strengthen the capacity of the poor to articulate demand, work to develop the information markets that serve them and work to explore innovative ways in which to supply information.

Improving the uptake of development research into policy and practice is not straightforward. Policy processes themselves are complex, multifactorial and non-linear. What works in one context may not work in another. A blueprint approach is unlikely to work. Successful examples tend to include common ingredients: a clear focus on current policy issues, political awareness and close engagement with policymakers, substantial investment in communication and engagement and cultivating local champions and seizing unexpected opportunities. But the recipe – the relative amounts of each ingredient and the order in which to blend them – is often unique for each situation.

Like the most creative cooks, good policy entrepreneurs make it up as they go along through an iterative series of steps, paying great attention to the results of each. Or, as Albert Hofmann, the Swiss chemist who discovered the properties of LSD by unintentionally absorbing it through his skin, wrote, ‘It is true that it was a chance discovery, but it was the outcome of planned experiments, and these experiments took place in the framework of systematic pharmaceutical, chemical research. It could better be described as serendipity’.

Capacity development to promote greater use of research-based evidence in development policy and practice requires effort at individual, organisational and institutional level for all stakeholders – research providers, research users and intermediary groups.

This article appears with permission from Capacity.org, a web magazine-cum-portal intended for practitioners and policy makers who work in or on capacity development in international cooperation in the South.

For more information: [email protected]

Discover more research in action

Research to Action

The Global Guide to Research Impact

Social Media

Making your research accessible

The impact of research on development policy and practice: An introduction to a review of the literature

By Roger Harris 29/07/2013

I work as an academic, development practitioner and policy advisor in the area of Information and Communication Technologies for development (ICT4D) , and it has always puzzled me that research in this field has so little impact on policy and professional practice.  When I came across Research to Action, I suddenly felt at home.  The resources here have relevance for my work on a programme for Strengthening Information Society Research Capacity Alliance (SIRCA) * which is building the capacity of emerging Information Society researchers from the Global South. The programme focuses on linking research to practice and is preparing its second book around this theme for which I conducted a review of the literature ** on the impact of research on development policy and practice, summarised here, which would benefit from further input from this community.

Two issues leapt out of the pages right from the start.  Firstly, researchers and policy-makers operate with different values, languages, time-frames, reward systems and professional ties to such an extent that they live in separate worlds.  As a result, research-based evidence is often only a minor factor when policies for development are formulated and practices shaped, and too often new public policies are rolled out nationally with little trialling or evaluation.  Moreover, university researchers report structural barriers and disincentives to engaging in knowledge translation activities that might advise practice and policy formulation.  Secondly, impact is regarded differently by each community , with academics fretting over publications, citation counts and journal impact factors, while practitioners look for actionable advice that can be put to use for increasing the effectiveness of public services and policy.

Beyond these underlying issues, several themes emerge from the literature.  Researchers must have the intent to influence policy and practice for their results to do so.  Intent should be written into the research design, but in the absence of other aspects, it will have limited impact.   Communication is the most cited factor for achieving impact ; its various forms and processes, channels, timing and involvement pervading the literature and intermingling with the other themes. Significantly, communication is regarded as much more than a mere conference presentation and peer-reviewed publication. ICTs emerge as being instrumental for participant-driven production and communication of research as it unfolds; encompassing social media and other Web 2.0 tools, which, it seems, is at odds with the secretive nature of the research process.  Again, there are structural disincentives that inhibit academic engagement with these tools for the dissemination of research findings.

If researchers do not engage with wider impact processes, then intermediaries are seen as an alternative; either as individual communication specialists or institutions that take on this role.  Intermediaries can also help stimulate the demand for research findings among professionals who may be unaware of their availability or potential but who would be in a position to direct research capacity towards real-world problems in search of resolution. Researchers and/or intermediaries might develop into policy entrepreneurs ; people or institutions that invest time and resources to advance a position or policy.  This would involve engaging with the political context within which research might be conducted, repeatedly identified as a determining factor for whether research-based evidence is likely to be adopted by policy makers and practitioners.

Such engagement denotes the need for closer relationships between researchers and research users , requiring co-creation of content and greater involvement in the promotion of results.  Achieving this is only possible through active participation in networks, through which research findings and concepts circulate and are gradually filtered.  Think tanks, advocacy coalitions, policy streams, policy communities and national and regional networks are frequently cited as being important in this regard.

Finally, as a fundamental and decisive determinant of the factors that influence the impact of research on policy and practice, incentives stand out.  Researchers need to be rewarded for making the knowledge they generate accessible and useable by wider audiences and officials need to be more involved within knowledge transfer processes and further sensitised to the strength of evaluation and evidence that research can produce.

The literature review is targeted for publication in our book in early 2014, but in the spirit of achieving wider impact, the programme organisers and publishers need to consider further activities for increasing its relevance among the policy and practitioner communities.

*Funded by the International Development Research Centre of Canada and managed by the Singapore Internet Research Centre of Nanyang Technological University of Singapore; http://www.sirca.org.sg/ .

**Here is a link to my review notes used in the review: The Impact of Research on Development Policy and Practice: An Annotated Bibliography 

8 Responses to The impact of research on development policy and practice: An introduction to a review of the literature

Such engagement denotes the need for closer relationships between researchers and research users, requiring co-creation of content and greater involvement in the promotion of results

I fully agree with this statement because the literature on research use shows clearly that making evidence accessible to decision makers is necessary but sufficient to inform change. The evidence needs to be facilitated and placed in context. Co-created (between researchers and decision makers) evidence is the most robust form of evidence as it has both academic rigour and application to real world challenges. In our practice at York University (Toronto, Canada) our intermediary work focuses on making researchers/students (not research evidence) accessible to decision makers. We facilitate and support research collaborations that co-produce evidence that informs new services, polices and products for our partners.

Transferring and translating knowledge is needed….but facilitate that, place it in context and preferably co-create it in the first place

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this – really interesting synthesis of what you have found so far, and we would be very interested to receive a copy of your literature review, once its published. have you come across any data/research carried out on the differences around values (etc) and notions of impact, in your travels? IDS has done (and is still doing!) a lot of soul-searching around this area too. Some of our own humble contributions to the literature include:

“New Roles for Communication in Development?” (looks at a whole range of things including technology, demand for research, http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/new-roles-for-communication-in-development

“Action Research for Development and Social Change” http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/action-research-for-development-and-social-change

A couple of books we’ve also enjoyed reading include IDRC’s Fred Carden’s “Knowledge to Policy” and ODI’s Haryy Jones, Nicola Jones and Louise Shaxon’s “Knowledge, Policy and Power in Intenational Development” Look forward to reading more of your insights in this area.. Best, Emilie Wilson Communications Officer IDS

Thanks Emilie for your comments and for pointing me to these sources; couple of new ones for me. I’m always tracking IDS’ outputs as very useful sources for this work. Court and Young discuss values; Bridging research and policy in international development: an analytical and practical framework. Apart from your own publications on impact, there’s The Impact of Economic Policy Research. Ryan and Garrett, International Food Policy Research Institute. Oct 2003. Most of what I’ve found come from the grey literature, which I feel points to a problem in academia with less interest in impact beyond the publications and citations perspective. Need to work on this…

Hello Roger,

Your review is very interesting indeed. It seems increasingly necessary to take a broader look on what has been produced in the last few years in this field in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of what we know and what we don’t know. Linking research (ideas) and policy (politics) is surely a multi-faceted task, not least given the complexities and differences across regions.

At Politics & Ideas we have tackled this same challenge by preparing a Topic Guide divided into five sections (led by Emma Broadbent). It is a work in progress, so it would be great if you could take a look, make your suggestions and eventually add your own resources to our resource library.

http://www.politicsandideas.org/ideas-by-a-new-think-net/topic-guide-research-and-policy/

Thanks Tomás, I will certainly pick this up. Fyi, I’m working with your colleague Andrea Ordoñez, who is also preparing a chapter in our forthcoming book.

Dr Roger has hit with a very big hammer, seriously ICT4D researchers, policy makers, beneficiaries and practitioners have different view, opinion, demand and impact. To address this more engagement, advocacy, and think tank need to be encourage. In a recent research we conducted majority of beneficiary don’t even know the aim and objectives of an ICT4D intervention in Jigawa State, Nigeria like wise practitioners were not properly briefed about the project goals by the policy makers, what a disconnect. We realy need an active engagement to move ICT4D course forward!

The results of further research into the impact of research in the field of Information and Communications Technology for Development (ICT4D) can be found at “How ICT4D Research Fails the Poor” in Information Technology for Development; http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02681102.2015.1018115#.VRzC3DTQp8E

Thank you for the article.

Great blog that I enjoyed reading.

Contribute Write a blog post, post a job or event, recommend a resource

Partner with Us Are you an institution looking to increase your impact?

Most Recent Posts

• How can we achieve locally led practice in international development?
• Post-Doctoral Researcher, IDS – Deadline 30 April
• Ten guidelines for an effective research impact assessment
• How is the communication landscape changing?
• How to Drive Impact: Insights from the RDI Network

This Week's Most Read

• What do we mean by ‘impact’?
• How to write actionable policy recommendations
• 12ft Ladder: Making research accessible
• Outcome Mapping: A Basic Introduction
• Gap analysis for literature reviews and advancing useful knowledge
• How to develop input, activity, output, outcome and impact indicators 
• Stakeholder Engagement a Tool to Measure Public Policy
• Policymaker, policy maker, or policy-maker?
• Post-Doctoral Researcher, IDS – Deadline 30 April
• AEN Evidence 23 – Online Access Registration now open!

Research To Action (R2A) is a learning platform for anyone interested in maximising the impact of research and capturing evidence of impact.

The site publishes practical resources on a range of topics including research uptake, communications, policy influence and monitoring and evaluation. It captures the experiences of practitioners and researchers working on these topics and facilitates conversations between this global community through a range of social media platforms.

R2A is produced by a small editorial team, led by CommsConsult . We welcome suggestions for and contributions to the site.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Our contributors

Browse all authors

Friends and partners

• Global Development Network (GDN)
• Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
• International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
• On Think Tanks
• Politics & Ideas
• Research for Development (R4D)
• Research Impact

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 01 June 2020

Using Policy Labs as a process to bring evidence closer to public policymaking: a guide to one approach

• Saba Hinrichs-Krapels   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9043-8847 1 ,
• Jocelyn Bailey 2 ,
• Harriet Boulding 1 ,
• Bobby Duffy 1 ,
• Rachel Hesketh 1 ,
• Emma Kinloch 1 ,
• Alexandra Pollitt 1 ,
• Sarah Rawlings 1 ,
• Armida van Rij 1 ,
• Benedict Wilkinson 1 ,
• Ross Pow 3 &
• Jonathan Grant 1  

Palgrave Communications volume  6 , Article number:  101 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

15k Accesses

18 Citations

48 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Politics and international relations
• Social policy

While robust evidence is one ingredient in the policymaking process, it is by no means the only one. Engaging with policymakers and the policymaking process requires collaborative working models, navigating through the experiences, values and perspectives of policymakers and other stakeholders, as well as communicating evidence in an accessible manner. As a response to these requirements, over recent years there has been proliferation of activities that engage producers of evidence (specifically, academics), policymakers, practitioners, and the public in policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. In this article, we describe one engagement approach for facilitating research evidence uptake into policy and practice—an activity called a ‘Policy Lab’—as conducted by the team at The Policy Institute at King’s College London on numerous policy challenges over the past four years. Drawing on our experience in running 15 Policy Labs between January 2015 and September 2019, we (a) provide a guide to how we have run Policy Labs, while sharing our learning on what has worked best in conducting them and (b) demonstrate how these labs can contribute to bringing evidence closer to policymaking, by comparing their characteristics to enablers for doing so identified in the literature. While this approach to Policy Labs is not the only one of its kind, we suggest that these types of Labs manifest characteristics identified in previous studies for influencing the policymaking process; namely: providing a forum for open, honest conversations around a policy topic; creating new networks, collaborations and partnerships between academics and policymakers; synthesising available evidence on a policy topic in a robust and accessible format; and providing timely access to evidence relevant to a policy issue. We recognise the limitations of measuring and evaluating how these Labs change policy in the long-term and recommend viewing the Policy Lab as part of a process for engaging evidence and policymaking and not an isolated activity. This process serves to build a coalition through participation of diverse communities (thereby establishing ‘trust’), work on the language and presentation of evidence (thereby enabling effective ‘translation’ of evidence) and engage policymakers early to respond when policy windows emerge (thereby taking into account ‘timing’ for creating policy action).

Similar content being viewed by others

Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice

Process expertise in policy advice: Designing collaboration in collaboration

The evidence ecosystem in south africa: growing resilience and institutionalisation of evidence use, introduction.

The challenges of bringing research evidence into public policymaking have been discussed extensively in previous literature, much of which has been included in this article series ‘The politics of evidence-based policymaking: Maximising the use of evidence in policy’ Footnote 1 . What is evident from these studies is a common understanding that policymaking requires much more than the presentation of evidence, no matter how robust and convincing it is. Over recent years there has been proliferation of activities that engage producers of evidence (specifically, academics), policymakers, practitioners and the public in the policymaking process. In this article, we focus on one engagement approach for facilitating research evidence uptake into policy and practice: Policy Labs. The term ‘Policy Lab’ can refer to different things: they can range from established teams (or organisations or institutes) set up specifically for innovative activities for public policymaking, to physical spaces set up for the purpose of conducting workshops or activities for policymaking. These teams, spaces and/or activities are referred to by terms that include ‘public innovation lab’, ‘public sector innovation lab’, ‘government innovation lab’, ‘organisational innovation lab’, ‘policy innovation lab’, ‘innovation lab’, ‘public policy lab’, ‘social innovation lab’, ‘systems change lab’, ‘living lab’, ‘design lab’, and simply ‘policy lab’. We have mapped these different types of Policy Labs, networks and institutes elsewhere and do not report on those here. (Bailey et al., 2020 )

Aim and approach

In this article we make clear that we are referring to a Policy Lab as an activity and/or process, not an established institute/team nor a physical space for innovative activities. Our aim is to (a) provide a guide to how we have run Policy Labs (a total of 15 between January 2015 and September 2019), while sharing our learning on what has worked best and (b) demonstrate how these labs can contribute to bringing evidence closer to policymaking, by comparing their characteristics to enablers for doing so identified in the literature. For the purposes of this article, we are writing as practitioners who run these formats of Policy Labs (along with other similar engagement activities) and base our reflections on key studies previously published in this area.

Literature: enablers to bringing evidence closer to policymaking

While barriers to the uptake of expertise and analysis in policymaking had already been identified in the 1970s (Weiss, 1979 ; Caplan, 1979 ), a number of recent studies have identified ways of overcoming these barriers. In this article we make no attempt to systematically review the literature on this topic, as this has been done comprehensively by other scholars. Our aim is to highlight key enablers to bringing evidence to policymaking that have already been identified in these studies. We focus particularly on two related systematic reviews due to their comprehensive coverage on the subject of bringing evidence closer to policymaking. The first systematic review by Oliver et al. ( 2014 ) reviewed academic literature to identify barriers and enablers affecting the use of evidence in all areas of public policy (an update to a previous review by Innvaer et al. ( 2002 )); and the second systematic review from Oliver and Cairney ( 2019 ) identified ‘how-to’ advice for academics to get their evidence into policy, across both academic and non-academic literature.

We summarise these enablers in Table 1 , where we have grouped them into three guiding principles that have served us in understanding our contributions to improving the evidence-to-policy divide: Trust, Translation and Timing.

The first set of enablers centre around the principle of ‘trust’; effectively acknowledging the need for better interactions between producers of evidence (in this case, academics) and their consumers (policymakers). Both reviews strongly emphasise the importance of establishing collaborations and good relationships between academics and policymakers. As remarked in one of our blogs, policymaking is messy, iterative and little understood, just like sausage- and law-making (Grant and Wilkinson, 2014 ). Values, experience, culture, public perception and emotions—all of these are at play when any individual makes decisions, including policymakers seeking the use of evidence (Davies, 2015 ). A recent European Commission Joint Research Centre report highlighted the need to defend the role of evidence in policy, while recognising the complex values and beliefs which permeate our framing and decision-making (Mair et al., 2019 ). As a response to these challenges, some studies have pointed to the use of more collaborative working models, whereby policy-makers are engaged in the research early on, rather than merely viewed as consumers of the evidence (Nutley et al., 2002 ). Universities and institutes are also establishing policy institutes, networks and activities that bring evidence and policymaking closer together (Sasse and Haddon, 2018 , 2019 ; Walker et al., 2019 ). These academic institutions are engaging in what has been described as ‘policy brokerage’, a university-driven knowledge exchange activity that ‘operates at the intersection between academia, policy and societal impact’ Footnote 2 . Part of the approaches these networks and institutes employ are to co-design, which have been described by Oliver and Cairney ( 2019 ) as ‘widely held to be morally, ethically, and practically one of the best ways to… getting evidence into policy’ especially in some opinion, practitioner-based accounts, while having more collaborations generally between academics and policymakers was identified as one of the main enablers for bringing evidence into policymaking in academic literature (Oliver et al., 2014 ). ‘Trust’ can also refer to retaining integrity in the production of evidence; ensuring academics produce ‘high-quality research’ (Oliver and Cairney, 2019 ; Boyd, 2013 ; Whitty, 2015 ; Docquier, 2017 ) and are ‘explicit about methodologies, limitations and weaknesses’ (Whitty, 2015 ).

By ‘translation’ we refer to the importance of communication between academics and policymakers (Feldman et al., 2001 ); the ability to translate academic research into accessible and relevant messages, or to make research ‘relevant and readable’ (Oliver and Cairney, 2019 ). The policymaking process involves people who have to take decisions under often time-constrained, pressured circumstances—and making sense of evidence can be challenging under any circumstances. Mayne et al. ( 2018 ) rightly point out that no policymaker can consider all evidence relevant to decisions, as there is more information available than any individual or governing organisation could process. Knowing how to choose the appropriate type of evidence for making policy and practitioner decisions is difficult, which is where systematic reviews are useful, and why guidance exists for understanding what counts as good evidence as well as how to decide how to use it (Nutley et al., 2013 ). In a review of strategies to increase the uptake of evidence in health policy, Moore et al. ( 2009 ) found that the context of the research is also important: presenting the research in such a way that demonstrates its applicability to the specific circumstance at hand, also referred to as finding ‘relevance’ for the evidence in Cartwright and Hardy’s ( 2012 ) guide for evidence-based policy. A helpful reflective editorial piece from a previous UK Chief Scientific Adviser on what makes a paper useful for (health) policy stresses the importance of writing papers that are rigorous in their methods but written in clear, simple form with a clear connection to a policy problem (Whitty, 2015 ). According to Davies ( 2015 ), a consistent finding from the research utilisation literature is that research and evaluation reports are often seen as inaccessible to decision-makers. The study by Lavis et al. ( 2005 ) on improving the usefulness of systematic reviews for health care managers and policymakers recommends a ‘graded-entry’ presentation of evidence (e.g., one page of take-home messages, a three-page executive summary and a 25-page report).

Finally, while making sense of available evidence and relationship building is important, ‘time’ is an important factor. Policymaking takes place in an unpredictable environment with many policymakers and influencers interacting at many levels and types of government (Mayne et al., 2018 ). The classic ‘policy window’ described by Kingdon ( 1984 ) is a way of highlighting the importance of policy, politics and problems colliding at the right time for policymaking to take action. Oliver and Cairney ( 2019 ) point out the need to be ‘accessible’ to policymakers—while they mainly refer to the need to engage ‘routinely and humbly’, this regular accessibility is what can then enable the research to reach the policymaker at the right time. The continuous challenge for researchers, as described by Davies ( 2015 ), is to ‘identify the best available evidence in the time frame in which decisions have to be taken, whilst also developing a more robust evidence base for future policy-making in the medium to longer term’.

The development of our version of Policy Labs were a direct response to these challenges and enablers. Conceptualised not as a standalone event, but as a process of engagement, the labs involve building a coalition through participation of diverse communities (thereby establishing ‘trust’), working on the language and presentation of evidence (thereby enabling effective ‘translation’) and engaging policymakers early to respond when policy windows emerge (thereby taking into account ‘timing’ for creating policy action). In the next section we describe our approach and learning from this process.

Reporting on our experience: 8-step guide to running Policy Labs

We ran a total of 15 Policy Labs between January 2015 and September 2019 (see Box 1 for selected examples), which involve the following eight steps. Our intention in this brief description is not to give a full outline of what occurs within a lab, as this can vary for each project, but to provide a general description of the types of steps involved.

1. Set aside time for planning

Considerable work and preparation go into Policy Labs (roughly between 20 and 40 days of staff time, spread out across a team), as each lab demands a bespoke design that is appropriate to the topic, context and invited participants’ views. It is easy to underestimate how much thought is required to identify the right question or topic to be addressed at the lab. This resonates with the experience of initiatives adopting ‘design thinking’ for public services; emphasising that to frame the (policy) problem correctly from the start is ‘a pre-condition for the effective unfolding of the phases of policy formulation, development, adoption and implementation’ (Allio, 2014 ). Typically, this stage has involved anything from 5 to 10 hours of consultations with the research and Policy Lab preparation team. Crucially, the preparation stage involves having a good understanding of the key areas of evidence, gaps in knowledge and potentially sources of contention from anticipated discussions.

2. Establish the need and purpose of the Policy Lab

Our Policy Lab model tackles issues at any stage of the policymaking process: questions can address policy problem identification, policy formulation, implementation or evaluation of policies, or any of the steps in between these stages (see Fig. 1 for examples). The issue to be tackled at the Policy Lab is dependent on the stage of development of the particular public policy area and whether there is existing evidence to support this stage. For ‘earlier stage’ policy formulation labs (i.e., at agenda setting, Cairney, 2016 , p. 17, or policy formulation stage), the lab may demonstrate that current evidence is not yet available for establishing a policy agenda, in which case the result may be to establish a research and future policy agenda. The Policy Lab in this case serves to explore a nascent, potentially controversial idea that has not yet been researched thoroughly and lacks a robust evidence base, but builds on similar evidence perhaps in another policy or sector scenario. An example of this is the Policy Lab on ‘Positioning the UK within the global research landscape’ (Box 1 ), which explored scenarios for how the UK university sector’s international relationships could change on departure from the European Union. If some evidence is readily available on what approaches could work in particular settings, the lab may serve to formulate options for policy design and plan for future policy evaluation. If evidence is available and policy has already been formulated but is struggling to be implemented, the lab can serve to identify barriers and facilitators to uptake, such as the lab on diabetes (Box 1 ). In this diabetes Policy Lab example, advice on including bariatric surgery as a treatment option for Type 2 diabetes already existed in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines; however, challenges persisted in relation to the uptake of bariatric surgery among patient populations whom it could benefit. The Policy Lab helped unpack the reasons behind these challenges and examine potential routes for improved adoption and implementation of the NICE guidelines. Finally, if the lab is exploring a policy that is already being trialled and implemented, but not formally evaluated, the lab may serve to take a step back and explore evaluation options.

These are examples of the types of questions that can be addressed in a Policy Lab, corresponding to different actvities within policymaking, such as identification of policy issues, formulating policies, implementation, and the evaluation of policies.

The need for a lab is sometimes driven by a fellow researcher identifying a requirement to explore the implications for their potential research project/programme in changing public policy and/or practice (i.e., a ‘push’ for policymaking). In other instances, policymakers identify an issue that would benefit from an in-depth interrogation of the evidence from the perspectives of a range of stakeholders, as well as the resulting fresh ideas that this might generate (i.e., a ‘pull’ from policymakers). The nature of what they wish to achieve can lie anywhere along an exploration-formulation-implementation spectrum.

3. Select and invite participants

Participant selection depends on the types of questions that will be addressed and the stage of policymaking that the lab will address (Fig. 1 ). For example, a lab that exists to explore options for future policy implementation may require high-level government ministers, as well as implementers who can identify barriers and facilitators to change in practice. In many cases it is important to include those groups whom the policy or practice is designed to benefit, i.e., the end-users and/or beneficiaries, who may have the most direct experience of the effects of current practice and insights into failures and successes.

Key to the success of many labs has been to sympathise, understand and engage with the participants that are present—recognising their mix of perspectives, expertise and the values they bring to the table. This may mean inviting people who are assumed to have opposing views on the topic to be discussed (for example, those who might be expected to be particularly resistant to a change in policy or practice), and using the Policy Lab as a forum to consider different points of view, which may shed light on barriers to implement changes. At times, the people sitting in the room are those that create or present barriers to change, and may be persuaded to shift their perspectives as a result of the discussions. Ideological beliefs may harm progress during the lab (but is sometimes inevitable) and it is helpful when participants are able to recognise the value of evidence and engage with ideas other than their own views. Ultimately, the Policy Lab brings people together to engage with the evidence and listen to each other, thereby building a coalition of understanding, which may encourage taking action following the lab.

4. Synthesise and communicate the evidence

Whilst perspectives, values and experiences are at play when making decisions, our vision is to bring evidence (if available) closer to policymaking. For that to happen effectively, we cannot rely on traditional academic presentations of evidence or long, inaccessible papers. We send all participants a ‘briefing pack’ in advance that serves two purposes: (i) to make it easier for participants to work through all available evidence and data on the topic in advance, and (ii) to ensure that everyone has been exposed to the same information for discussions to be based on a common knowledge base. The pack includes, for example, the latest evidence on the topic, examples of current practice in the field, examples of good practice internationally and preliminary findings from research that is currently taking place. With the exception of one lab (the diabetes Policy Lab, Box 1 ), there was no existing systematic collection of evidence that comprehensively covered the full scope of the topic to be discussed, and so careful thinking and discernment comes into selecting the type of evidence to ensure there is a balance of perspectives. Only studies of strong quality are included; if systematic reviews or other forms of peer-reviewed syntheses already exist on a topic, these findings are prioritised and summarised succinctly. The art of the briefing pack is in identifying the point at which the existing evidence becomes ambiguous, insufficient or where there is substantial disagreement. It aims to set out in an accessible way the widely accepted evidence base, ensuring that participants arrive for the lab with an agreed understanding of the issue, while leaving disagreements and evidence gaps to be tackled during the lab itself. A fine balance is needed between over-simplification and too much technical detail.

5. Plan agenda and facilitation

The length of a Policy Lab can vary. In the Dentistry Policy Lab example (Box 1 ), we invited guests from other countries and provided accommodation for one night, to continue the meeting the next day. This also allowed for further informal discussions to take place in the evenings, as well as some time for thinking to evolve before the second session. Our lab on diabetes (Box 1 ) was attached to an existing conference and was slotted in as a 4-h event in an evening, with presentations given to a wider conference audience the next morning. Other labs have typically lasted a full (6-h) day, long enough that nothing else can be scheduled that day and short enough to allow for travel requirements and concentration levels on the day. Essentially the timing will depend on the anticipated dynamics of the group and how to keep everyone focussed; too short, and there may not be time for ample discussion; too long, and participants can lose concentration and discussion can become circular.

In order to navigate through differences in views and keep the group dynamics, it is important to choose the right facilitator, especially one familiar with participatory decision-making (Kaner, 2014 ). They need not be an expert in the topic discussed but should have the skills and expertise in engaging people, sympathising with their views and moving the discussions forward in a productive manner. We often invited an external facilitator and ensured they were heavily involved in the design of the lab and the identification of the topics for discussion. For some Policy Labs, especially those in other countries, we are mindful of the need to be culturally sensitive when choosing a facilitator to ensure participants are at ease and engaged, taking into account language, gender, age and profession.

6. Conduct the Policy Lab

The lab itself can take on different forms, but generally starts with a welcome and presentations based on the information that was sent out in the briefing back. It is important to establish that this is a safe space to share divergent ideas and encourage active, transparent and creative participation. Although the briefing pack should attempt to be clear, unambiguous, and avoid jargon, this is also a good time to allow participants to provide some feedback on what was missing or anything with which they disagreed. This allows the meeting to start with everyone having had time to express their views and agree on some common ground before starting the discussions.

The rest of the lab generally involves a combination of break-out and plenary sessions, exploring key questions for the topic, prioritising ideas and reaching consensus, if appropriate. For example, the questions might include: ‘Is the evidence compelling or is more research needed to scale up this intervention?’ ‘What are the barriers to further implementation?’ ‘How can these barriers be overcome?’ ‘What is the best set of ‘ingredients’ to deliver the goals under different possible futures?’. We have used a combination of techniques in these break-out sessions, including incorporating competitive games for a promising idea, or the use of basic props such as arts materials (as inspired by the Cabinet Office Policy Lab, Kimbell, 2015 ). Some of our labs have drawn on a ‘diamond’ approach (Kaner, 2014 ) to the session: questions and discussions are initially encouraged to broaden thinking (welcoming new ideas on a topic, ignoring any constraints and, encouraging open creativity), and the second part of the session involves narrowing down and focussing on more practical, realistic and implementable steps forward. Alternatively, the lab can follow something similar to the Situation-Complication-Question process devised by Minto ( 2009 ): First the status quo or accepted ‘situation’ is presented, followed by a known problem or ‘complication’ to that situation, which seeks to build a consensus with those in the room, and to then find a suitable ‘question’ that can address that complication, which will drive the Policy Lab discussions.

7. Report the results

These labs tend to generate a large volume of ideas in a short space of time, so it is important to have a systematic way to capture and distil the key messages that will best take forward the proposed policy/practice change. Participants have often commented on their surprise by both the breadth and the depth of the insights obtained. Results from these discussions are summarised in a format that is accessible to a non-academic audience, such as a policy briefing or pamphlet (Fig. 2 ), but may also result in a journal article (Rubin et al., 2016 ). The format of the report needs to support the engagement and advocacy requirements following the lab: the dental labs (Box 1 ) were a good example of this, as they combined an immediate one-page infographic (Fig. 2) that enables fast follow-up with key stakeholders with an accompanying structured report that was produced later and was timed to target decision-makers and key influencers at a particular point in time (i.e., a major conference)—an approach similar to the ‘graded-entry’ alluded to earlier (Lavis et al., 2005 ).

The figure on the left is the front cover of the final report for a policy lab on addressing bullying; the figure on the right is a summary infographic from the policy lab on re-allocating resources for tackling caries prevention.

8. Create and support the new coalition

While we have so far discussed the of the lab in terms of the level of engagement and facilitation on the day, it is the long-term outcomes that are particularly important in the context of bringing evidence closer to, and improving the effectiveness of, policymaking. Here, realism is key: policymaking is beyond our control and beyond the control of a single lab. Actions after the Policy Lab will depend on the participants themselves and the outcomes and/or agreements made during the meeting. For example, briefing documents or pamphlets summarising key recommendations from the lab are printed and distributed, used for advocacy purposes and follow-up meetings are planned to continue and consolidate plans for policy action (e.g., formulation or implementation plans). Here, we found that finding one person or team to champion an idea or agenda can be helpful. Another way to ensure ongoing work is to ask for pledges from the participants for the coming 6–12 months and plan to reconvene after this time to discuss progress. Alternatively, a commitment is made for a change or action by the participants (e.g., to change regulations or policy documentation on an issue). Resource constraints have sometimes limited our own team’s ability to engage beyond the briefing document sent after the day, so an agreed commitment from collaborators to continue the work can help devise an informed and targeted advocacy, communications and engagement strategy for follow-up. Having engaged in co-creation (Bason, 2010 ) of the lab’s outcomes through their engagement on the day, it is important to empower the participants to feel ownership of the outcomes and therefore become its advocates.

Box 1. Examples of Policy Labs conducted by the Policy Institute, King’s College London. Unless otherwise stated, the outcomes are based on our own reflections

Policy Lab: The role of metabolic/bariatric surgery as a treatment option for type 2 diabetes (September 2015)

Topic: The lab aimed to identify practical and conceptual barriers to the use, where appropriate, of bariatric surgery for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It was motivated by a desire to better understand how to engage policymakers in a discussion about the effective use of metabolic surgical resources in conjunction with other interventions in good diabetes practice.

Participants: Twenty-six including academics, clinicians, policymakers, industry leaders and patient representatives

Length: 4 h

Report: Journal article

Outcomes : The lab helped to crystallise existing thinking on the role of bariatric surgery in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, especially for patients of higher BMI. Our synthesis of the lab’s findings was presented to attendees of the World Congress on Interventional Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes, drawing special attention to articulating the barriers that needed to be overcome to include the option of bariatric surgery within the range of treatments for type 2 diabetes. Subsequently, although we cannot claim our contribution to this process, the NICE diabetes guidelines were updated in 2018 to include a link to the obesity guidelines to recommend bariatric surgery as an option for type 2 diabetes patients of higher BMIs (NICE guidelines, 2015 ).

Policy Lab: Towards a Cavity-free future (July 2017)

Topic: Driven by the Alliance for a Cavity-free Future (ACFF), this lab addressed the question of how to increase resource allocation for caries prevention and control. Despite the evidence and desire for change among many health professionals, caries prevention is not prioritised globally and there are financial, regulatory and cultural shifts needed.

Participants: Twenty-five including academics, Chief Dental Officers, Public Health groups, the British Dental Association and representatives from across all faces of dentistry.

Length: 1.5 days (an afternoon session and informal dinner, followed by close to a full day)

Report(s): Summary report (Pitts et al., 2017 ) and 1-page infographic used for immediate dissemination

Outcomes : The summary report provided focussed evidence on why caries is a problem with associated solutions, while the infographic served an advocacy document at a worldwide congress held shortly after the lab. Attendees committed to taking the Policy Lab messages to practitioners, patients and industry globally. It was resolved by the group that a useful next step would be to find a way to demonstrate the monetary value of a cavity- free future, and to look into ways to promote models for prevention focused payment systems for dentists, better equipping the dental and related health workforces to deliver effective caries prevention and management. This led to a follow-up Policy Lab a year later focussing on paying for health in dentistry, which had more tangible outcomes, such as: a sub-group formed with the Wales Chief Dental Officer to work with the Welsh Government to draw up plans for implementation of a new local payment system pilot for dentistry; the production of a ‘CariesCare Practice Guide’ with the British Dental Journal to advance the concepts recommended by the Policy Lab; and the payment models implemented as a trial for a new payment system in France.

Policy Lab: Positioning the UK within the global research landscape (March 2017)

Topic: This Policy Lab sought to explore the UK’s place in the global research landscape in a range of possible futures, varying in terms of access to resources/infrastructure and access to skills/talent.

Participants: c20 policymakers, professional bodies, universities, research funders, researchers

Length: 1 full day, 10:00–16:00

Report: Policy brief (with briefing pack as an online annex), Op-ed

Outcomes : The policy brief was used for advocacy purposes by professional bodies that represented the UK university sector. It also influenced internal policy within King’s College London and built relationships among participants for further work and advocacy activities.

Policy Lab: The future of the Mental Health Act Policy Lab (November 2017)

Topic: The lab aimed to support the independent review of the Mental Health Act by considering the approaches the review could take to progressing six key ‘areas of tension’.

Participants: c22 policymakers, researchers, service user representatives, legal practitioners and clinicians

Length: 1 full day

Report(s): Report (Owen et al., 2018 ) and Policy brief (Stephenson et al., 2019 ); small launch event for participants to discuss the findings with other key invited guests; follow-on evidence session in the House of Lords to further discuss particular proposals around ‘advance choice’ documents (one of the key areas highlighted by participants during the lab).

Outcomes : The independent review team found the outputs of the lab useful and cited the policy brief in the published review. It also influenced ongoing work to implement ‘advance choice’ documents in mental health care.

Discussion: the role of Policy Labs as a process to bring evidence to policymaking

The Policy Labs described in this article were designed as a response to a need to bring evidence and policymaking closer together, while acknowledging that academic evidence is only one ingredient in the policymaking process. Our underlying assumption with these activities is that policymaking can be improved through access to the latest research, thinking and evidence (playing the role of ‘policy brokerage’ alluded to earlier), but also through innovative approaches, tools, methods, practices and interactive spaces to bring different stakeholders together. Some of the approaches we adopt directly respond to the enablers identified in the literature for bringing evidence closer to policymaking. In this section we refer to steps 1–8 outlined in the previous section and summarise three ways in which these Policy Lab activities manifest the characteristics of these enablers: (i) creating new networks; collaborations and partnerships between academics and policymakers; (ii) synthesising available evidence on a policy topic in a robust and accessible format; and (iii) providing timely access to evidence relevant to a policy issue.

Networks, collaborations and partnerships between academics and policymakers. Summarised under our theme of ‘trust’, both academic and non-academic literature points to the importance of building trusted relationships between academics and policymakers, as well as co-designing and collaborating on policy problems (Oliver et al., 2014 ; Oliver and Cairney, 2019 ). The lab is designed to deliberately bring together people with opposing views and different perspectives on a topic, in order to openly discuss solutions and thereby connecting them in a common goal ( step 3 ). By co-creating ideas, they jointly become advocates for the lab outcomes and new, trusted relationships are built ( step 8 ). It has also been recommended for academics to get to know the policymaking process and policymakers (Tyler, 2017 ). In many cases, these labs have given academics an opportunity to realise that the evidence presented, while ‘correct’ in terms of academic integrity, may not always be appropriate due to political, resource and/or budget constraints (addressed in the discussions on barriers and facilitators in step 6 ). The discussions give both the producers of evidence and those with policy decision-making powers an opportunity to consider which constraints are binding and which are more malleable, to co-design solutions that can work in practice. They also help connect researchers’ work into the wider policy landscape, hence magnifying their awareness of how their work fits into potentially other sectors and public policy areas. Moreover, the spirit with which the labs are conducted are of transparency, openness, willingness to learn and critically examining the evidence, with the unifying goal of solving the public policy issue. This can be moderated with the appropriate mix of activities and facilitation ( step 5 ), and ensuring participants understand this is a ‘safe space’ to share divergent ideas ( step 6 ).

Robust and accessible synthesis of available evidence on a policy topic. A second set of enablers in previous literature pointed to the need to ‘translate’ academic research or to make research ‘relevant and readable’ (Oliver and Cairney, 2019 ) and increase the clarity, relevance and reliability of research (Oliver et al., 2014 ). For these Policy Labs, great effort is placed upon creating a well-synthesised briefing pack ( step 4 ) that outlines strengths and weaknesses in available evidence on the policy topic, and a message-driven final report ( step 7 ) designed support the engagement and advocacy requirements following the lab. Studies have shown that there is little consensus on what counts as good evidence among policymakers (see for example, Oliver and de Vocht, 2015 and Nutley et al., 2013 ). As described by Oliver and Cairney ( 2019 ), its ‘credibility, legitimacy and usefulness’ is gathered through its connections to individuals’ networks and topical issues (Boaz et al., 2015 ; Oliver and Faul, 2018 ). This reinforces the importance of creating a forum and a process for engagement with evidence by both policymakers and academics, to unpack its strengths and weaknesses and advance the gaps in evidence that are relevant for policymaking, which the Policy Lab approach is designed to do. Academics leave with a better understanding of how and whether further evidence is needed on a topic, while policymakers and practitioners leave with a better understanding of whether and how the available evidence can be used to make the next policy and practice decisions.

Timely access to evidence relevant to a policy issue. Given the differences in timing for academic writing and policy decisions, ‘timing’ has been identified as an inevitable barrier in bringing evidence closer to policymaking (Oliver et al., 2014 ). The Policy Lab was deliberately designed to be flexible—to contribute to imminent policy decisions, as well as developing ideas for future policymaking. From the content of the briefing pack ( step 4 ), to selection of participants ( step 3 ) and focus of discussions on the day ( step 6) , each Policy Lab is strictly focussed on the policy issue to be discussed and the concerns of those invited. This gives policymakers an opportunity to engage with evidence early and allows them to respond when the window for taking action may occur (if it is not already within the bounds of the lab itself).

Our approach to Policy Labs may not be the only one of its kind, but we offer this guide as an illustration of how they can be a way of bringing evidence closer to policymaking, especially if they are conducted with the above three characteristics. To do this effectively, however, requires a great deal of flexibility so that the Policy Lab can be used in any stage of the policymaking cycle (from agenda setting to implementation and evaluation).

We are aware of challenges in measuring Policy Labs’ longer-term outcomes beyond the immediate benefits of responding to barriers of bringing evidence closer to policymakers. It can be challenging to secure the resources needed (e.g., in terms of staff time) to follow-up on specific outcomes that may have been influenced in a policymaking impact pathway. Policymaking also remains messy and complicated, and corroborating how one particular lab or interactive workshop has nudged a decision in a particular direction is difficult in the absence of documented evidence of such an impact. To our knowledge, two of the 15 Policy Labs conducted have influenced a policy decision (Box 1 ), which we can track through citations of our Policy Lab reports. We also know of conversations and further meetings that have taken place after the Policy Labs, which were a result of bringing people together in a lab setting—highlighting the importance of being proactive in creating follow-up activities. Beyond these engagements we recognise the limitations of these Policy Labs in being able to change policy themselves. The likelihood of impact can be magnified if the lab is part of a wider process of policy development that is already happening (i.e., getting ‘timing’ right), which was the case in the contribution to the review of the Mental Health Act (Box 1 ).

With that in mind, we feel it is important to view Policy Labs not as standalone events but as part of a long-term process of engagement between academics and policymakers, which may later contribute to more effective policymaking as a future outcome. A historical and conceptual account of the policy innovation lab by Williamson ( 2015 ) describes labs as ‘combining elements of the work of think tanks, designers, political and social scientific research’, which resonates with the approach we have described. Specifically, we have alluded to elements of design thinking throughout the description of these labs, which advocates the bringing together of diverse stakeholders in co-creation (Bason, 2010 ) and co-design. As in other similar design approaches, the participants in our labs play a ‘responsible, active and constructive role in shaping decisions’ and are not passive receivers of public policy decisions (Allio, 2014 ).

Conclusions

Engaging with policymakers and the policymaking process requires collaborative working models, navigating through the experiences, values and perspectives of policymakers and other stakeholders, and communicating evidence in an accessible manner. These Policy Labs we have held were designed with a recognition that policymaking involves much more than just evidence, and provides a space in which the values, emotions, experiences and perceptions of different stakeholders are expressed and exploited, alongside evidence. The labs seek to draw out a wide range of perspectives and views to ensure that options and ideas are challenged and deliberated. The process includes preparatory work such as mapping of policies, plans, resources and regulations; monitoring policy contents, contexts, actors and processes; and identifying barriers and enablers of change. This process culminates in one or more collaborative workshops bringing together diverse stakeholders (the wider community of policy and practice) around a particular challenge to engage with the evidence, listen to each other, understand barriers and constraints, and co-develop new ideas and approaches to improve outcomes.

While this approach to Policy Labs is not the only one of its kind, we suggest that these types of labs manifest characteristics identified in previous studies for influencing the policymaking process; including creating new networks, collaborations and partnerships between academics and policymakers; synthesising available evidence on a policy topic in a robust and accessible format; and providing timely access to evidence relevant to a policy issue.

We recognise the limitations of measuring and evaluating how these labs change policy in the long-term and recommend to view the Policy Lab not as an isolated activity but as part of a process for engaging producers of evidence (academics) and their consumers (policymakers), with a view to bringing evidence closer to policymaking in the long-term. Specifically, the Policy Lab process is designed to build a coalition through participation of diverse communities (thereby establishing ‘trust’), work on the language and presentation of evidence (thereby enabling effective ‘translation’ of evidence) and engage policymakers early to respond when policy windows emerge (thereby taking into account ‘timing’ for creating policy action).

Beyond tracking whether or not these Policy Labs have influenced change in individual policy decisions, we are also conscious of our broader aim to contribute to a culture shift in the way policymaking occurs and feel we are making a contribution in this space. We welcome comments and feedback from others reading this article who have tried similar approaches to share learning and contribute to the pool of approaches to improved policymaking.

Data availability

All datasets analysed are included in the paper.

Palgrave Communications . The Politics of Evidence-based Policymaking: Maximising the Use of Evidence in Policy. Editor: Professor Paul Cairney.

Taken from the description of a mapping project of policy brokerage functions undertaken in 2018 by Sarah Chaytor and Dr. Olivia Stevenson at UCL, and Professor James Wilsdon, Dr. Jasper Montana and Natalie Day at the University of Sheffield

Allio L (2014) Design thinking for public service excellence. UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence. Available at: https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/capacity-building/global-centre-for-public-service-excellence/DesignThinking.html . Accessed 30 Apr 2020

Bailey J, Hinrichs-Krapels S, Pollitt A, Duffy B (2019) Policy and Innovation Lab Landscape Review. Technical Internal Document. The Policy Institute, King’s College London

Bason C (2010) Leading public sector innovation: co-creating for a better society. Policy press

Boaz A, Locock L, Ward V (2015) Whose evidence is it anyway? Evidence and policy. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426515X14313738355534

Boyd I (2013) Research: a standard for policy-relevant science. Nature 501(7466):159–160. https://doi.org/10.1038/501159a

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cairney P (2016) The politics of evidence-based policy making. Springer

Caplan N (1979) The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Scientist 22(3):459–470

Article   Google Scholar  

Cartwright N, Hardie J (2012) Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford University Press

Davies P (2015) Getting evidence into policy and practice. J Dev Effectiveness 7(4):393–401

Google Scholar  

Docquier D (2017) Communicating your research to policy makers and journalists–Author Services: Support Taylor and Francis Authors. Available at: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/communicating-science-to-policymakers-and-journalists . Accessed 30 Apr 2020

Feldman PH, Nadash P, Gursen M (2001) Improving communication between researchers and policy makers in long-term care: or, researchers are from Mars; policy makers are from Venus. Gerontologist 41(3):312–321

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Grant J, Wilkinson B (2014) Sausages, evidence and the messiness of policymaking (Blog). In Policy Wonkers. Available at: https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/policywonkers/tag/evidence-based-policy . Accessed 30 Apr 2020

Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A (2002) Health policymakers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 7:239–244

Kaner S (2014) Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making. John Wiley & Sons

Kimbell L (2015) Applying design approaches to policy making: discovering Policy Lab. University of Brighton

Kingdon J (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies New York: Harper Collins

Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis J-L, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E (2005) Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 10(suppl 1):35–48. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308549

Mair D, Smillie L, La Placa G, Schwendinger F, Raykovska M, Pasztor Z, van Bavel R (2019) Understanding our political nature: How to put knowledge and reason at the heart of political decision-making. EUR 29783 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

Mayne R, Green D, Guijt I, Walsh M, English R, Cairney P (2018) Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience. Palgrave Commun 4(1):122

Minto B (2009) The pyramid principle: logic in writing and thinking. Pearson Education

Moore G, Todd A, Redman S (2009) Strategies to increase the use of evidence from research in population health policy and programs: a rapid review. NSW Health. Available at: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/research/Documents/10-strategies-to-increase-research-use.pdf . Accessed 30 Apr 2020

NICE guidelines (2015) Type 2 diabetes in adults: management NICE guideline [NG28], National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Published date: December 2015 Last updated: Aug 2019

Nutley S, Davies H, Walter I (2002) Evidence based policy and practice: Cross sector lessons from the UK. ESRC UK Centre for evidence based policy and practice: working paper, 9. Available at: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/cep/pubs/papers/assets/wp9b.pdf . Accessed 30 Apr 2020

Nutley SM, Powell AE, Davies HTO (2013) What counts as good evidence? Alliance for useful evidence. Available at: https://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/publication/what-counts-as-good-evidence-february-2013 . Accessed 30 Apr 2020

Oliver K, Faul MV (2018) Networks and network analysis in evidence, policy and practice. Evid Policy 14(3):369–379. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426418X15314037224597

Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC health Serv Res 14(1):2

Oliver K, Cairney P (2019) The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Communications 5(1)

Oliver KA, de Vocht F (2015) Defining “evidence” in public health: a survey of policymakers’ uses and preferences. Eur J Public Health. ckv082. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv082

Owen G, Pollitt AR, Wilkinson BJ, Jones LEB, Pow R (2018) The future of the mental health act. The Policy Institute, King’s College London. Available at: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/future-of-the-mental-health-act.pdf . Accessed 30 Apr 2020

Pitts NB, Grant J, Hinrichs-Krapels S, Mazevet ME (2017) Towards a Cavity‐Free Future: How Do We Accelerate a Policy Shift Towards Increased Resource Allocation for Caries Prevention and Control? The Policy Institute, King’s College London. Available at: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/research-analysis/towards-a-cavity-free-future . Accessed 30 Apr 2020

Rubin JK, Hinrichs-Krapels S, Hesketh R, Martin A, Herman WH, Rubino F (2016) Identifying barriers to appropriate use of metabolic/bariatric surgery for type 2 diabetes treatment: Policy Lab results. Diabetes Care 39(6):954–963

Sasse T, Haddon C (2018) How government can work with academia. Institute for Government. Available at: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_government_academia_June_2018_vb.pdf . Accessed 30 Apr 2020

Sasse T, Haddon C (2019) How academia can work with government. Institute for Government. Available at: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_Academic_and_gov_2019_WEB_FINAL.pdf . Accessed 30 Apr 2020

Stephenson L, Gergel T, Owen G, Ruck Keene A, Pollitt A, Wilkinson B (2019) The future of advance decision making in the mental health act. policy brief. The Policy Institute, King’s College London. Available at: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/adm-mental-health-act.pdf . Accessed 30 Apr 2020

Tyler C (2017) Wanted: academics wise to the needs of government. Nature 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-017-07744-1

Walker L, Pike L, Chambers C, Lawrence N, Wood M, Durrant H (2019) Understanding and navigating the landscape of evidence-based policy: recommendations for improving academic-policy engagement. University of Bath. Available at: https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/understanding-and-navigating-the-landscape-of-evidence-based-policy/attachments/understanding-and-navigating-the-landscape-of-evidence-based-policy.pdf . Accessed 30 Apr 2020

Weiss CH (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev 39(5):426–431

Whitty CJM (2015) What makes an academic paper useful for health policy? BMC Med 13(1):301. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0544-8

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Williamson B (2015) Governing methods: policy innovation labs, design and data science in the digital governance of education. J Educ Adm Hist 47(3):251–271

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to everyone who has contributed to the design and delivery of our Policy Labs, and to Niall Sreenan for proofreading an earlier version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

King’s College London, The Policy Institute, London, UK

Saba Hinrichs-Krapels, Harriet Boulding, Bobby Duffy, Rachel Hesketh, Emma Kinloch, Alexandra Pollitt, Sarah Rawlings, Armida van Rij, Benedict Wilkinson & Jonathan Grant

University of the Arts London, Social Design Institute, London, UK

Jocelyn Bailey

Power of Numbers, London, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SHK designed and conceptualised the article and mainly wrote the manuscript. JB, RH, AvR, AP, BW, HB, EK, SR, JG contributed content, wrote parts of the article and were involved in the analysis and reflections on the Policy Labs themselves. JG, RP, BW, AP, SHK were all involved in early conceptualisation of Policy Labs. BD and JB contributed to the conceptualisation and analysis for the background scoping of other lab-type activities which influenced some of the early thinking for this article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saba Hinrichs-Krapels .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hinrichs-Krapels, S., Bailey, J., Boulding, H. et al. Using Policy Labs as a process to bring evidence closer to public policymaking: a guide to one approach. Palgrave Commun 6 , 101 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0453-0

Download citation

Received : 12 September 2019

Accepted : 25 March 2020

Published : 01 June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0453-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

How do I build policy engagement into project design?

Building policy engagement (or any engagement or impact) into research projects can be a very important way to:

• Engage early with policy stakeholders and decision-makers to help shape your research questions for maximum impact and ensure that they are on board
• Design engagement activities for maximum impact
• Design low-effort monitoring and evaluation activities to demonstrate your impact and to know when and where to alter your approaches for maximum impact
• Make sure that you have budget for policy engagement activities, to ensure that you have time and funding to engage in the project plan

Below are some helpful resources for planning policy engagement into project design:

• Guidance on Planning and Demonstrating Effective Policy Engagement  (Arts and Humanities Research Council)  
• A Guide to Policy Engagement and Influence  (Overseas Development Institute)

If you have any questions on designing projects for policy impact, please contact the Policy Engagement Team at: [email protected]

How can research findings influence policy on health?

26 September 2019

• Newsletter feature
• Improvement research
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on WhatsApp
• Share by email
• Link Copy link

Stephen Aldridge is Director for Analysis and Data at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. A government economist by background, he was previously Chief Economist and then Director of the Strategy Unit in the Cabinet Office. He is a member of the advisory group for our Social and Economic Value of Health research programme . We spoke to Stephen about the programme, and how research findings can influence policy. 

Why is it so important to build and spread knowledge about the value of health to society and the economy?

Understanding that health has value over and above its impact on our personal wellbeing – for example, because it helps to improve work productivity or wider prosperity – is clearly really important when making policy decisions. 

It’s not just about how much we should spend on health care, but it helps to inform what specific interventions we should be making to improve health, on the basis that more effective interventions will improve human capital (the skills, knowledge, capacity and capability of the population) and the outcomes for society and the economy that we’re interested in.

You are part of the advisory group for the first round of grants issued through the Health Foundation's Social and Economic Value of Health research programme. Why is this programme important?

You only have to read the titles of the projects in the research programme to appreciate their potential significance. One project is looking at the relationship between childhood obesity and its impacts on human capital development; another is on health and labour market outcomes; and there’s a project looking at parental and childhood health and educational attainment. Having an understanding of, for example, the relationship between health and the labour market would enable us better to design policies to ensure both better health and better labour market outcomes. 

The researchers are using very large datasets and bringing data analytics to bear in new ways in order to really try and pin down the nature of these relationships. It’s very important to understand whether we are saying that better health leads to better labour market outcomes, or that better labour market outcomes lead to improved health. That changes what you might do in the light of the research findings. 

Whether in health or other spheres, research findings will have an impact and help to inform and improve many important decisions. However, it may take time and it may be a challenge, because sometimes evidence can be complicated or counterintuitive. 

How can policymakers find out about new research like this?

Within government departments, there are analysts like me who act as intermediaries between policymakers and academia. Personally, I try to build strong links with relevant experts in the areas on which my team is providing analytical advice, so we can help policymakers access that research. Within my department, we run seminars and host roundtables with external experts. The importance of bringing people together and sharing knowledge shouldn’t be underestimated.

There are other important intermediaries – indeed, the Health Foundation is one, with its role not just in funding research, but in making it available in ways that are accessible to policymakers. There are also the research councils, which run various activities to make sure that research findings are shared with policymakers. 

I’ve been involved in the establishment of a number of What Works centres and one of their roles is to synthesise evidence on what we know works in achieving different policy goals. There’s the Centre for Ageing Better, the Early Intervention Foundation, the Centre for Local Economic Growth, the recently established Centre for Homelessness Impact and a number of others. They’re an example of the intermediaries that exist to help channel evidence to policymakers in a clear and timely way.

What can researchers do to make the evidence they build more accessible to policymakers?

The key thing is that researchers need to think about how they present their findings clearly – and in plain English! Some of the What Works centres have developed dashboards to summarise evidence on what works in achieving different policy outcomes and which interventions are most cost-effective. 

It’s also very important for researchers to build relationships with policymakers and vice versa. I’m closely involved with the Centre for Science and Policy at the University of Cambridge. They arrange really excellent policy fellowships, which mean that civil servants and people from other sectors can meet academic researchers to discuss issues of mutual interest and to improve the sharing of knowledge. We’re all busy, but we need to redouble our efforts to make use of these types of opportunities.

How can the research community ensure the topics they study are relevant for policymakers?

My department and others have developed short documents detailing our areas of research interest and I think this type of communication is really important. 

It’s also important for policymakers and researchers to engage directly. Researchers can reach out to analysts like me in government departments, and use us as intermediaries to the policy community. The What Works centres and similar bodies – including the Health Foundation – can also facilitate connections and conversations about the topics on which it would be most useful to have more research. 

I run a series of economic and social research seminars, inviting people from academia, think tanks and elsewhere to come and talk to people in the department. Many government departments have programmes of engagement with the research community and I’d really encourage researchers to take up those opportunities.

For more information contact Stephen ( [email protected] or via twitter @saldridg ).

This content originally featured in our email newsletter, which explores perspectives and expert opinion on a different health or health care topic each month.

Also in this newsletter

Share this page:

You might also like...

Health Foundation @HealthFdn

• Work with us

We look for talented and passionate individuals as everyone at the Health Foundation has an important role to play.

The Q community

Q is an initiative connecting people with improvement expertise across the UK.

Quick links

• News and media
• Events and webinars

Hear from us

Receive the latest news and updates from the Health Foundation

• 020 7257 8000
• [email protected]
• The Health Foundation Twitter account
• The Health Foundation LinkedIn account
• The Health Foundation Facebook account

Copyright The Health Foundation 2024. Registered charity number 286967.

• Accessibility
• Anti-slavery statement
• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy

Moving your research results into practice through policy briefs

Writing one can be a great way to make your work more accessible.

• One comment

My latest study showed real problems in the current conventional supports for a specific, vulnerable population — in my case, people too young to advocate for their own needs — with a specific concern. A colleague suggested that I write a policy brief, but I’ve never written one before, and don’t know where to start. Any suggestions?   – Anonymous, Sociology

Dr. Editor’s response:

In my opinion, the best way to ensure that your research serves a public, community or particular stakeholder need is to bring members of that public, community, or stakeholder group into your research project from Day Zero. Your approach might take the form of knowledge exchange , integrated knowledge translation , participatory action research , bi-directional knowledge mobilization , engaged scholarship , or some other framework. Such forms of research help your results to readily transfer into practice: if you have policymakers as co-researchers, you likely won’t need to write a formal brief for them, because they’ll already be keenly aware of your research and findings. Is my opinion backed by any evidence, other than what I’ve seen and heard? Nope — what recent research there is on this topic tends to be inconclusive (e.g. Gagliardi et al., 2015 ; McIsaac & Riley, 2020 ); one source described this as “the ‘black box’ of researcher–policy maker partnerships” ( Lawrence et al., 2019 ).

But while involving stakeholders in research might be my preference, not all research projects are appropriate for this kind of collaborative approach. Assuming your work isn’t, you’ll likely want to write an advocacy brief , suggesting that policymakers take a particular course of action, rather than an objective brief , in which you provide options from which they choose their preferred approach.

There are tons of resources out there on how to structure such a brief. As a sociologist, dear letter-writer, I think you might most appreciate this brief guide , which is targeted to your discipline; I also quite like the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Writing Centre’s excerpts of poorly and well-written briefs . Given the plethora of resources out there on structuring a policy brief, let’s focus instead on some specific writing and dissemination strategies for yours.

Writing persuasive policy briefs

Again, here, a lot of my usual advice applies: keep your writing clear ; use language your readers will understand ; structure your sentences with care . You can also transfer some of the persuasive writing strategies that I’ve described that are used in other contexts, including P&T dossiers and letters of reference .

You can find lots of example policy briefs online, from sources including:

• the International Development Research Centre ,
• University of Alberta’s Centre for Sustainable Rural Communities ,
• University of California Davis’s Centre for Poverty and Inequality Research , and

Once you find a brief that you think is particularly well-written, you can copy its text and paste it into the “reference” box at writingwellishard.com , and then paste your own draft in the “your text” box, to compare the characteristics of your writing to those of your reference. This tool will help you to identify if, for example, your sentences are much longer than those in your reference brief, or if yours use the passive voice much more than theirs does.

For those interested in the writingwellishard.com tool but struggling to figure out how to make the most of it, grab the free guide to interpreting your results , or consider taking my course, “Becoming a Better Editor of Your Own Work.”

Getting your policy brief to reach policymakers

If your department or your research centre, institute, or cluster doesn’t already have a webpage dedicated to policy briefs, it’d be a good idea to start one — but of course that shouldn’t be the end-point of your knowledge-sharing strategy.

Ask a communications-focused staff member in your university if anyone in their team can help with sharing your policy brief. If they can’t do it themselves, they’ll likely know who you should talk to. Many institutions have a media relations office that could help you to share your research findings (though not your brief specifically) with a local or national newspaper, radio show, or news channel. If they write a press release about your work, you could ask them if they might link to your policy brief at the bottom of the document, along with providing your contact information.

Beyond your institutional channels, consider how else you might reach policymakers or other decision-makers and stakeholders through your own network. Do you have a colleague — at your institution or another — who you know is good at influencing policy, and if so, could you ask their advice for where they circulate their briefs? Are you a member of any professional associations of which policymakers may also be members? If so, could you locate their names and email addresses?

If you have the time to share your work in more active ways, consider: are there any conferences that you could attend where you might speak about or circulate your brief? Or regular meetings of a group to which you might pitch a one-hour presentation or webinar? The people who listen to your talk or chat with you over coffee may be — or may have connections to — the policymakers who you’re looking to influence.

Advocating for systems-level policy change in academia

Getting the word out about your research can be a challenge, and the work of sharing your findings doesn’t end when your article or book is published. Writing a policy brief can be a great way to make your work more accessible, and it’s wonderful to see journals like the American Sociological Association’s Journal of Health and Social Behaviour promote this mode of knowledge-sharing through their policy briefs page .

However, until more faculty associations successfully argue for “number of policies influenced or created” to be included on promotion and tenure criteria, all the work you do to actively share your findings among policymakers won’t count as much as your number of citations or grant dollars received. So while you seek to influence public policy, remember as well to advocate for policy change within your institution, to ensure that the work of knowledge-sharing is appropriately respected and valued.

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

I would also advise the person to see if they have a knowledge mobilization or community engagement office at their institution, who they could work with to plan for how to answer this question in their next grant application when they write their knowledge mobilization plan.

The professor should also be gently encouraged to directly ask the potential users of the research how they want to learn more about the research findings. It’s hard for a colleague to know the needs of your intended research user.

To help them with this, I would also (shamelessly) send them to this e-book resource on learning how to engage with community collaborations:

https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/knowledgemanagement/part/community-engagement-collaborations/

It covers everything from how to chat with potential community partners, to handling data sharing to sharing your research findings through social media and policy briefs.

Closing the gap between research and policy-making to better enable effective educational practice: a proposed framework

• Original Article
• Published: 25 July 2022
• Volume 22 , pages 91–116, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Ayeshah Ahmed Alazmi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5523-9578 1 &
• Huda Salem Alazmi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3678-3436 2  

8733 Accesses

3 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Although there is increased need for closing the gap between educational research and policy to better enable effective practice, addressing the problem remains a challenge. A review of current literature reveals a lack of systematic guidelines which clarify how collaboration between researchers and policy-makers can actually be achieved. Therefore, this study aims to articulate a framework which satisfies these needs. We used Lasswell’s stages heuristic model, integrated with perspectives from Kingdon's model, as a basis for building this framework, and conducted semi-structured interviews with nine experts in educational research and policy-making to gain understanding for how to effectuate their collaboration. The study identified six main stages for achieving effective collaboration, and the resulting framework could prove useful to future applications.

Similar content being viewed by others

Investigating blended learning interactions in Philippine schools through the community of inquiry framework

'Qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods and approaches across subject fields: implications for research values, assumptions, and practices

A Medical Science Educator’s Guide to Selecting a Research Paradigm: Building a Basis for Better Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Academic literature has covered the “connecting research, policy and practice” topic extensively in recent years, focusing especially upon factors involved with the use of research in guiding policy and practice (Roderick et al., 2007 ). Part of this effort has involved investigating issues which hinder the use of research in policy and practice (Baker, 2003 ; Bellamy et al., 2006 ; Berliner, 2008 ; Johansson, 2010 ; Kennedy, 1997 ; Manuel et al., 2009 ; Nutley et al., 2007 ; Tseng, 2012 ). From these studies, a series of contributing factors emerged which explained why particular research projects failed to have an appropriate impact upon educational policy and practice. Kennedy ( 1997 ) condensed these factors into four distinct groups: (1) low quality of research, (2) irrelevant research, (3) research ideas inaccessible to practitioners, and (4) education systems resistant to change. While researchers have paid considerable attention to these challenges, and identified further explanations, they have also found potential solutions to address them (Cherney et al., 2012 ; Levin, 2013 ; Levin & Edelstein 2010 ; Ion et al., 2018 ; Tseng 2012 ). Part of this trend features rising interest in academic literature regarding the use of Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs). RPPs are entities which forge the long-term collaboration between educational researchers and decision-makers to help identify key problems, then generate appropriate mitigation policies and support them in practice (Coburn & Stein, 2010 ; Coburn et al., 2013 ). Indeed, many scholars indicate that RPPs provide a great opportunity to support the use of research in both policy and practice (Donovan, 2013 ; Fishman et al., 2013 ; Tseng, 2012 ). Over the last five years, many universities and institutions, along with a myriad of local and international organizations, such as the Institute of Education Sciences, have helped to fund and develop RPPs (Coburn & Penuel 2016 ).

However, despite the keen awareness amongst scholars regarding the importance of creating close connections between research and policy for successful practice, a significant gap still persists (Kennedy, 1997 ; Nutley et al., 2007 ; Sebba, 2007 ; Vanderlinde & Van Braaka, 2010 ; Tseng, 2012 ). Researchers acknowledge the advantages of using research in policy and practice, but assert that implementation is frequently poor. Tseng ( 2012 ) attributes this, in part, to the absence of a systematic approach with guidelines for clarifying “how researchers can produce more useful work, how practitioners can acquire and use that work productively, and how policy-makers can create the conditions that enable both to occur,” (P. 3). Furthermore, Ion et al. ( 2018 ) conducted quantitative research to determine what factors might influence the use of research in policy and practice. Their conclusions, published in the journal Educational Research for Policy and Practice , revealed that a major issue preventing collaboration is the lack of “institutional strategies” to provide a comprehensive understanding for how research can be operationalized to inform policy and research to achieve successful practice (Cobb et al., 2003 ; Poon, 2012 ; Power, 2007 ; Urquiola, 2015 ; Whitty, 2006 ). Our study attempts to bridge this critical gap in the literature by developing an effective, theoretically-grounded framework which provides systematic guidelines for enabling collaboration between educational researchers and policy-makers, with the resultant benefits this will have towards improving practice. This framework comes complete with clear guidelines, based upon theoretical foundations developed by Lasswell and Kingdon, to explain how collaboration can occur in systematic stages.

2 Literature review

In this study, the literature review is split between (a) research utility in policy and practice, and (b) Research-Practice Partnerships in education. The former provides a conceptual understanding for research utility, while also addressing studies which focus upon the considerations involved with transferring knowledge gained from research into educational practices, while the latter offers practical examples of actual, evidence-based practices; we illustrate several RPPs, along with how well they function.

3 Research utility in policy and practice

The study of research utility (i.e. how well research results find useful employment in practice) dates back to the 1970s and '80 s, an era which Henry and Mark ( 2003 ) refer to as the “golden age” for work supporting “knowledge and evaluation use.” Carol Weiss was a leading light in this field. Much of her substantial body of work was driven by the question: “Why does the government support the efforts on research while it will not use these findings?” To address this conundrum, Weiss ( 1979 ) emphasized learning how policy-makers might use research, and how they might do so effectively.

Weiss’s ( 1977 ) work focused upon developing understanding for the term ‘research use. ‘She did so by subdividing the concept into seven related categories, with the first being ‘knowledge-driven use.’ This refers to how research influences policy development. Next came the 'problem-solving model,’ which involves the direct application of research results in solving a problem. The third category, dubbed the ‘interactive model,’ implies collaborative work in which policy-makers search for knowledge from a wide range of sources, including research. Fourth is the ‘political model,’ where research is used intentionally in support of specific policy stances. In the fifth category, the ‘tactical model,’ research findings tend to be employed outside of their original mandate, deflecting attention, tactically, away from more politically sensitive issues. Weiss's sixth category of ‘research use,’ the ‘enlightenment model,’ involves research findings that have a gradual impact upon policy. Permeating through society, these findings raise public awareness and create an appropriate environment for framing effective solutions. The final category, ‘intellectual enterprise,’ involves research having a broad influence in shaping the way policy-makers and practitioners think about policy. While Weiss’s categories of ‘research use’ are helpful, scholars have subsequently recognized that they overlap and interact with each other (Nutley et al., 2007 ). As a result, researchers have elaborated upon her work, or used it as a foundation for further study. This has helped policy-makers to understand, support, and use research in their practice (Scott & Jabbar, 2014 ).

Current debate in the education field regarding “research utility” has shifted to focus upon “gold standards” for translating research findings into actual practice. Many researchers have emphasized the importance of improving the relevance of high-quality research (Berliner, 2008 ; Kennedy, 1997 ; Nutley et al., 2007 ; Tseng, 2012 ). Mary Kennedy ( 1997 ) is one of the more thoughtful authors regarding the disconnect between educational research, policy, and practice. While she has provided many explanations for this predicament, she noted in particular that, “The quality of educational studies has not been high enough to provide compelling, unambiguous, or authoritative results for practitioners,” (p. 4). Kennedy argued that, to provide reliable knowledge when conducting empirical studies, researchers must use an appropriate methodological design. Moreover, some studies concerned the relevance of research in relation to practice. For example, scholars have found that a majority of educational research is actually irrelevant to practice, and fails to address practical problems in the field (Berliner, 2008 ; Kennedy, 1997 ; Sebba, 2007 ; Vanderlinde & Van Braaka 2010 ). Berliner ( 2008 ) further argues that despite the emergence of a real-world context in research, its relevance is often still too weak to affect practice. Farley-Ripple & Jones ( 2015 ) conducted a case study to analyze the educational researches that used in practice, they found that these studies were so broad, and complex for implementation.

Another important aspect of making connections between research, policy, and practice is developing communication avenues between the relevant parties involved, making the research accessible (i.e. intelligible) to the reader, and disseminating it effectively to those who need to use it (Bellamy et al., 2006 ; Nutley et al., 2007 ; Malin et al., 2018 ). A commonly used strategy for making research “accessible” involves presenting research findings in clear language, suitably written for educational stakeholders to quickly understand and absorb. Kennedy ( 1997 ) argued that the lack of accessibility leads to research having only a weak impact upon policy and practice. She claimed that there is a need to focus upon what makes research accessible for teachers, and how teachers apply research in practice. Tseng ( 2012 ) noted that to ensure research is accessible to policy-makers and practitioners, policy reports and executive briefs should be short and “jargon-free.” This will enable readers without research experience to digest the information easily and quickly. Furthermore, Tseng ( 2012 ) advised that improving research accessibility should also include developing websites and databases, and conducting short conferences to represent findings, and make them broadly available.

Another important line of thinking regarding the use of research in policy and practice is how to transform research findings into their practical implementation. It is therefore crucial to distinguish between knowing about and actually implementing research (Berliner, 2008 ; Johansson, 2010 ; Manuel et al., 2009 ). Although many teachers and educational stakeholders have adequate knowledge about policy and educational research findings, this knowledge does not necessarily transfer into implementation. This acknowledges a basic need for implementation strategies to convert research findings into the formulation of policy and practice. Levin and Edelstein ( 2010 ) provided two strategies to effectuate this, with the first being translation; empirical research findings and policies need to translate into clear, practical steps to help educators understand what they need to do (and why). The second strategy is to link professional development endeavours with research evidence to facilitate the implementation of research findings. Moreover, several authors noted the importance of monitoring and evaluating policy implementation in the field to help promote the program (Nutley et al., 2007 ; Tseng, 2012 ; Weiss, 1972 ). Weiss ( 1972 ) defines evaluation as the examination of a program's effectiveness against its pre-determined goals. Evaluation results must, therefore, influence the decision-making process for improving the program’s future. Tseng ( 2012 ) considers feedback loops as a helpful strategy for testing how effectively research affects practice and, in turn, how practice influences future research. Similarly, Nutley et al. ( 2007 ) indicate that connecting research with practice should not simply focus upon how research affects practice, but the opposite as well. Indeed, practice must inform research; for example, teacher and educational stakeholder perspectives regarding implementation challenges and barriers should help shape future research to address these challenges.

4 Research-practice partnerships in education

In recent years, the field of education has seen increased attention focused upon evidence-based policy and practice. Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) have played a significant role in this effort. Indeed academic literature is increasingly candid about the importance of RPPs (Booker et al., 2019 ). Coburn et al. ( 2013 ) define RPPs as “Long-term, mutualistic collaborations between practitioners and researchers that are intentionally organized to investigate problems of practice and solutions for improving district outcomes,” (p.2). This approach focuses upon bringing researchers and educational decision-makers together to identify problems in policy or practice. RPPs tend not to form around a single study, but rather they establish and sustain strong, collaborative relationships between educational leaders and researchers over multiple projects. Instead of simply developing research to address gaps in theory, RPPs try to address real-world issues, such as the challenges which practitioners face while teaching. Tseng ( 2012 ) indicates that developing RPPs can lead to greater research utility in the decision-making process. This collaboration helps to address persistent problems in educational practice, and has consequently lead to improved scholastic outcomes (Donovan, 2013 ; Fishman et al., 2013 ). Coburn et al., ( 2013 ) note that RPPs collect data from target participants, then use analytical techniques to resolve associated research questions. The answers hopefully yield solutions to the larger problems under discussion.

Many RPPs have proven themselves operationally in the USA, and these may serve as useful examples for other nations to employ, or even to expand upon into new forms of partnership. But building RPPs, and maintaining their strong collaborative spirit, is no easy task. Many potential challenges require careful consideration. Indeed, a major initial hurdle involves establishing a good working relationship between researchers and practitioners. Such a bond is termed “mutualistic,” which implies working together over decisions and sharing authority in making them (Coburn & Penuel, 2016 ; Lon et al., 2019). Rosen (2010) noted that expectation differences between researchers and practitioners regarding their authority and responsibilities may lead to conflict. RPPs must apply deliberate strategies to foster this relationship successfully; they should have carefully designed rules, responsibilities, routines and interaction procedures (Coburn et al., 2013 ). Previously published work highlights the challenges of building appropriate communication channels between researchers and education leaders (Coburn et al., 2013 ; Kennedy, 1997 ; Penuel et al., 2007; Tseng, 2012 ). For example, researchers and practitioners often face difficulty communicating with one another because there is a range of field-specific language unique to each party in the conversation, language which is not necessarily interpreted easily by their counterparts. To maintain communication quality, each party should keep their language simple, minimizing the use of field-specific terms, and providing adequate clarification for those which prove necessary.

Research into RPPs has also identified a number of problems which arise from the complexities of education systems (Coburn & Penuel, 2016 ; Coburn et al., 2013 ); school districts, for example, have elaborate organizational structures. This raises concerns about who one should partner with and how to collaborate across a wide range of disparate goals, priorities and agendas (Coburn & Stein, 2010 ). It is essential to take this complexity into consideration, with a clear understanding for each participant’s needs, before embarking upon such a collaboration. Scott and her colleagues (2014) noted that political groups, whether inside or outside of education districts, may apply pressure over particular decisions. Coburn et al. ( 2013 ) recommend that RPPs should not fall prey to political whim, noting the importance of being able to distinguish between political and educational benefits. Although our literature review focused upon the challenges which RPPs face, we found little evidence of any energy being expended upon the creation of guidelines, designs, frameworks or even strategies for building successful RPPs (Coburn et al., 2013 ).

In summary, despite numerous scholars and programs around the world having made efforts to promote collaboration between personnel working in educational research, policy, and practice, the disjunction between these essential functions still persists in many education systems around the world, and they struggle unnecessarily as a result. Regarding this very issue, members of AERA have argued the usefulness of creating a better connection between educational research, policymaking, and practice. Indeed, a major thrust for AERA's 2020 annual meeting focused upon developing collaboration between these three parties. This is not a new concern for AERA, of course, but rather an enduring theme stretching over decades. Adding to that, many researchers acknowledge the advantages of using research in policy to achieve effective practice, but assert that implementation is frequently poor. Furthermore, Ion et al. ( 2018 ) revealed that a major issue preventing collaboration is the lack of guidelines and strategies to provide a comprehensive understanding for how research can be operationalized to inform policy and practice (Cobb et al., 2003 ; Poon 2012 ; Power, 2007 ; Urquiola, 2015 ; Whitty, 2006 ). Our study, therefore, attempts to develop an effective, theoretically-grounded framework which comes complete with guidelines, based upon theoretical perspectives developed by Lasswell and Kingdon, to explain how collaboration can occur in systematic stages.

4.1 Theoretical background

As demonstrated above, our literature review focused upon the “standards” for using research to inform research and policy for the promotion of effective practice, and provided examples of programs (such as RPPs) which foster collaboration between educational research, policy, and practice. This study required a systematic process to develop a framework of guidelines for achieving collaboration between researchers and policy-makers, accomplishing this goal by using the stages model (Lasswell, 1956 ), integrated with perspectives from Kingdon's model. Lasswell’s stages model (1956) was one of the earliest approaches to have had an effective impact upon public policy analysis; the other being Easton's system model (1957). Its significance is grounded in framing and illustrating the stages of the policymaking process. Although there are now many other public policy process theories, the stages model has retained its relevance, and a diverse group of academics still use it in a variety of forms. Indeed, there is a general consensus for using Lasswell's stages to guide both policy-making and analytic procedures. In the public policy process, problems are first determined, then cited in government agenda, after which potential solutions are formulated, policy decisions implemented, evaluated and then revised (Lasswell, 1956 ; Kingdon, 2010 ; Sabatier, 2007 ). Lasswell’s model, also known as the process/sequential model, has been discussed by many scholars since its introduction (Anderson, 1979 ; Peters, 1996 ; Sabatier, 2007 ). Over the last few decades, however, Lasswell’s heuristic/stages model has evolved from seven stages into its present five stage process; defined variously as either a policy process model, or stages theory (see Anderson, 2014; DeLeon, 1999 ; Sabatier, 2007 ). There are five primary stages to the policy process: (i) problem identification and agenda-setting, (ii) policy formulation (iii) decision-making, (iv) policy implementation, and (v) policy evaluation (Fig.  1 ).

Heuristic/stages model (Lasswell, 1956 )

In the first stage, “problem identification and agenda-setting,” the goal is to identify and define an issue which both needs rapid remedial action while also being well-suited to a government’s agenda. The relative importance between the various problems and concerns that attract political and public attention vie for a place on this agenda. Kingdon (2003) indicates that, “the agenda-setting process narrows this set of conceivable subjects to the set that actually becomes the focus of attention,” (p. 4). Cook et al. ( 1983 ) addressed, “what factors affect and attract government attention,” indicating that multiple vectors, including the media, politicians and other officials, can play dominant roles in this stage. Societal, economic, and political pressures, ideologies and significant events (such as disasters) are just some of the influential factors involved in identifying problems for agenda-setting (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000 ). Blewden et al. ( 2010 ) argue that evidence should both frame the problem attracting attention and determine agenda-setting. If a government recognizes their responsibility for addressing an issue, they will add it to their agenda, however, a variety of circumstances/prerequisites frequently need satisfying for this to occur. Benoit ( 2013 ) indicated that the populace must acknowledge the issue openly, describing its effects and potential solutions, while also engaging in activities which motivate the government to take positive action. If problems miss the initial agenda, they must wait for the next policy cycle to receive consideration.

“Policy formulation” involves identifying, reviewing, and evaluating a wide range of policy and program responses to a given problem definition. Howlett et al. ( 2009 ) describe the policy formulation stage as being where, “…means are proposed to resolve perceived societal needs,” (p. 110). A government will use a variety of techniques to devise plans of action, resulting in a selection of one or more approaches to address a given problem. Kingdon ( 1995 ) notes that civil servants, practitioners, researchers, think-tanks, consultants, etc. might contribute to this process. Analysis of possible responses for tackling a given problem (including consideration of alternative ideas) takes place during the “decision-making” phase. This, hopefully, yields informed decisions to shape appropriate policies (Benoit, 2013 ). Although perhaps self-evident, it is important to select potential solutions based upon their capacity to optimize the utility of decision-makers (Cattaneo, 2018 ; van Schaik et al., 2018 ). Howlett et al. ( 2009 ) argue that for this stage, decisions should be made that require either positive, negative, or even non-decision responses. Kraft and Furlong ( 2012 ) indicate that research should provide evidence to support the decision-making process; this research could explain, guide and examine the potential effects of a variety of policy options. Such a process is often influenced by society at large, so policy-makers must at least consider their requests and demands.

Policies translate into action during the “implementation phase”. Research is almost always employed to define the funding at this stage, along with the policy and program requirements to implement policy decisions. It is considered the most important phase of the policy-making process, because the quality of a policy’s execution usually determines how well it meets its objectives (Ripley & Franklin, 1986 ). In this context, if the policy is not implemented properly, it is rarely possible for it to achieve its goals, no matter how well-formulated. Moreover, political, economic, and technological conditions, etc. can have profound influence upon implementation (Howlett et al., 2009 ).

Outcomes of implemented policies are assessed in the “evaluation stage” (Peters, 1996 ). This is the moment where policymakers and/or consultants verify whether enacted policies achieved their desired goals (Benoit, 2013 ). A number of scholars have provided valuable insight into the role that research plays during this phase (Baum, 2003 ; Renée, 2006 ). For instance, Kulaç and Özgür ( 2017 ) describe how empirical studies use surveys and/or interviews to aggregate data from target groups about an implemented policy’s effectiveness. Furthermore, if a policy fails to achieve its aims, the policy-analysis process returns to its first stage for re-tooling (Jann & Wegrich, 2007 ). Indeed, Tseng ( 2012 ) argues that while many scholars have made great effort to understand “research-to-policy and practice,” they have neglected the importance of “practice-to-research.” Lasswell’s model addresses this concern, however, as the evaluation phase focuses upon assessing the policy from research-to-practice, as well as its reverse.

It is important to note here that Kingdon’s Multiple Streams model was developed as a response to the Heuristics model. Kingdon (2003) argues that policy-making should be a dynamic process in which many stakeholders engage with identifying and making sense of public problems and potential solutions with the goal of determining their rank in the agenda. Kingdon’s model is more fluid than Lasswell's, because the latter model is a linear, rational process which takes place in a vacuum, and is performed by a single, logical actor. This is in contrast to the Kingdon model, where policy-making occurs via macro-analysis involving several actors, organizations, institutions, and activities, all of which affect the end result. Kingdon’s model also complicated our understanding for the agenda-setting phase. For example, Kingdon (2003) indicated that three different streams influence the agenda-setting process: the problem, policy, and politics. The ‘problem stream’ is similar to Lasswell’s model in which a problem needing immediate action drives the agenda. The policy stream is where tractable approaches, or policy alternatives, originate. Whereas the political stream indicates that the political situation is affected by elections, pressure from officials, administrative changes, public opinion, etc.

Scholars in policy science have devoted a lot of effort into understanding the policy-making and analysis processes. In our framework, we discussed two of the more significant policy process models (Lasswell and Kingdon), and while there are other useful models to choose from, their absence here should not be misinterpreted for any lack of perceived relevance on our part. We focused upon Lasswell and Kingdon for two major reasons: (1) the need for a systematic approach to guide the collaboration between researchers and policy-makers in the education field, and (2) to explain how the public policy process is developed. Our framework uses the five stages in Lasswell’s model as a basis for establishing systematic phases for achieving collaboration. Moreover, our framework agreed with Kingdon’s perspective that these stages need not be linear; overlapping and interaction between these stages should be expected in the framework for collaboration between research and policy. Finally, this study makes an additional contribution by essentially breaking new ground for Kuwait (our home) and other nations with similarly poor collaboration between educational research, policy, and practice, all of which presently remain under-explored in such countries.

5 Methodology

The framework in this study used qualitative analysis with nine, semi-structured interviews conducted with Kuwaiti educational researchers and policymakers serving as “experts”. The semi-structured interview allows conversations with experts to grow organically, since the questions do not have to come in a specific order; they can react extemporaneously to new ideas or emerging world views which arise naturally as the interaction flows (Merriam, 1998 ). The resultant aim for these interviews, as already implied, was the creation of a framework providing systematic guidelines to facilitate more effective collaboration between educational researchers and policy-makers to better achieve effective practice. As already implied, the study used Lasswell's stages model as guidance for the interview questions.

5.1 Data collection and participants

The researchers selected participants for this study using a purposeful selection method. This method involves choosing experts based upon their knowledge and its relevance to the endeavour being undertaken (Babbie & Motuon, 2001 ). In other words, the advantage of a purposive sample lies in its ability to enrich the research data (Creswell, 2014 ). Participants were divided into two groups: researchers, and policy-makers. Specific criteria for selecting each group’s participants were identified to ensure that their perspectives and experiences served the purpose of this study. The researchers we selected had to have (i) earned a PhD in the education field, and (ii) have relevant publications, and/or have participated in projects which address the policy formulation and implementation processes in education. Whereas each policy-maker we interviewed had to have (i) a minimum of five years’ experience in the education field, and (ii) real-world experience in the formulation, implementation, or evaluation of educational policies. Participants came from Kuwait’s Ministry of Education (MoE), higher education institutions, professional associations and independent research centres in Kuwait (see Table 1 for their profiles). Prior to contacting potential participants, we first obtained permission from the MoE to conduct the study. We then requested assistance from the MoE to help us find relevant participants; they introduced us to several policy-makers and researchers with experience in educational research and policy. After each interview, we asked participants to suggest other policy-makers or researchers whom they believed we should interview.

The participants included 4 researchers and 5 policy-makers, 3 of whom were female and 6 male. Their experience levels ranged from 7 to 25 years. Before the interview, each expert completed and signed a consent form. The roughly 45 min, audio-recorded interviews took place either via telephone or face-to-face. The study used a semi-structured interview approach in which we asked each expert ten identical questions. We allowed discussions to unfold and expand naturally for each question, enriching our understanding, rather than simply moving on to the next question following a basic answer. The ten questions were split evenly across five sections, reflecting the five stages in Lasswell’s model: (i) problem identification and agenda-setting, (ii) policy formulation (iii) decision-making, (iv) policy implementation, and (v) policy evaluation. Each section contained two questions which focussed upon learning what is needed to achieve collaboration, and how to do so in each phase. The authors asked the experts “why”, “how”, and “what” during the discussions surrounding each question to gain comprehensive explanations and insight into their answers. The interview recordings were transcribed and constitute the study’s main data source (Benesch, 2001 ). To maintain confidentiality, each participant received a pseudonym, with all identifiers masked as thoroughly as possible. These pseudonyms began with a letter, ‘R’ for researcher or ‘P’ for policy-maker, followed by a number, creating a unique name for each expert, but one which clearly identified their background for ease of use during our analysis.

5.2 Data analysis

For data analysis, the researchers applied a hybrid technique similar to Fereday and Cochrane ( 2006 ), blending a deductive approach (using an a priori template of codes) with an inductive example where new categories arose from those in the data set categories. Prior to transcript analysis, we created a table in Microsoft Excel, serving as a codebook to organize the data. We began by first adding each expert’s pseudonym to the codebooks so we could later identify the unique set of data derived from their responses. This would provide a streamlined view, making it easier to clarify where experts differed or agreed regarding each theme (Marshall & Rossman, 2011 ). Then we added the five main themes generated via Lasswell's stages model: (i) problem identification and agenda setting, (ii) policy formulation and legitimation, (iii) decision making, (iv) policy implementation, and (v) evaluation. The codebooks, at this stage, were effectively operating as data management devices, coordinating similar phrases stripped from the data to facilitate interpretation. The next step featured deductive analysis, where the researchers read in the data and assigned it to the specific themes and participant names created a priori, as per the Laswell’s stages model. For example, the first two questions involved the ‘problem identification and agenda setting’ phase, so expert responses entered the codebook under these themes, and a similar approach occurred for the subsequent pairs of questions which followed, with responses again assigned to their appropriate themes. Inductive analysis took place in the third step. Here, the researchers generated categories and their related sub-categories, where applicable, with codes containing “meaningful units of text” assigned to their appropriate phase. If we found meaningful information outside the bounds of the present set of themes, then we would generate appropriate additional themes to accommodate them as needed. The researchers repeatedly read and re-read the unexpurgated transcripts of each expert interview to code and recode them. They also opened codes and developed definitions for each prominent category. The final step involved comparing the coding results from both analyses (deductive and inductive), balancing one against the other in an iterative process which connected the codes to uncover common themes in the data, grouped under the previously identified headings. If a code failed to match a Lasswell stages model theme, we could generate an appropriate additional theme to accommodate it. This proved necessary, as our analysis revealed the need for one additional theme/stage, which we labeled “prior to collaboration,” a conditional phrase which most experts mentioned.

Of note, each person involved in conducting this study coded the interview transcripts individually, with results being compared collectively. Disagreements in the coding process led to several modifications, and discussions to improve the work. Using back-translation (Brislin, 1970 ), Arabic and English versions of the findings were examined by two professional translators to ensure no significant discrepancies. In the data analysis, we mainly depended upon the Lasswell Heuristic stages model, while ensuring that Kingdon’s perspectives were also captured within the study codes and themes. One way we achieved the latter was by not using phases in a strictly linear fashion, indeed we welcomed their overlapping and/or interaction. For example, some codes could overlap different phases, with one of them depending upon earlier stages (like how the evaluation phase relies upon prior phases).

6 Proposed framework

The intent of this study was to develop a framework to provide guidelines for building collaboration between educational researchers and policy-makers in order to promote effective practice. To achieve this goal, as already noted, we conducted interviews with researchers and policy-makers who had relevant experience with our study topic. Data collected from four “researchers” and five educational “policy-makers” varied in perspective, length, and detail. The breadth of this feedback proved to be of great value in developing the framework.

Broadly speaking, each expert agreed that achieving collaboration between research and policy has great potential for improving educational outcomes. For example, one expert noted that, “…achieving this [partnership between research and policy] would improve the education system.” Most experts indicated, however, that the issues related to collaboration between research and policy are complex. To address this complexity, experts provided a comprehensive explanation for how collaboration between research and policy could be achieved via six main policy-making phases (see Fig.  2 ). The following section reveals their views for each stage:

Research, policy, and practice collaboration framework

6.1 Prior to collaboration

Most experts argued that preparing an appropriate environment for developing collaboration between research and policy should be the first step before starting any research; having a well-prepared system/environment helps to facilitate collaboration. They indicated that this environment must accommodate the demands of collaboration; i.e. establish a solid foundation for future steps. In this phase, expert views centred upon the major requirements for establishing collaboration. They concluded that there are three essential steps to consider: (i) signing official agreements; (ii) establishing research centres, and; (iii) providing adequate funding.

6.1.1 Signing official agreements

Most experts concurred regarding the importance of having an official agreement in place between collaborating parties before work could start. This agreement would help establish the formal decision-making processes for future actions between parties. Affirming this, one expert (P2) noted, “An official agreement is very important before working to solve the educational problems.” The experts indicated that this agreement should contain a clarified set of all instructions, details, and requirements expected from each party. They stressed the importance of identifying which people would be involved in the collaboration, what type of problems they should focus upon, and the timeframe for accomplishing the required tasks. Moreover, they highlighted that the agreement should consider the geographic scales and timeline involved; i.e. will the collaboration cover a school, district, state, or even a country, and over what time duration shall this collaboration take place. Additionally, all responsibilities, roles, rules, and protocols for each party must be carefully delineated. Furthermore, to establish good relationships between researchers and policy-makers, each person involved in this collaboration must know and understand their rights and duties. Indeed, having official agreements helps to preserve rights and show a commitment for using research results to build new policies. Reiterating this, expert (S4) explained, “Having an official agreement between the researcher and policy-maker is a good start to protecting our rights and freedom of expression.” Adding to this, expert (P3) noted concern, stating that, “If there is no very clear agreement, there may be conflict between researchers and policy-makers.” He recommended that the agreement consider all relevant details and encapsulate them within a succinct, clearly written document, with all parties signing on right from the beginning, to reduce the risk of future misunderstanding regarding payments, responsibilities, timeframes, etc.

6.1.2 Establishing research centers

Experts stressed the need for establishing an independent research centre responsible for providing salient evidence about the problems facing education. This centre would develop an avenue of collaboration with educational policy-makers for conducting useful research, while offering advance analysis of research strategy outcomes. Experts suggested either using research centres which already exist, or creating new ones. With the former, one could select an established research centre at a university, educational institution, or from within the independent research sector. For the latter, the MoE could establish their own educational research centre, creating new positions for researchers to conduct inquiries that are directly related to MoE objectives and policy aims. Such establishments could provide staff expertise on educational research, assessment, evaluations and other forms of assistance. One expert (P2) provided support for creating a new MoE research centre, noting: “These research centres determine the needs of researchers effectively, helping them to work independently, and providing them with several types of resources.” Furthermore, three of the experts (R1, P3, & P5) agreed with him that: “In my opinion, forming research units within the aims of producing properly researched information which can be used later by policy-makers is important in this process… The MoE should seek to achieve a closer and more stable relationship between researchers and policy-makers in a more formal way.”

6.1.3 Providing adequate funding

Experts agreed that the availability of adequate funding must be considered before facilitating collaboration between parties, as such cooperation requires significant effort, resources, and technology. They further noted that these funds would need to cover all collaboration expenses, such as employees, resources, labs, technology, etc. Additionally, they highlighted that determining the funding requirements and source would have to occur before research began. Two experts suggested local government as being a possible funding source, which might then open the window for national initiatives and government grants. One expert (R1) clarified this point, stating:

I believe that the funding is an essential component in any collaboration process…. To do so, our University increased the budget for research and encouraged researchers to look for alternative financial and international research opportunities to fund research… Last year, our department signed an agreement with the MoE to fund a lot of education research that has a common interest in a way to help MoE leaders make good decisions.

6.2 Problem identification and agenda-setting

This stage focuses upon the procedures for identifying the problem(s) to set the educational agenda, and how facilitating collaboration between researchers and policy-makers will occur. The experts noted that the most important problem(s) should be identified and placed in the educational agenda. Experts provided several criteria for selecting priority problems, such as those which have (i) a highly negative effect upon practitioners and/or students, (ii) an effect upon a significant number of educational stakeholders and/or students, and (iii) problems related to disasters, wars, or sudden events. One expert singled out the coronavirus pandemic as a particularly problematic example of the latter, indicating that a lot of research is needed to provide a high-quality, online learning process model. He further noted that, “[This] research may focus on the impact on students’ achievement, learning, and how to increase learning effectiveness during this pandemic.” He explained that this type of research would be of great benefit to overcoming this critical period by helping to achieve positive educational outcomes. Moreover, the lessons learned would also help lay the foundation for surmounting similar disruptions in the future.

In terms of achieving collaboration, experts stated that there is a need to interact with a range of stakeholders (e.g. teachers, school principals, government officials, etc.) and educational policy-makers in order to establish and define a problem clearly. Educational policy-makers are responsible for identifying the initial problems, while providing opportunities for researchers and other parties to share their perspectives. After selecting priority problems for the education agenda, experts agreed that policy-makers should then task researchers with finding solutions. The experts also indicated that positive outcomes would depend upon following appropriate strategies. These strategies fall into two main categories: (a) establishing a research proposal panel, and (b) considering only high-quality research.

6.2.1 Establishing a research proposal panel

The experts expressed belief in the value of a research proposal panel. These panels would provide researchers with the ability to fully understand the scope of the research task at hand, while also allowing the free exchange of ideas for how best to tackle it. Furthermore, they noted that a research proposal panel would help address two significant concerns: (i) research-applicability, and (ii) research-bias. One expert indicated that these proposal panels would clearly identify the boundary conditions surrounding a particular problem by providing researchers with complete details related to school infrastructure, student population size, education system ability, etc. This would allow researchers a deeper understanding regarding a proposal’s affordability, and help to ensure the applicability of their labours. For example, expert (P1) stated that, “Some research is very good, but we cannot implement it due to many challenges and difficulties.” He expanded upon this point regarding the benefits of proposal panels, stating that, “It will help to select the research that fits in with our ability.” Another expert stated that, “There is a huge gap between what the researcher does, and what we need to know in practice… most of the research is too fussy, too concerned with justification, and doesn't reflect the real lives of our teachers at school.” Therefore, creating a research proposal panel will help select realistic, more applicable research efforts which more properly fit our educational capacity. With regards to the potential for research-bias occurring in the writing up of results, two experts indicated that when educational researchers undertake “research-for-policy,” their work must inevitably contend and compete with a mix of political and economic priorities, not to mention values, that influence policy and practitioner decision-making. This can conspire to lead research astray, biasing results to match perceived desires rather than realistic outcomes. Experts therefore stressed that policy-makers must allow researchers to have a completely independent perspective in their efforts to improve education. Establishing research review panels that openly share research proposals will help avoid this bias, and make the selection of appropriate research more likely—thereby reducing wasted effort.

6.2.2 Considering only high-quality research

Most experts express the importance of conducting high-quality research. They indicated that both researchers and educational policy-makers must agree to appropriate research criteria from the very beginning. This will help researchers to adhere to requirements as they conduct their work. Expert perspectives regarding what qualifies as “high-quality” research focused upon four factors. Firstly, they indicated that the term ‘high-quality’ referred to research which is both relevant and addresses a problem in an effective way. Stressing the importance of achieving this correctly, one expert (R2) provided a comprehensive explanation describing the unfortunate reality at his own institution:

“I think that the problems being discussed in research are mostly related to researcher interest or point of view… It is important that the researcher consider the priority of a long list of research-users such as teachers, administrators, parents, policy-makers, voluntary organizations, professional associations, the media, the general public, and of course, the researchers themselves... Unfortunately, in my institution the researcher writes research only to get tenure… and when they get tenure they stop doing research… Problems they discuss in their research are far away from what school teachers and leaders really need…”

Secondly, the experts emphasized that high-quality research always builds upon a good methodology. Two experts noted that the research should involve an empirical study rather than theoretical discussions or a literature review; i.e. it should employ surveys, interviews, experiments, or other statistical techniques to measure the quality of solutions. For instance, an empirical study could use a survey to explore the reasons behind a problem and its associated effects upon society (e.g. teachers, students, and/or parents). If a problem is significant enough, the government will add it to their agenda. One expert also suggested that conducting teacher interviews should be required; such involvement will help researchers gain better understanding for the real-world realities of the problem.

Thirdly, the experts stressed the importance of the reliability and validity of evidence. Expert (R1) noted that, “Considering reliability and validity helps us to know how well our methods or techniques are accurate and consistent.” Expert (R3) stated that, “Researchers should improve the study design, checking and verifying and replicating, to reflect the teachers' needs.” It is also important to ensure that a research study measures what it intends to measure, and to ensure results are stable as well.

And finally, two experts encouraged cooperative work between researchers. For instance, having multiple researchers conduct similar studies helps to broaden the perspectives, experiences, and views, and this contributes to improving research quality. Demonstrated repeatability is also a part of this process.

6.3 Policy formulation and legitimation

In the previous stage, the research review panel selected a variety of research avenues to pursue. Following the completion of this wide range of research efforts, the educational policy-makers must now read the resulting reports to formulate their policy recommendations. A meeting between each party involved is needed to properly review all possible solutions. In order for the policy-makers to make informed decisions though, they first need to properly understand the research reports. Some of this study's experts expressed a concern for potential misunderstanding between researchers and policy-makers at this stage. They noted that most policy-makers do not have prior experience with research, and therefore may not fully understand the research effort nor its findings. The experts gave a variety of recommendations for how researchers should prepare their reports to ensure that policy-makers properly understand them, and these data can be separated into two main categories: (a) making research language understandable, and (b) facilitating research accessibility. Each of these categories is addressed in detail in the following subsections.

6.3.1 Making research language understandable

The experts indicated that, to be effective, research must be both readable and understandable by educational policy-makers and other practitioners. They suggested three techniques to ensure research is clear to policy-makers and educational stakeholders: (i) reports should be short, (ii) with appropriate language, and (iii) guided by a knowledge transfer expert. Regarding Short Reports , two experts indicated that policy-makers have no need to read excessive details regarding the literature review, research procedure, or results. For example, one expert (R1) stated that, “We need the conclusion, what is important, and how we solve the problem. They do not need to read much about research methods, and theoretical background.” Therefore reports should be brief, with concise explanations for research methods, results, and implications. This will help policy-makers to read, understand and absorb these reports more easily. With respect to Appropriate Language, two experts expounded upon how researchers must ensure that policy-makers and other practitioners find their reports fully and easily understandable. Researchers must therefore write their reports using clear language, avoiding overly technical or complex descriptions and scientific language. As an explanation, the experts noted that policy-makers often regard overly-technical and complex language as a barrier to their proper understanding of research reports. They stressed that if a partnership fails to consider establishing appropriate communication mechanisms, the benefits of the research may not be fully realized, or even applied at all. One expert (P2) explained this problem clearly:

“Researchers are writing articles for publishing not for practice! ... Several times I received reports from researchers about implementing new programs or learning strategies… [and] these reports are written in an academic and theoretical way… How can I transfer their ideas to teachers, parents, and school leaders? … I believe that the gap between researchers and policy-makers is related to how to understand the research findings…”

(3) Knowledge Transfer Expert: One expert (P3) indicated that the ideas involved in “knowledge transfer” may help translate research findings into more accessible forms for educational policy-makers to better absorb and understand. The expert stated that, “It would be advisable that educational institutions involve a knowledge-transfer expert to close the gap between researchers and policy-makers in understanding any academic language employed.” This particular reviewer is a ‘knowledge transfer expert’ with significant experience in the practical aspects of interpreting educational research findings for policy-makers and stakeholders. He noted that many teachers, principals (with educational doctorates), teacher-researchers and principal-researchers may be effective in this role.

6.3.2 Facilitating research accessibility

Experts stressed that, to facilitate their collaboration, it is essential to establish a network between educational stakeholders, researchers, and policy-makers. They suggested two strategies for creating this collaborative relationship: (i) holding face-to-face meetings, and (ii) establishing an online database. With respect to Face-to-Face Meetings, it is imperative to hold them periodically to discuss a project’s progress, review any issues or misunderstandings which may have arisen, and to make mid-course corrections, if needed, based upon what has already been learned. At these meetings, researchers will come to understand the constraints of educational policy-making. They will also have a forum to discuss their ideas, possible solutions, and policies with educational stakeholders. These meetings will also provide opportunities for policy-makers to express their concerns and discuss aspects of the project which need clarifying with researchers. Such meetings are also essential to developing the human bonds and sense of trust between parties; an important ingredient to the success of any joint endeavour. Regarding an Online Database, establishing such resources with mutually relevant data facilitates the flow of information between researchers, policy-makers and other educational stakeholders. They help each party keep up to date with progress, to review research reports and findings, etc. These databases also make it easier for participants to receive and answer questions from other members. One expert (P1) expounded upon the benefits of maintaining an online database, stating:

“We live in a technological era and taking advantage of technology will facilitate the collaboration between researchers and educational policy-makers and other educational stakeholders… Online databases help researchers to review their findings easily and quickly, and at the same time enable policy-makers to review the research and send their concerns, questions, and suggestions to researchers… This is a good idea!”

In summary, experts indicated that a wide range of research should be reviewed and evaluated in this phase. They highlighted the importance of reporting research in appropriate, understandable language, and encouraged both policy-makers and researchers to discuss research progress via face-to-face meetings, while also sharing information within an online environment.

6.4 Decision-making

Six experts confirmed this stage as being the most important for collaboration in educational research, policy and practice. The experts stressed that all decisions should result from deep analysis of the available solutions/evidence. This will help to shape appropriate policies from an informed perspective. Experts state clearly that decision-making is not a random process, and must evolve from both (i) scientific evidence, and (ii) the balancing of interests.

6.4.1 Using scientific evidence

Experts agreed that selecting the strongest scientific evidence to support a decision helps ensure that the correct decision emerges. Bolstering this point, one expert (P2) stated that, “To have the ability to make successful decisions, these decisions should depend on strong evidence… every solution should be taken under consideration.” To make sure that the most appropriate science informed these decisions, the experts encouraged choosing research that is relevant, of high quality, and in possession of significant and reliable evidence. Consideration of an education system’s capacity to implement potential solutions must also be factored into the policy decision process. Experts suggest that, when making a decision, there is a need to define alternate options, as this will help create a more deliberative decision-making process.

6.4.2 Ensuring the balancing of interests

Experts clarify that this process requires identifying the options and making selections based upon the values, preferences and beliefs of decision-makers and stakeholders. Decision-makers should balance their choices against the potentially negative consequences of their policies as well. Experts suggest that indivisible resources and unequal stakeholder stature can sometimes constrain educational researchers and policy-makers in their efforts to balance interests. Therefore, two of the experts emphasized the need for a positive collaboration climate for sharing ideas and interests. A single, clear decision should result from this stage.

6.5 Policy implementation

Most of the experts stated that having a well-formulated policy is no guarantee of its implementation achieving intended goals. Therefore, educational stakeholders should work together to execute policy, with guidance from the researchers involved in its creation. Towards this end, experts suggested: (i) conducting short training courses/workshops, and (ii) creating step-by-step guidance.

6.5.1 Short training courses/workshops

The experts were concerned that the educational stakeholders responsible for implementing policies may not understand the procedures involved with carrying them out. To overcome this hurdle, the experts argued the importance of holding short training courses or one-day workshops to more effectively explain new policies to the appropriate parties. Buttressing this point, expert (R1) noted that, “Practical workshops would help teachers to learn how to employ these policies.” Whereas expert (P4) suggested that if the researchers involved in policy formulation provided these training courses, it could be very beneficial:

From my experience… I think that a clear perception of what researchers and policy-makers mean could enhance policy implementing successfully… I see that researchers who take part in formulation of the new education strategy should be responsible for training teachers and leaders.

6.5.2 Creating step-by-step guidance

One expert recommended that writing a guideline report covering practical methods, such as step-by-step instructions, for shepherding stakeholders through the implementation process should be sufficient, and preclude any need for reading research details. As the experts emphasized earlier, research findings should be translated into practical, easily explained steps. These steps will make it easier for stakeholders to implement new policy. Expert (R2) implied this, stating: “I assume that development of clear policies and procedures will help stakeholders to define and implement best practices in the educational field…”.

6.6 Policy evaluation

All experts agreed upon the importance of evaluation in building successful policies. Indeed, expert (P4) stated: “If we do not evaluate our policies, we will not know if these policies achieved our goals or not!” Experts suggested that researchers should use academic tools and methods to measure a policy's quality, following its implementation, to verify how well it met intended objectives. Statistical techniques, surveys and structured interviews, to aggregate data from appropriate target groups about the newly-minted policy, could help achieve this. The experts in this study provided a number of ideas regarding policy evaluation, and these data separated into three main categories: (i) ongoing feedback, (ii) observation, and (iii) two-way evaluation.

6.6.1 Ongoing feedback

Two experts recommended that policy evaluation should occur periodically; i.e. researchers should work with policy-makers to collect views and impressions about the new policy from educational leaders, teachers, and/or students. Using surveys and interviews will help researchers and policy-makers track the real-world impact of their policies. Furthermore, the experts recommended that researchers who analyze these evaluations should send their report/conclusions to the educational stakeholders involved. When a new policy is successful, periodic evaluation is still important to ensure success continues, while also allowing for the discovery of potential improvements. Expert (P2) stated that:

“I believe that it is necessary to involve educators and results of recent research in the evaluating process of the educational policy…in the long term … This will help us to understand the strengths and weaknesses in the implemented policy… Therefore, we encourage leaders in different school districts to have a regular meeting with educators to listen to their needs and see what they think about the new decisions made by MoE”.

6.6.2 Conducting observations

One expert (R3) indicated ‘observation’ helps determine if a policy is successful. He stated that, “We may select a couple of schools in different areas, and visit these schools to conduct observations to evaluate the policy’s impact.” He also argued that observations take time and effort, making it virtually impossible to make observations at all schools. Therefore, overall effectiveness must be surmised from the statistical integration of survey results from randomly selected schools from different districts.

6.6.3 Considering two-way evaluation

Experts stated that the policy evaluation process should involve two-way analysis; focusing upon research-to-practice and its reverse, practice-to-research. Simply put, if the evaluation reveals that a policy falls short of intended results, then researchers should endeavour to explain these failures, along with suggested revisions for raising performance. This is one of the benefits of collaboration; it helps to ensure improved outcomes in subsequent policy iterations.

7 Conclusions

This study focused upon developing an effective, theoretically-grounded framework to provide clear and complete guidelines for facilitating collaboration between educational researchers and policy-makers, leading towards more effective practice. We began with a literature review to investigate the connections between policy and research in education (Baker, 2003 ; Bellamy et al., 2006 ; Berliner, 2008 ; Cherney et al., 2012 ; Johansson, 2010 ; Kennedy, 1997 ; Manuel et al., 2009 ; Nutley et al., 2007 ; Tseng, 2012 ). Next, we developed the study’s framework, building it around the theoretical foundations in Lasswell’s stages model and Kingdon’s perspectives, to provide clear and systematic stages for building guidelines which foster collaboration between researchers and policy-makers. As part of this aim, the study used a qualitative research method to conduct semi-structured interviews with nine experts in educational research and policy-making fields, exploring their perspectives regarding collaboration between personnel involved with educational research and policy-making. In accomplishing this task, this study helped advance the debate concerning how researchers can produce more useful research, how practitioners can acquire and use that research, and how policy-makers can create the conditions enabling both to occur.

The results confirmed that issues related to this collaboration are complex. To help simplify this situation, as already noted, this study adapted Lasswell’s heuristic/stages model (1956) to identify the six main stages critical to achieving effective collaboration: (1) prior to collaboration, (2) problem identification and agenda-setting, (3) policy formulation and legitimation, (4) decision-making, (5) policy implementation, and (6) policy evaluation. These six stages are summarized as follows:

‘Prior to collaboration’ recognizes that for collaboration to thrive, a well-prepared system/environment must be in place before work begins. This involves having three key elements: (i) a formal, succinct agreement (ii) a research centre, and (iii) sufficient funding.

For problem identification and agenda-setting, ‘the study affirmed the importance of identifying the most significant problem and setting it as the agenda's priority (Bultitude et al., 2012 ; Lasswell, 1956 ). This is where the collaborative work, the sharing of relevant ideas, perspectives and issues, between researchers and educational stakeholders becomes critical. The study results suggest the creation of a ‘research proposal panel’ to both allow the free exchange of ideas and weed out irrelevant concepts, so that resources can focus upon enhancing the better investigative ideas and thereby promote the creation of high-quality research. Proposals must be relevant and follow strong methodology (Kennedy, 1997 ; Tseng, 2012 ). Indeed the quality and relevance of the research, along with its accessibility, address a major issue in the gap between research and practice (Kennedy, 1997 ).

‘Policy formulation and legitimation’ occur once the research proposals selected in the previous phase are completed and their findings submitted. Since policy-makers typically have little-to-no experience conducting research, the reports must be ‘accessible;’ i.e. they should be short, succinct, use appropriate language, and involve a knowledge transfer expert to help ensure information is easily absorbed and understood by all parties (Cooper, 2014 ; Cooper & Shewchuk, 2015 ; Malin et al., 2018 ). Research accessibility can be facilitated by establishing a collaboration network, which includes face-to-face meetings between relevant parties and an online database for easy sharing of research updates, data and communication.

Educational policy-makers will review research report findings to aid ‘decision-making’. The study confirmed that this stage is pivotal to the whole endeavour; a key consideration being the vital role of scientific evidence in analyzing educational policy alternatives. Decisions must also balance competing interests by considering potentially negative repercussions, and the constraints of reality, such as budget availability, political issues, cultural norms, etc. Collaboration between parties here is essential for research results to be understood, believed, translated into policy and enacted successfully. Eyler et al. ( 2010 ) stress that using the best available evidence and systematically collecting data will allow educational stakeholders to see that evidence-based policymaking is the best way to help ensure new policies produce optimal results.

With policy implementation, educational stakeholders must work together to execute policy with guidance from the researchers involved in its creation. The study's experts suggested creating step-by-step guidelines for policy implementation and conducting short training courses/workshops for practitioners to help them absorb and perform policy requirements. This agreed with a study by Levin and Edelstein ( 2010 ) which suggested connecting professional development with policy, and creating practical reports which illustrate each step towards implementing research findings.

‘Policy evaluation’ is essential to policy success. A feedback cycle, observation and two-way evaluation are recommended techniques for achieving it. Feedback from practitioners and/or students helps to ensure that a policy achieves its intended goals (Tseng, 2012 ). Randomly selecting different schools to observe and rate policy implementation in practice, while statistically aggregating the results, contributes to overall understanding for policy effectiveness, as does two-way evaluation. Two-way evaluation involves seeing how well research-based policy translates into successful practice and, when insufficiencies arise, reversing this process to reveal how these failures occurred (Ion & Iucu, 2015 ; Nutley et al., 2007 ).

These are all dynamic processes in which many stakeholders can have an impact upon policy making, and they need not occur in a linear fashion. Indeed, stages will likely interact or overlap; for instance, although the formal evaluation stage comes after implementation, evaluation is a continuing cycle, occurring at numerous points during collaboration. Nevertheless, these six stages outlining the processes of collaboration between educational research and policy-making will serve as a useful tool for improving policy, its implementation, and ultimately, scholastic achievement.

7.1 Contributions

As already noted, there is currently an absence of guidelines demonstrating how to build collaboration between researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners (Baker, 2003 ; Huberman, 1990 ; Tseng, 2012 ). This study attempted to address this gap in the literature by developing an effective, theoretically-grounded framework of guidelines for both facilitating collaboration and explaining how to achieve it. As such, it offers a unique contribution to the field. Moreover, this study makes another contribution by building a bridge between theory and practice. While there are a number of theoretical review studies related to research utility and policy analysis (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010 ; Edwards et al., 2007 ; Gelderblom et al., 2016 ; Ion et al., 2018 ), relatively few actually connect theory with its practical application. This study aligned the theoretical foundation of Lasswell’s stages model and Kingdon's perspectives to define a systematic approach for collaboration. It provided a practical example for how this collaboration builds by following the stages model. Furthermore, this study makes an additional contribution by essentially breaking new ground for our country (Kuwait) and other nations which experience similarly poor collaboration between educational research and policy-making. The Kuwaiti education system does not implement any significant partnership programs between educational research and policy-making, so the work presented in this study could help ameliorate that situation by providing a platform to both introduce the collaboration concept and make it’s implementation easier. We developed the framework to be appropriate for Kuwaiti needs as well as any other nation interested in facilitating collaboration. Thus, the researchers anticipate that this framework—along with the stages, guidelines, requirements and considerations necessary for implementing it—will provide valuable ideas for researchers, educational policy-makers and other parties who wish to collaborate. Therefore, educational institutions, policy-makers, and researchers should be able to use these guidelines to further any future collaboration.

7.2 Implications

This study has implications for researchers regarding their pursuit and execution of high-quality research which has a positive impact upon both policy development and implementation. Indeed, we believe our framework can help researchers better understand policy-maker and practitioner needs, preferences, and routines, which will help them to tailor both their research proposals and their resulting research reports more successfully. We agree with Green’s ( 2008 ) vision of a “future in which we would not need to ask the question of how to get more acceptance of evidence-based practice, but one in which we would ask how to sustain the engagement of practitioners, patients and communities in a participatory process of generating practice-based research and program evaluation,” (p. 24).

7.3 Recommendations

In consideration of the study’s findings, several recommendations for future research emerged. The first involves acquiring perspectives from additional experts regarding the establishment of collaboration between researchers and policy-makers. These additional data are important to ensuring the internal validity of the proposed framework and would involve asking the experts to examine and provide feedback regarding the framework developed in this study. This subsequent review would likely strengthen the framework’s quality by including further perspectives and knowledge. The future research should expand the sample to include practitioners in the educational field to provide more comprehensive perspectives regarding collaboration. The practitioners could serve as a third party between policy-makers and researchers; their perspectives would enrich this collaboration. Another recommendation includes examining how political, economic, cultural and various social factors might influence each stage of the collaborative process. This will help provide understanding for what might hinder effective collaboration.

7.4 Limitations

While the Kuwaiti experts provided valuable information regarding the guidelines framework we proposed, their different cultural backgrounds, education systems, environments, and educational policies may have biased these data. Specifically put, these data were collected via interview and, therefore, reflect each Kuwaiti expert’s perceptions, which can be subjective; i.e. they depend upon their own personal experiences and prior background related to the education system in Kuwait. Moreover, this study’s sample included only researchers and policy-makers. It is possible that other participants, such as practitioners or educators, could hold other opinions in how best to build an effective collaboration between personnel in educational research, policy and practice. As a consequence, the researchers suggest that future studies should also collect data from educators such as school principals and teachers.

Anderson, C. W. (1979). The place of principles in policy analysis. American Political Science Review, 73 (3), 711–723.

Article   Google Scholar  

Babbie, E., & Mouton, J. (2001). The practice of social research . Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Baker, R. (2003). Promoting a research agenda in education within and beyond policy and practice. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2 (3), 171–182.

Baum, L. (2003). The supreme court in American politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 6 (1), 161–180.

Bellamy, J. L., Bledsoe, S. E., & Traube, D. E. (2006). The current state of evidence-based practice in social work: A review of the literature and qualitative analysis of expert interviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 3 (1), 23–48.

Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice . Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc Inc.

Book   Google Scholar  

Benoit, F. (2013). Public policy models and their usefulness in public health: The stages model . National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.

Berliner, D. C. (2008). Research, policy, and practice: The great disconnect. V S. D. Lapan (ur.) In M. T. Quartaroli (ur.) (Eds.) Reassert essentials: an introduction to designs and practices , (pp. 295–325) Jossey- Bass, str.

Blewden, M., Carroll, P., & Witten, K. (2010). The use of social science research to inform policy development: case studies from recent immigration policy. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 5 (1), 13–25.

Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. J. (2010). Evidence-based policy making: Insights from policy minded researchers and research-minded policymakers . Routledge.

Booker, L., Conaway, C., & Schwartz, N. (2019). Five ways RPPs can fail and how to avoid them: Applying conceptual frameworks to improve RPPs . William T. Grant Foundation.

Brislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1 (3), 185–216.

Bultitude, K., Rodari, P., Weitkamp, E., BridginCherney, A., Poveyb, J., Headb, B., Borehamb, P., & Fergusonb, M. (2012). What influences the g the gap between science and policy: the importance of mutual respect, trust and the role of mediators. Journal of Science Communication, 11 (3), 1–4.

Cattaneo, K. H. (2018). Applying policy theories to charter school legislation in New York: rational actor model, stage heuristics, and multiple streams. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13 (2), 6–24.

Cherney, A., Povey, J., Head, B., Boreham, P., & Ferguson, M. (2012). What influences the utilisation of educational research by policy-makers and practitioners?: The perspectives of academic educational researchers. International Journal of Educational Research, 56 , 23–34.

Cobb, P., McClain, K., de Silva Lamberg, T., & Dean, C. (2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32 (6), 13–24.

Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. P. (2016). Research-practice partnerships in education outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45 (1), 48–54.

Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. (2013). Research-practice partnerships at the district level: A new strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement . Wiilliam T. Grant Foundation.

Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide . Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Cook, F. L., Tyler, T. R., Goetz, E. G., Gordon, M. T., Protess, D., Leff, D. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1983). Media and agenda setting: Effects on the public, interest group leaders, policy makers, and policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47 (1), 16–35.

Cooper, A. (2014). Knowledge mobilisation in education across Canada: A cross-case analysis of 44 research brokering organisations. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 10 (1), 29–59.

Cooper, A., & Shewchuk, S. (2015). Knowledge brokers in education: How intermediary organizations are bridging the gap between research, policy and practice internationally. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23 (118), n118.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Sage publications.

DeLeon, P. (1999). The stages approach to the policy process: What has it done? Where is it going. Theories of the Policy Process, 1 (19), 19–32.

Donovan, M. S. (2013). Generating improvement through research and development in education systems. Science, 340 (6130), 317–319.

Edwards, A., Sebba, J., & Rickinson, M. (2007). Working with users: Some implications for educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 33 (5), 647–661.

Eyler, A., Brownson, R., Schmid, T., & Pratt, M. (2010). Understanding policies and physical activity: Frontiers of knowledge to improve population health. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 7 (s1), S9–S12.

Farley-Ripple, E., & Jones, A. R. (2015). Educational contracting and the translation of research into practice: the case of data coach vendors in Delaware. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 10 (2), n2.

Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5 (1), 80–92.

Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., & Cheng, B. H. (Eds.). (2013). Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook . Teachers College Press.

Gelderblom, G., Schildkamp, K., Pieters, J., & Ehren, M. (2016). Data-based decision making for instructional improvement in primary education. International Journal of Educational Research, 80 , 1–14.

Green, L. W. (2008). Making research relevant: If it is an evidence-based practice, where’s the practice-based evidence? Family Practice, 25 , 20–24.

Henry, G. T., & Mark, M. M. (2003). Toward an agenda for research on evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 97 , 69–80.

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems . Oxford University Press.

Huberman, M. (1990). Linkages between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal, 27 (2), 363–391.

Ion, G. & Iucu, R. (2015). Does research influence educational policy? The perspective of researchers and policy-makers in Romania. In The European higher education area (pp. 865–880). Springer.‏

Ion, G., Marin, E., & Proteasa, C. (2018). How does the context of research influence the use of educational research in policy-making and practice? Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 18 (2), 119–139.

Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods, 125 , 43–62.

Johansson, S. (2010). Implementing EBPs and programmes in the human services: Lessons from research in public administration. European Journal of Social Work, 13 (1), 109–125.

Kennedy, M. M. (1997). The connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher, 26 (7), 4–12.

Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies (2nd ed.). HaperCollins.

Kingdon, J. W. (2010). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (3rd ed.). Longman.

Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2012). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives . Cq Press.

Kulaç, O., & Özgür, H. (2017). An overview of the stages (heuristics) model as a public policy analysis framework. European Scientific Journal, 13 (12), 144–157.

Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis . College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland.

Levin, B. (2013). To know is not enough: Research knowledge and its use. Review of Education, 1 (1), 2–31.

Levin, B., & Edelstein, H. (2010). Research, policy and practice in education. Education Canada, 50 (2), 29–30.

Malin, J. R., Brown, C., & Trubceac, A. S. (2018). Going for broke: A multiple-case study of brokerage in education. AERA Open, 4 (2), 2332858418769297.

Manuel, J. I., Mullen, E. J., Fang, L., Bellamy, J. L., & Bledsoe, S. E. (2009). Preparing social work practitioners to use EBP: A comparison of experiences from an implementation project. Research on Social Work Practice, 19 , 613–627.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research . Sage Publication.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education . Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome St, San Francisco, CA 94104.

Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services . Policy Press.

Peters, M. (1996). Poststructuralism, politics, and education. critical studies in education and culture . Bergin and Garvey, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881.

Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform: A comparative analysis . Oxford University Press.

Poon, C. L. (2012). Fourth way in action: Translation of research into policy and practice. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 11 (1), 19–25.

Power, C. (2007). Educational research, policy and practice in an era of globalisation. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6 (2), 87–100.

Renée, M. (2006). Knowledge, power, and education justice: how social movement organizations use research to influence education policy. Unpublished dissertation . Los Angeles: UCLA.

Ripley, R. B., & Franklin, G. A. (1986). Policy implementation and the bureaucracy . Brooks Press.

Roderick, M., Easton, J. Q., & Sebring, P. B. (2007). Developing new roles for research in new policy environments: The Consortium on Chicago School Research . The University of Chicago.

Sabatier, P. A. (2007). Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.). Westview.

Scott, J., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28 (2), 233–257.

Sebba, J. (2007). Enhancing impact on policymaking through increasing user engagement in research. In L. Saunders (Ed.), Educational research and policy-making: Exploring the border country between research and policy (pp. 127–143). Routledge.

Tseng, V. (2012). Partnerships: Shifting the dynamics between research and practice . William T. Grant Foundation.

Urquiola, M. (2015). Progress and challenges in achieving an evidence-based education policy in Latin America and the Caribbean. Latin American Economic Review, 24 (1).

van Schaik, P., Volman, M., Admiraal, W., & Schenked, W. (2018). Barriers and conditions for teachers’ utilisation of academic knowledge. International Journal of Educational Research, 90 , 50–63.

Vanderlinde, R., & Van Braaka, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36 (2), 299–316.

Weiss, C. H. (1979). Improving the linkage between social research and public policy. Knowledge and policy: The uncertain connection, 23–81.

Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluating action programs: Readings in social action and education (pp. 3–27). Allyn and Bacon.

Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3 , 531–546.

Whitty, G. (2006). Education (al) research and education policy making: Is conflict inevitable? British Educational Research Journal, 32 (2), 159–176.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Administration and Planning, College of Education, Kuwait University, P.O.Box: 13281, 71953, Kuwait City, Kuwait

Ayeshah Ahmed Alazmi

Department of Educational Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Kuwait University, P.O. Box. 13281, 71423, Kuwait City, Kuwait

Huda Salem Alazmi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayeshah Ahmed Alazmi .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Alazmi, A.A., Alazmi, H.S. Closing the gap between research and policy-making to better enable effective educational practice: a proposed framework. Educ Res Policy Prac 22 , 91–116 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-022-09321-4

Download citation

Received : 13 May 2020

Accepted : 07 July 2022

Published : 25 July 2022

Issue Date : February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-022-09321-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Education research
• Research utility
• Policy-making
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

How to Implement New Company Policies

• The New Rules for Change Management
• Employee Lifecycle Management with Integrify
• How to Lead Through Chaos

However, finding effective ways to implement new policies and procedures can increase adoption and policy compliance. Following these best practices for policy management can help ensure a smooth roll-out the next time your organization introduces a new policy or implements changes to an existing policy. We have an eBook that goes more into increasing user adoption after purchasing a new SaaS model for your organization,  Getting Users Onboard Your New Workflow System .

Powers of Policy Persuasion

Following the guidelines laid out by Harvard Business Review , managers involved in a policy change process should understand how to persuade and promote the policy change to employees effectively.

• People are more willing to cooperate when they like each other. Find ways to give employees genuine praise before a policy change. Find common ground you can agree on.
• You can implement reciprocity by offering something employees will appreciate as part of policy changes. This could be as simple as casual dress days, coupons, summer hours, etc.
• Enlist those who already believe in the policy change as allies. Let them help spread the word to their peers. Provide talking points that explain the positive side of the changes.
• Make sure messaging around the changes is consistent and put it in writing.  People are more likely to adhere to any policies that are in writing.
• Make sure the policy change is explained as coming from experts. That could be as simple as providing experience, data, research, testing, and results, that back up the reason for the policy change.
• Share information with key players before sharing it more broadly.  This gives an air of exclusivity to the people who can be your initial champions of the policy change.

Tailor Policies to Your Organization’s Size and Structure

First, implementing a policy that isn’t going to actually be followed is worse than not implementing policy at all. Plan, plan, plan.

Don’t simply buy an off-the-shelf, one-size-fits-all policy document and put your company’s logo on the first page; if it’s not tailored to meet your company’s (or a specific department’s) needs, you’ve likely wasted money on the purchase.

Policies need to make sense for your company's size and the way you’re structured. For your new policy to be effective, you should also make sure the people tasked with carrying out the policy will actually be able to do so. Implementing a new policy that is difficult or even impossible for rank-and-file employees to carry out will mean the policy will be abandoned in short order.

Involve key stakeholders in the planning process,  before  implementation. Get feedback from managers and from employees who would be subject to the new policy. Does what you want to do make sense? Do they have the capacity and resources today to follow the policy to the letter? Does the proposed policy conflict with other existing policies or procedures? Pay attention to what these groups have to say, and make modifications as appropriate (or as necessary). When you do finally roll out the new policy, it will be better received.

Make Sure Policies Comply with HR and Regulatory Requirements

While it should go without saying, you should also make sure your proposed policy does not conflict with employment laws or with regulatory requirements. As a good rule of thumb, run all new policies and substantive policy changes past legal counsel and the internal compliance department (if applicable) before implementing them. It’s better to find out about potential issues before you go live with the policy, so you don’t have to backtrack later after the policy is already in force.

Determine How to Best Deploy the Policy

Before implementing a new policy, evaluating your options for doing so can also be worthwhile. Sometimes, it makes sense to deploy a new policy in stages. In other cases, a full roll-out works best.

If it makes sense and if it is feasible to do so for a particular policy, you may also consider implementing a new policy first with one department or with just a subset of your employee base. That can give you an opportunity to spot and iron out wrinkles you didn’t anticipate during the planning stages before going company-wide with the new mandate.

Provide Appropriate Communication, Training, and Support

There are many possible “right” ways actually to introduce a new policy to employees. The best way for your organization will depend in large part on what the new policy is actually doing and what problem it is designed to address. In some cases, rolling out a policy via email alone can be effective. In other situations, it’s better to introduce the policy through in-person information sessions or formal training events. It can also sometimes be helpful to foreshadow a coming policy, giving employees advanced notice that you will be introducing changes. Try to anticipate potential questions ahead of time so you can be prepared to address them.

Regardless of your chosen method, providing the relevant background to affected employees can be helpful. Explain what the reasons behind the policy are; this can go a long way in helping employees want to do what they’re expected to do.

However, don’t simply email a policy document, post it on a company intranet site, or introduce the policy in a meeting without also providing an opportunity and a mechanism for employees to raise questions or issues. Employees who understand the what, why and how of a new policy are much more likely to comply with it.

Obtain Policy Acknowledgements

Another best practice for policy management is to require affected employees to acknowledge their receipt and understanding of the new policy formally. Policy acknowledgments should come with a deadline for completion, which can help ensure employees are following the new policy promptly. Of course, deadlines also often mean someone must follow up with stragglers to obtain their acknowledgments.

Using technology solutions including automated workflows can make the entire acknowledgment process simple and streamlined. Your company can create a customized statement of understanding form and push it out to the entire employee base or just to a specific group of employees with just a few mouse clicks.

Employees will be notified that they need to complete the acknowledgment and can do so from their computers or any connected device. Their completed forms will then be captured and retained, easily accessible by HR, compliance, or others with a need to review them. Any answers that deviate from expected responses can be flagged for follow-up. The system can also be set to send automatic reminders to employees who haven’t submitted their completed forms yet. Finally, real-time completion reports are available to management anytime, providing a picture that can shed light on policy adoption.

Schedule Periodic Policy Reviews

Finally, it’s important to review policies periodically to ensure they still make sense in their current forms. Sometimes, review timeframes are driven by regulatory guidelines. Your company’s board of directors may drive policy reviews in other cases. Whatever time frame you adopt, document your review and the outcome.

For more tips on effective policy implementation and how workflow software solutions can help your organization with policy management,  contact Integrify online  or call us at (888) 536-9629 today. 

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/implement-hr-policies-58053.html

https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/workplace-policies/3-tips-for-implementing-policy-changes/

Tags HR   compliance   employees   policies  

Categories Business Ideas   Project Management   Department Focus  

Marketing the world's best workflow automation software and drinking way too much coffee. Connect with me on LinkedIn at  https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelraia/

Subscribe to Receive the Latest Workflow Automation Tips

Subscribe →

Business Ideas

Customer corner, department focus, employee spotlight, flowchart friday, industry focus, productivity points, productivity tips, project management, using integrify, workflow ideas.

At this time, we recommend all  Penn-affiliated  travel to Israel, West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon be deferred.  If you are planning travel to any of these locations, please reach out to [email protected] for the most up to date risk assessment and insurance exclusions. As a reminder, it is required that all Penn-affiliated trips are registered in  MyTrips .  If you have questions, please contact  [email protected] . 

Utility Navigation

Utility links.

• University of Pennsylvania
• Office of the Provost
• Penn Global

Secondary Nav Penn Global

• For Penn Students
• For Penn Faculty
• For Alumni & Friends

Primary Nav Penn Global

Drawer menu penn global.

• Back to main menu
• Our Strategic Framework
• Perry World House
• Penn Biden Center
• Penn Abroad
• International Student & Scholar Services
• Global Support Services
• Penn in Africa
• Penn in China
• 2022 PLAC Symposium
• Pulitzer International Reporting Student Fellowship
• Connect with PLAC
• Penn in Oceania
• Penn in the Middle East
• Penn in Northern America
• Global at Penn's Schools
• Global Centers & Programs
• Global Engagement Fund
• China Research and Engagement Fund
• India Research and Engagement Fund
• Holman Africa Research and Engagement Fund
• Apply for a Convening Grant
• Apply for a Research Grant
• Manage My Grant
• Grants Database

PENN GLOBAL RESEARCH & ENGAGEMENT GRANT PROGRAM 2024 Grant Program Awardees

Basic page sidebar menu penn global.

In 2024, Penn Global will support 24 new faculty-led research and engagement projects at a total funding level of $1.5 million.

The Penn Global Research and Engagement Grant Program prioritizes projects that bring together leading scholars and practitioners across the University community and beyond to develop new insight on significant global issues in key countries and regions around the world, a core pillar of Penn’s global strategic framework. 

PROJECTS SUPPORTED BY THE HOLMAN AFRICA RESEARCH AND ENGAGEMENT FUND

• Global Medical Physics Training & Development Program  Stephen Avery, Perelman School of Medicine
• Developing a Dakar Greenbelt with Blue-Green Wedges Proposal  Eugenie Birch, Weitzman School of Design
• Emergent Judaism in Sub-Saharan Africa  Peter Decherney, School of Arts and Sciences / Sara Byala, School of Arts and Sciences
• Determinants of Cognitive Aging among Older Individuals in Ghana  Irma Elo, School of Arts and Sciences
• Disrupted Aid, Displaced Lives Guy Grossman, School of Arts and Sciences
• A History of Regenerative Agriculture Practices from the Global South: Case Studies from Ethiopia, Kenya, and Zimbabwe Thabo Lenneiye, Kleinman Energy Center / Weitzman School of Design
• Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery Use in Botswana Public Schools Elizabeth Lowenthal, Perelman School of Medicine
• Podcasting South African Jazz Past and Present Carol Muller, School of Arts and Sciences
• Lake Victoria Megaregion Study: Joint Lakefront Initiative Frederick Steiner, Weitzman School of Design
• Leveraging an Open Source Software to Prevent and Contain AMR Jonathan Strysko, Perelman School of Medicine
• Poverty reduction and children's neurocognitive growth in Cote d'Ivoire Sharon Wolf, Graduate School of Education
• The Impacts of School Connectivity Efforts on Education Outcomes in Rwanda  Christopher Yoo, Carey Law School

PROJECTS SUPPORTED BY THE INDIA RESEARCH AND ENGAGEMENT FUND

• Routes Beyond Conflict: A New Approach to Cultural Encounters in South Asia  Daud Ali, School of Arts and Sciences
• Prioritizing Air Pollution in India’s Cities Tariq Thachil, Center for the Advanced Study of India / School of Arts and Sciences
• Intelligent Voicebots to Help Indian Students Learn English Lyle Ungar, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

PROJECTS SUPPORTED BT THE CHINA RESEARCH AND ENGAGEMENT FUND

• Planning Driverless Cities in China Zhongjie Lin, Weitzman School of Design

PROJECTS SUPPORTED BY THE GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT FUND 

• Education and Economic Development in Nepal Amrit Thapa, Graduate School of Education
• Explaining Climate Change Regulation in Cities: Evidence from Urban Brazil Alice Xu, School of Arts and Sciences
• Nurse Staffing Legislation for Scotland: Lessons for the U.S. and the U.K.  Eileen Lake, School of Nursing
• Pathways to Education Development & Their Consequences: Finland, Korea, US Hyunjoon Park, School of Arts and Sciences
• Engaged Scholarship in Latin America: Bridging Knowledge and Action Tulia Falleti, School of Arts and Sciences
• Organizing Migrant Communities to Realize Rights in Palermo, Sicily  Domenic Vitiello, Weitzman School of Design
• Exploiting Cultural Heritage in 21st Century Conflict   Fiona Cunningham, School of Arts and Sciences
• Center for Integrative Global Oral Health   Alonso Carrasco-Labra, School of Dental Medicine

This first-of-its-kind Global Medical Physics Training and Development Program (GMPTDP) seeks to serve as an opportunity for PSOM and SEAS graduate students to enhance their clinical requirement with a global experience, introduce them to global career opportunities and working effectively in different contexts, and strengthens partnerships for education and research between US and Africa. This would also be an exceptional opportunity for pre-med/pre-health students and students interested in health tech to have a hands-on global experience with some of the leading professionals in the field. The project will include instruction in automated radiation planning through artificial intelligence (AI); this will increase access to quality cancer care by standardizing radiation planning to reduce inter-user variability and error, decreasing workload on the limited radiation workforce, and shortening time to treatment for patients. GMPTDP will offer a summer clinical practicum to Penn students during which time they will also collaborate with UGhana to implement and evaluate AI tools in the clinical workflow.

The proposal will address today’s pressing crises of climate change, land degradation, biodiversity loss, and growing economic disparities with a holistic approach that combines regional and small-scale actions necessary to achieve sustainability. It will also tackle a key issue found across sub-Saharan Africa, many emerging economies, and economically developed countries that struggle to control rapid unplanned urbanization that vastly outpaces the carrying capacity of the surrounding environment.

The regional portion of the project will create a framework for a greenbelt that halts the expansion of the metropolitan footprint. It will also protect the Niayes, an arable strip of land that produces over 80% of the country’s vegetables, from degradation. This partnership will also form a south-south collaboration to provide insights into best practices from a city experiencing similar pressures.

The small-scale portion of the project will bolster and create synergy with ongoing governmental and grassroots initiatives aimed at restoring green spaces currently being infilled or degraded in the capital. This will help to identify overlapping goals between endeavors, leading to collaboration and mobilizing greater funding possibilities instead of competing over the same limited resources. With these partners, we will identify and design Nature-based Solutions for future implementation.

Conduct research through fieldwork to examine questions surrounding Jewish identity in Africa. Research will be presented in e.g. articles, photographic images, and films, as well as in a capstone book. In repeat site-visits to Uganda, South Africa, Ghana, and Zimbabwe, we will conduct interviews with and take photographs of stakeholders from key communities in order to document their everyday lives and religious practices.

The overall aim of this project is the development of a nationally representative study on aging in Ghana. This goal requires expanding our network of Ghanian collaborators and actively engage them in research on aging. The PIs will build on existing institutional contacts in Ghana that include:

1). Current collaboration with the Navrongo Health Research Center (NCHR) on a pilot data collection on cognitive aging in Ghana (funded by a NIA supplement and which provides the matching funds for this Global Engagement fund grant application);

2) Active collaboration with the Regional Institute for Population Studies (RIPS), University of Ghana. Elo has had a long-term collaboration with Dr. Ayaga Bawah who is the current director of RIPS.

In collaboration with UNHCR, we propose studying the effects of a dramatic drop in the level of support for refugees, using a regression discontinuity design to survey 2,500 refugee households just above and 2,500 households just below the vulnerability score cutoff that determines eligibility for full rations. This study will identify the effects of aid cuts on the welfare of an important marginalized population, and on their livelihood adaptation strategies. As UNHCR faces budgetary cuts in multiple refugee-hosting contexts, our study will inform policymakers on the effects of funding withdrawal as well as contribute to the literature on cash transfers.

The proposed project, titled "A History of Regenerative Agriculture Practices from the Global South: Case Studies from Ethiopia, Kenya, and Zimbabwe," aims to delve into the historical and contemporary practices of regenerative agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes:

1. Research Paper: The primary output of this project will be a comprehensive research paper. This paper will draw from a rich pool of historical and contemporary data to explore the history of regenerative agriculture practices in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. It will document the indigenous knowledge and practices that have sustained these regions for generations.

2. Policy Digest: In addition to academic research, the project will produce a policy digest. This digest will distill the research findings into actionable insights for policymakers, both at the national and international levels. It will highlight the benefits of regenerative agriculture and provide recommendations for policy frameworks that encourage its adoption.

3. Long-term Partnerships: The project intends to establish long-term partnerships with local and regional universities, such as Great Lakes University Kisumu, Kenya. These partnerships will facilitate knowledge exchange, collaborative research, and capacity building in regenerative agriculture practices. Such collaborations align with Penn Global's goal of strengthening institutional relationships with African partners.

The Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB) was developed at the University of Pennsylvania by Dr. Ruben C. Gur and colleagues to be administered as part of a comprehensive neuropsychiatric assessment. Consisting of a series of cognitive tasks that help identify individuals’ cognitive strengths and weaknesses, it has recently been culturally adapted and validated by our team for assessment of school-aged children in Botswana . The project involves partnership with the Botswana Ministry of Education and Skills Development (MoESD) to support the rollout of the PCNB for assessment of public primary and secondary school students in Botswana. The multidisciplinary Penn-based team will work with partners in Botswana to guide the PCNB rollout, evaluate fidelity to the testing standards, and track student progress after assessment and intervention. The proposed project will strengthen a well-established partnership between Drs. Elizabeth Lowenthal and J. Cobb Scott from the PSOM and in-country partners. Dr. Sharon Wolf, from Penn’s Graduate School of Education, is an expert in child development who has done extensive work with the Ministry of Education in Ghana to support improvements in early childhood education programs. She is joining the team to provide the necessary interdisciplinary perspective to help guide interventions and evaluations accompanying this new use of the PCNB to support this key program in Africa.

This project will build on exploratory research completed by December 24, 2023 in which the PI interviewed about 35 South Africans involved in jazz/improvised music mostly in Cape Town: venue owners, curators, creators, improvisers.

• Podcast series with 75-100 South African musicians interviewed with their music interspersed in the program.
• 59 minute radio program with extended excerpts of music inserted into the interview itself.
• Create a center of knowledge about South African jazz—its sound and its stories—building knowledge globally about this significant diasporic jazz community
• Expand understanding of “jazz” into a more diffuse area of improvised music making that includes a wide range of contemporary indigenous music and art making
• Partner w Lincoln Center Jazz (and South African Tourism) to host South Africans at Penn

This study focuses on the potential of a Megaregional approach for fostering sustainable development, economic growth, and social inclusion within the East African Community (EAC), with a specific focus on supporting the development of A Vision for An Inclusive Joint Lakefront across the 5 riparian counties in Kenya.

By leveraging the principles of Megaregion development, this project aims to create a unified socio-economic, planning, urbanism, cultural, and preservation strategy that transcends county boundaries and promotes collaboration further afield, among the EAC member countries surrounding the Lake Victoria Basin.

Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes:

1. Megaregion Conceptual Framework: The project will develop a comprehensive Megaregion Conceptual Framework for the Joint Lakefront region in East Africa. This framework, which different regions around the world have applied as a way of bridging local boundaries toward a unified regional vision will give the Kisumu Lake region a path toward cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning. The Conceptual Framework will be both broad and specific, including actionable strategies, projects, and initiatives aimed at sustainable development, economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental stewardship.

2. Urbanism Projects: Specific urbanism projects will be proposed for key urban centers within the Kenyan riparian counties. These projects will serve as tangible examples of potential improvements and catalysts for broader development efforts.

3. Research Publication: The findings of the study will be captured in a research publication, contributing to academic discourse and increasing Penn's visibility in the field of African urbanism and sustainable development

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has emerged as a global crisis, causing more deaths than HIV/AIDS and malaria worldwide. By engaging in a collaborative effort with the Botswana Ministry of Health’s data scientists and experts in microbiology, human and veterinary medicine, and bioinformatics, we will aim to design new electronic medical record system modules that will:

Aim 1: Support the capturing, reporting, and submission of microbiology data from sentinel surveillance laboratories as well as pharmacies across the country

Aim 2: Develop data analytic dashboards for visualizing and characterizing regional AMR and AMC patterns

Aim 3: Submit AMR and AMC data to regional and global surveillance programs

Aim 4: Establish thresholds for alert notifications when disease activity exceeds expected incidence to serve as an early warning system for outbreak detection.

  Using a novel interdisciplinary approach that bridges development economics, psychology, and neuroscience, the overall goal of this project is to improve children's development using a poverty-reduction intervention in Cote d'Ivoire (CIV). The project will directly measure the impacts of cash transfers (CTs) on neurocognitive development, providing a greater understanding of how economic interventions can support the eradication of poverty and ensure that all children flourish and realize their full potential. The project will examine causal mechanisms by which CTs support children’s healthy neurocognitive development and learning outcomes through the novel use of an advanced neuroimaging tool, functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS), direct child assessments, and parent interviews.

The proposed research, the GIGA initiative for Improving Education in Rwanda (GIER), will produce empirical evidence on the impact of connecting schools on education outcomes to enable Rwanda to better understand how to accelerate the efforts to bring connectivity to schools, how to improve instruction and learning among both teachers and students, and whether schools can become internet hubs capable of providing access e-commerce and e-government services to surrounding communities. In addition to evaluating the impact of connecting schools on educational outcomes, the research would also help determine which aspects of the program are critical to success before it is rolled out nationwide.

Through historical epigraphic research, the project will test the hypothesis that historical processes and outcomes in the 14th century were precipitated by a series of related global and local factors and that, moreover, an interdisciplinary and synergistic analysis of these factors embracing climatology, hydrology, epidemiology linguistics and migration will explain the transformation of the cultural, religious and social landscapes of the time more effectively than the ‘clash of civilizations’ paradigm dominant in the field. Outputs include a public online interface for the epigraphic archive; a major international conference at Penn with colleagues from partner universities (Ghent, Pisa, Edinburgh and Penn) as well as the wider South Asia community; development of a graduate course around the research project, on multi-disciplinary approaches to the problem of Hindu-Muslim interaction in medieval India; and a public facing presentation of our findings and methods to demonstrate the path forward for Indian history. Several Penn students, including a postdoc, will be actively engaged.  

India’s competitive electoral arena has failed to generate democratic accountability pressures to reduce toxic air. This project seeks to broadly understand barriers to such pressures from developing, and how to overcome them. In doing so, the project will provide the first systematic study of attitudes and behaviors of citizens and elected officials regarding air pollution in India. The project will 1) conduct in-depth interviews with elected local officials in Delhi, and a large-scale survey of elected officials in seven Indian states affected by air pollution, and 2) partner with relevant civil society organizations, international bodies like the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), domain experts at research centers like the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), and local civic organizations (Janagraaha) to evaluate a range of potential strategies to address pollution apathy, including public information campaigns with highly affected citizens (PHFI), and local pollution reports for policymakers (Janagraaha).

The biggest benefit from generative AI such as GPT, will be the widespread availability of tutoring systems to support education. The project will use this technology to build a conversational voicebot to support Indian students in learning English. The project will engage end users (Indian tutors and their students) in the project from the beginning. The initial prototype voice-driven conversational system will be field-tested in Indian schools and adapted. The project includes 3 stages of development:

1) Develop our conversational agent. Specify the exact initial use case and Conduct preliminary user testing.

2) Fully localize to India, addressing issues identified in Phase 1 user testing.

3) Do comprehensive user testing with detailed observation of 8-12 students using the agent for multiple months; conduct additional assessments of other stakeholders.

The project partners with Ashoka University and Pratham over all three stages, including writing scholarly papers.

Through empirical policy analysis and data-based scenario planning, this project actively contributes to this global effort by investigating planning and policy responses to autonomous transportation in the US and China. In addition to publishing several research papers on this subject, the PI plans to develop a new course and organize a forum at PWCC in 2025. These initiatives are aligned with an overarching endeavor that the PI leads at the Weitzman School of Design, which aims to establish a Future Cities Lab dedicated to research and collaboration in the pursuit of sustainable cities.

This study aims to fill this gap through a more humanistic approach to measuring the impact of education on national development. Leveraging a mixed methods research design consisting of analysis of quantitative data for trends over time, observations of schools and classrooms, and qualitative inquiry via talking to people and hearing their stories, we hope to build a comprehensive picture of educational trends in Nepal and their association with intra-country development. Through this project we strive to better inform the efforts of state authorities and international organizations working to enhance sustainable development within Nepal, while concurrently creating space and guidance for further impact analyses. Among various methods of dissemination of the study’s findings, one key goal is to feed this information into writing a book on this topic.

Developing cities across the world have taken the lead in adopting local environmental regulation. Yet standard models of environmental governance begin with the assumption that local actors should have no incentives for protecting “the commons.” Given the benefits of climate change regulation are diffuse, individual local actors face a collective action problem. This project explores why some local governments bear the costs of environmental regulation while most choose to free-ride. The anticipated outputs of the project include qualitative data that illuminate case studies and the coding of quantitative spatial data sets for studying urban land-use. These different forms of data collection will allow me to develop and test a theoretical framework for understanding when and why city governments adopt environmental policy.

The proposed project will develop new insights on the issue of legislative solutions to the nurse staffing crisis, which will pertain to many U.S. states and U.K. countries. The PI will supervise the nurse survey data collection and to meet with government and nursing association stakeholders to plan the optimal preparation of reports and dissemination of results. The anticipated outputs of the project are a description of variation throughout Scotland in hospital nursing features, including nurse staffing, nurse work environments, extent of adherence to the Law’s required principles, duties, and method, and nurse intent to leave. The outcomes will be the development of capacity for sophisticated quantitative research by Scottish investigators, where such skills are greatly needed but lacking.  

The proposed project will engage multi-cohort, cross-national comparisons of educational-attainment and labor-market experiences of young adults in three countries that dramatically diverge in how they have developed college education over the last three decades: Finland, South Korea and the US. It will produce comparative knowledge regarding consequences of different pathways to higher education, which has significant policy implications for educational and economic inequality in Finland, Korea, the US, and beyond. The project also will lay the foundation for ongoing collaboration among the three country teams to seek external funding for sustained collaboration on educational analyses.

With matching funds from PLAC and CLALS, we will jointly fund four scholars from diverse LAC countries to participate in workshops to engage our community regarding successful practices of community-academic partnerships.

These four scholars and practitioners from Latin America, who are experts on community-engaged scholarship, will visit the Penn campus during the early fall of 2024. As part of their various engagements on campus, these scholars will participate after the workshops as key guest speakers in the 7th edition of the Penn in Latin America and the Caribbean (PLAC) Conference, held on October 11, 2024, at the Perry World House. The conference will focus on "Public and Community Engaged Scholarship in Latin America, the Caribbean, and their Diasporas."

Palermo, Sicily, has been a leading center of migrant rights advocacy and migrant civic participation in the twenty-first century. This project will engage an existing network of diverse migrant community associations and anti-mafia organizations in Palermo to take stock of migrant rights and support systems in the city. Our partner organizations, research assistants, and cultural mediators from different communities will design and conduct a survey and interviews documenting experiences, issues and opportunities related to various rights – to asylum, housing, work, health care, food, education, and more. Our web-based report will include recommendations for city and regional authorities and other actors in civil society. The last phase of our project will involve community outreach and organizing to advance these objectives. The web site we create will be designed as the network’s information center, with a directory of civil society and services, updating an inventory not current since 2014, which our partner Diaspore per la Pace will continue to update.

This interdisciplinary project has four objectives: 1) to investigate why some governments and non-state actors elevated cultural heritage exploitation (CHX) to the strategic level of warfare alongside nuclear weapons, cyberattacks, political influence operations and other “game changers”; 2) which state or non-state actors (e.g. weak actors) use heritage for leverage in conflict and why; and 3) to identify the mechanisms through which CHX coerces an adversary (e.g. catalyzing international involvement); and 4) to identify the best policy responses for non-state actors and states to address the challenge of CHX posed by their adversaries, based on the findings produced by the first three objectives.

Identify the capacity of dental schools, organizations training oral health professionals and conducting oral health research to contribute to oral health policies in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region, identify the barriers and facilitators to engage in OHPs, and subsequently define research priority areas for the region in collaboration with the WHO, oral health academia, researchers, and other regional stakeholders.

3539 Locust Walk University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104

[email protected]

©2024 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104   

Footer Menu

• Report Accessibility Issues and Get Help
• Privacy Policy

Asking the better questions that unlock new answers to the working world's most complex issues.

Trending topics

AI insights

EY podcasts

EY webcasts

Operations leaders

Technology leaders

Marketing and growth leaders

Cybersecurity and privacy leaders

Risk leaders

EY Center for Board Matters

EY helps clients create long-term value for all stakeholders. Enabled by data and technology, our services and solutions provide trust through assurance and help clients transform, grow and operate.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Strategy, transaction and transformation consulting

Technology transformation

Tax function operations

Climate change and sustainability services

EY Ecosystems

Supply chain and operations

EY Partner Ecosystem

Explore Services

We bring together extraordinary people, like you, to build a better working world.

Experienced professionals

MBA and advanced-degree students

Student and entry level programs

Contract workers

EY-Parthenon careers

Discover how EY insights and services are helping to reframe the future of your industry.

Case studies

Energy and resources

How data analytics can strengthen supply chain performance

13-Jul-2023 Ben Williams

How Takeda harnessed the power of the metaverse for positive human impact

26-Jun-2023 Edwina Fitzmaurice

Banking and Capital Markets

How cutting back infused higher quality in transaction monitoring

11-Jul-2023 Ron V. Giammarco

At EY, our purpose is building a better working world. The insights and services we provide help to create long-term value for clients, people and society, and to build trust in the capital markets.

EY is now carbon negative

19-Sep-2022 Carmine Di Sibio

Our commitment to audit quality

13-Nov-2023 Julie A. Boland

No results have been found

Recent Searches

BEPS 2.0: as policies evolve, engagement is key

It remains to be seen whether the US will align its tax law with the OECD/G20’s global BEPS 2.0 rules. MNEs will feel the impact in 2024. Learn more.

How GenAI strategy can transform innovation

Companies considering or investing in a transformative GenAI strategy should tie generative artificial intelligence use cases to revenue, cost and expense. Learn more

Top five private equity trends for 2024

Read about the five key trends private equity firms will emphasize in 2024 as they create value

Select your location

close expand_more

Banking & Capital Markets

The bank of the future will integrate disruptive technologies with an ecosystem of partners to transform their business and achieve growth.

Disruption is creating opportunities and challenges for global banks. While the risk and regulatory protection agenda remains a major focus, banks must also address financial performance and heightened customer and investor expectations, as they reshape and optimize operational and business models to deliver sustainable returns. Innovation and business-led transformation will be critical for future growth. To remain competitive and relevant, every bank must embrace disruption and strategically build a better ecosystem — not a bigger bank.

Our worldwide team of industry-focused assurance, tax, transaction and consulting professionals integrates sector knowledge and technical experience. We work with clients to navigate digital innovation, new business models and ecosystem partnerships, helping banks become the nimble, responsive organizations that customers demand.

Five priorities for harnessing the power of GenAI in banking</p> "> Five priorities for harnessing the power of GenAI in banking

What to expect from global financial services in 2024 — Americas and EMEIA

In this webcast for Americas and EMEIA audiences, the EY Global Regulatory Network will discuss the direction of travel for regulators across key areas and how to prepare for what's coming.

Our latest thinking on Banking & Capital Markets

Impacts of Central Clearing of US Treasuries and Repo

In this webcast, panelists will discuss key themes and high-level requirements of the US Treasury and repo central clearing rules.

Can core platform modernization position a bank for future success?  

Case study: how one regional bank used core platform modernization to build a strong foundation for future profitability.

The case for a modern transaction banking platform

The evolution of corporate treasury management needs presents an opportunity for corporate banks. Learn from an industry approach.

How to transition from a tactical to strategic adoption of ISO 20022

With ISO 20022 adoption lagging amid competing global deadlines, a successful migration may hinge on changing from a tactical to a strategic mindset.

How Gen Z’s preference for digital is changing the payments landscape

EY survey shows Gen Z embraces simple, seamless payment methods. Learn more.

How can financial institutions modernize their fair-lending practices?

FIs that disregard fair banking are lagging behind FIs that enhance compliance procedures, lending models and data analytics to become more compliant. Read more.

Digital identity opportunities in financial services

Exploring the policy and regulatory trends shaping digital identity and opportunities for financial services companies in a changing payment landscape.

Explore our Banking & Capital Markets case studies

Using AI to augment pricing intelligence for banks

How an AI-powered digital tool, Smart Advisor (SA), helped one bank deliver better client service while maximizing value creation.

How a global FinTech captured growth in the SME segment

A global Fintech captured growth in an opportunistic SME segment with a differentiated, holistic strategy. Learn more in this case study.

Using AI to improve a bank’s agent effectiveness

Leveraging the power of AI and machine learning, one bank mined sales agents’ calls for performance-boosting insights. Learn more in this case study.

After cloud migration, investment bank sees potential for big dividends

A leading investment bank sought to move vital assets to the clouds by building an experienced, cross-functional team. Find out how.

How digital transformation is redesigning trade finance

Banks that adopt an agile, design-based approach to digital transformation can boost the success of their trade finance functions.

How to transform product development to outperform the competition

EY Nexus is a cloud-based platform offering access to the most advanced technologies to launch new products, businesses and services.

How EY can help

Capital Markets Services

Know how our Capital Markets consulting team can help your business grow, manage costs and meet regulatory requirements.

Consumer banking and wealth services

EY consumer banking and wealth technology solutions are designed to drive operational excellence and profitable growth. Learn more.

Corporate, Commercial and SME Banking services

Our Corporate, Commercial and SME (CCSB) Banking services team can help your business navigate through rising market expectation. Learn more.

Cost transformation

EY cost transformation teams help banks to optimize profits and fund transformation. Find out more.

Consumer lending services

Our consumer lending team can help navigate the complexities of unique lending propositions. Find out how.

EY Nexus for Banking

A transformative solution that accelerates innovation, unlocks value in your ecosystem, and powers frictionless business. Learn more.

Finance transformation

We help clients transform finance functions to be a strategic business partner for the business via value creation and controllership activities.

EY Financial Crime solutions

Our skilled teams, operational efficiencies enabled by innovative technology and flexible global delivery service centers can help you manage financial crime risk in a cost-effective, sustainable way.

Financial services risk management

Discover how EY can help the banking & capital markets, insurance, wealth & asset management and private equity sectors tackle the challenges of risk management.

IBOR transition services

EY helps global institutions prepare for the imminent transition away from Interbank Offered Rates (IBORs) to Alternate Reference Rates (ARRs). We also play a leading role in supporting regulators, trade associations and others to increase awareness and education.

Open banking services

Our open banking professionals can help your business maintain a trusted and secure open banking ecosystem while managing its risks. Learn more.

Payment services

Our payments professionals can help your business enhance innovation, drive growth and improve performance. Find out more.

Third-party risk management services

Discover how EY's Third Party Risk Management team can enable your business to make better decisions about the third parties they choose to work with.

Direct to your inbox

Stay up to date with our Editor‘s picks newsletter.

The Banking & Capital Markets team

Enjoys traveling with family, and coaching his daughters’ basketball and soccer teams. Enjoys running and playing basketball and golf.

Lee Ann Lednik

People-focused leader committed to building trust and transparency amid increasing complexity. Passionate working mom of three. Aspiring photographer. Avid sports fan.

David Kadio-Morokro

Passionate about technology, innovation, and leading EY people to solve clients’ most challenging problems.

Heidi Boyle

Passionate about helping people thrive in the workplace and creating a sense of belonging for all. Writer. Musician. Cooking enthusiast.

Seasoned financial services professional. Resides in Massachusetts with her husband and three children.

Kellen Maia de Sá

Collaborator and problem-solver with the desire to do the right thing. Leads efforts to help financial services clients with the disruption and impact of COVID-19.

Terry Cardew

Builds trust by helping banks solve business issues and stay competitive. Devoted husband. Father of six. Avid skier. NY Giants and Yankees fan. Supporter of The Fresh Air Fund and Lynne’s Kids.

• Connect with us
• Our locations
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Legal and privacy
• Accessibility
• Open Facebook profile
• Open X profile
• Open LinkedIn profile
• Open Youtube profile

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Health Serv Res
• v.47(1 Pt 2); 2012 Feb

From Research to Health Policy Impact

The opportunities for researchers to improve health and health care by contributing to the formulation and implementation of policy are almost unlimited. Indeed, the availability of these opportunities is a tribute to a generation of health services researchers questioning existing policies or studying essential “Why?” and “What if?” questions using rigorous analysis. Moreover, the steady albeit uneven transition of health care delivery from a paper-based cottage industry toward an enterprise that provides transparent information to clinicians, patients, policy makers and the public, and potentially vast amounts of data to policy researchers, combined with the expectations of an increasingly information-savvy public, have increased the focus on health care quality, access, and costs.

Our health care system, like those in other countries, confronts continued pressures from increasing costs; inconsistent quality; avoidable patient harms; pervasive disparities in health and health care associated with individual characteristics such as race, ethnicity, income, education and geography; and poor population health outcomes. The persistence of many of these challenges reflects, in part, a failure of science alone to improve heath. Strategies to address many of these challenges exist in the laboratory, but the contribution of this science to the health of the public is limited by a research enterprise that values discovery of new knowledge far more than its successful application.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) Clinical Scholars Program, now approaching its 40th birthday, was designed to create “change agents” for the U.S. health care system by training physicians interested in creating and applying innovative research or other approaches to address important societal health challenges. Prior scholars have received advanced training in fields from anthropology and history to business administration. Alumni of the program have served in major leadership roles in both public (federal and state governments, health departments) and private (health systems, business, nonprofit organizations, medical professional organizations) sector organizations for many years. This unprecedented long-term investment in human capital has yielded leaders who have made a tangible difference in health policy. Those leaders have forged new paths that blend clinical training and expertise with science-informed policy development and implementation, whether in academia, government, or the private or nonprofit sectors.

This commentary, by authors now directly engaged in policy, describes the ways that research influences policy and offers reflections on the culture and imperatives of a policy environment.

Examples of How Research Informs Policy

On the surface, health services researchers and policy makers often seem locked in an unrequited love affair. Each seeks the attention and respect of the other and each is endlessly frustrated. Beneath the surface, however, the relationship is more successful than it appears. Almost all recent developments in health policy—from the conceptualization of accountable care organizations to the structure of health insurance expansions—are rooted in policy-informed research, because researchers increasingly recognize the importance of applying their energies to policy-relevant questions.

Health services researchers can influence policy making in four ways. They can identify critical problems, research the benefits and harms of policy solutions, estimate the costs and consequences of policy proposals, and actively participate in the policy process to aid real-time decision making.

The role of research in informing policy begins by defining the contours of a problem. For example, physicians and hospitals have always made mistakes. Iatrogenic injury has been recognized since the time of Hippocrates. Highly publicized incidents, media attention, and public advocacy drew attention to these mistakes. But research, such as the analyses of hospital records in New York, Colorado, and Utah, which has illuminated how frequently errors occur, persuaded policy makers that the problem deserved more than sympathy and hand-wringing ( Brennan et al. 1991 ; Thomas et al. 2000 ). Advocates and media used these estimates, suitably crafted to be clear to a nonspecialist audience, to make their case that policy was needed. This is a slow process—it took nearly two decades between the time Brennan et al. published the Harvard Medical Practice Study and the time that serious policy inroads were made to address medical errors.

Identifying problems is a critical, but also dangerous step in policy making. Policy makers, faced with compelling narratives of human suffering, are reluctant to just sit there and not do something, even when it is not at all clear what the something ought to be. Policy analysis can identify the potential strengths and weaknesses of policy options, but good decision making requires an understanding not only of what might happen, but of what is most likely. Health services research, through studies of small-scale natural or controlled experiments, is critical to advancing from a problem toward a solution. For example, careful studies of insurance plans that implemented value-based insurance design persuaded policy makers to incorporate these designs into the Affordable Care Act ( Fendrick et al. 2001 ; Chernew, Rosen, and Fendrick 2007 ). Policy solutions, such as value-based insurance design, are more likely to penetrate the policy making process if their logic can be explained easily (say in an elevator), if the empirical design of studies is straightforward enough to be understood by nonspecialist staffers, and if practitioners and patients can provide compelling narratives of these projects in operation. Research on policy solutions can influence the policy process more quickly than research that identifies problems. However, researchers are rarely successful alone and can benefit from collaboration with deft communicators and advocates to help make their case in language the public and policy makers understand. Nevertheless, researchers should expect a good decade's delay even if the problem is clearly important.

A third venue for research to affect policy is in the budget. Estimates of the budget agencies—the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management Budget—of the costs and consequences of legislative proposals often determine their fate. The budget estimators ground their estimates in the published literature, often directly citing publications in their documentation. Budget estimators seek research that is rigorous and highly specific to the problem at hand and expert estimators are usually aware of the latest findings. For example, the Congressional Budget Office's estimates of the costs of mental health parity in 2007, which were instrumental in passage of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (PL110-343), relied heavily on a study of parity in the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan, published just a year before the budget estimate ( Goldman et al. 2006 ; Congressional Budget Office 2007 ). The key to influencing policy in this way is keeping a close watch on the policy process and choosing appropriately salient areas of research.

A fourth place where researchers can influence policy making is in the implementation of legislation or development of other policies. Policy implementation happens in real time, addresses problems that have often not been studied before, and continually balances competing interests. Researchers can rarely affect implementation decisions by publishing papers. There just is not enough time and, by design, the data to evaluate a brand new program generally do not exist. But researchers who actively participate in the policy process, such as RWJF Clinical Scholars and Policy Fellows visiting in administrative departments, can bring their research and clinical experience to bear in this real-time decision making.

Career Paths—Academia to Policy Environment

Influencing policy requires a different approach than academia for health services researchers, like the integrative approach of the RWJF Clinical Scholars. The most immediately familiar path for scholars is one based in academia. Researchers have created and refined the multidisciplinary field of health services research, and focus on issues that are highly relevant to addressing the challenges confronting health care today. In today's economic climate the challenges of obtaining external support for research can be daunting, but the requirements and milestones, that is, funding, publications, and promotion, are quite clear. At the same time, the culture and imperatives of academic life can be strikingly different from those of a policy environment. Where academia rewards scholarly productivity and teaching, often allows schedule flexibility, and values extensive debate, most policy positions offer the potential of influencing decisions that affect the lives of millions, guarantee unpredictable events and interruptions, and often have an excruciatingly short time frame for summarizing and applying scientific knowledge to the decision at hand. To be valuable to policy makers, researchers have to move beyond their scholarly cautions and calls for further research. Policy makers have to be convinced that a proposed intervention will work—in the real world. Assessing the latter dimension requires clear understanding of program operations and constraints, that is, the context for implementation. For example, the appeal of value-based benefit design (see article by Fendrick and others in this issue) is undeniable. Its immediate application must be shaped by an understanding of current payment systems and the capacity to persuade policy makers that this approach won't create immeasurable administrative burden or other unintended consequences. Academic researchers are frequently consulted on specific issues by policy makers, but the opportunity to contribute usually comes with short, inflexible (and often unpredictable) time frames.

Academic researchers yearning for impact often arrange intermittent, temporary stints working directly in policy. Indeed, all three authors have taken full advantage of bringing in visiting scholars, including clinical scholars and health policy fellows, for anywhere from 3 months to 2 years or more. This arrangement has the advantage of minimizing the cultural or social distance between research and policy, and offers the benefits of immersion in the constraints inherent in the application of research to decision making. This approach has also resulted in meaningful policy development. For example, clinical scholars have contributed to the development of strategies to use social media in preparedness and response ( Merchant, Elmer, and Lurie 2011 ), and contributed to the development of a strategic plan for the Emergency Care Coordination Center within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Health policy fellows who joined the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) went on to lead important programs in health information technology and enhance the health care system's role in public health emergency preparedness. Fellows working in the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) recently have contributed to research on child health insurance expansions and to the development of workforce policy in the Department. The relationships developed on the job may provide a platform from which future opportunities for researchers to advise policy makers emerge. For example, a clinical scholar working at AHRQ and ASPE as a White House Fellow now leads major quality improvement efforts at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, following a brief return to academia. Notwithstanding advances in information and communication technology, “immersion” of researchers in a policy environment requires geographic proximity for a period of time; advising may not, particularly after relationships with policy makers have been established.

Other researchers may identify change agents not directly involved in making policy, whose efforts can benefit from their work, ranging from medical professional organizations to nonprofit organizations. For example, federal agencies frequently call on external groups to identify individuals with specific expertise to participate in expert or advisory panels who may influence policy options. Collaborating with colleagues in think tanks, accreditation organizations, or similar entities is an alternative model. Identifying and seizing opportunities to testify or work with groups focused on state or local issues in one's area of expertise is another course. Of note, many researchers, including the three of us, transition between these options during their careers. Since U.S. health care is by definition a mix of public and private financing and delivery, leaders in the private sector are frequently consulted about policy options. In addition to health care systems, employers in businesses far removed from health care play an important role in influencing and implementing health policies.

The context and temporal requirements of health policy are two main challenges facing the health services researcher aiming to influence policy with relevant evidence. One implicit assumption of a pure academic model to informing policy is that proximity to policy making risks biasing or even “politicizing” science, so research that is conducted at a safe distance remains objective. A more practical premise recognizes that change in health and health care requires policy development and implementation, and that that implementation occurs in a context that is shaped by Americans’ beliefs, concerns and ultimately, votes ( Blendon and Benson 2001 ). In addition, moving from research to implementation is not possible in any sphere without explicitly understanding the context and landscape in which research is to be applied. Everett Rogers’ work on diffusion of innovation clearly articulates the critical need for work that clarifies the interaction between an intervention and context, including assessing how the intervention is modified as a result ( Rogers 2003 ).

There are also striking differences in the temporal requirements of policy. While a number of policy-relevant, peer-reviewed journals have accelerated paths for publishing papers that address a timely issue, application of research findings and skills to policy often occurs at an even more rapid pace. Policy windows are often brief and unpredictable, and do not wait for reviewers’ comments to come in. For example, when the H1N1 epidemic arrived in 2009, information regarding its likely impact was imperfect, existing data systems were far from ideal, and many people were frightened. Immediate decisions had to be made with the best possible information, and innovative approaches to tracking real-time impact put in place quickly. That said, subsequent evaluations of some of these systems provide the opportunity to improve future responses.

An essential component of the daily work of health services researchers is communicating scientific findings to colleagues and decision makers from very different backgrounds. This is often enhanced by consulting academic colleagues and external stakeholders, similar to the skills now emphasized in the current RWJF Clinical Scholars Program working with communities.

Research does and should influence policy. But simply producing rigorous and precise results about important problems is not enough to make it happen. Instead, just as policy research must be informed by a knowledge of the institutional context, policy researchers are much more likely to contribute to the policy process if they understand the context in which they are working. Clinical scholars, who spend time deeply engaged both with policy problems and the policy process, are an excellent example of this contextual immersion.

• Blendon RJ, Benson JM. “American's Views on Health Policy: A Fifty-Year Historical Perspective” Health Affairs. 2001; 20 (2):33–46. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt HH. “Incidence of Adverse Events and Negligence in Hospitalized Patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study” New England Journal of Medicine. 1991; 324 :370–6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chernew ME, Rosen AB, Fendrick AM. “Value-Based Insurance Design” Health Affairs. 2007 Epub ahead of print January 2007, doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.2.w195 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Congressional Budget Office. 2007. Available at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7894/s558.pdf .
• Fendrick AM, Smith DG, Chernew ME, Shah SN. “A Benefit-Based Copay for Prescription Drugs: Patient Contribution Based on Total Benefits, not Drug Acquisition Cost” American Journal of Managed Care. 2001; 7 (9):861–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldman HH, Frank RG, Burnam MA, Huskamp HA, Ridgely MS, Normand S-L, Young AS, Barry CL, Azzone V, Busch AB, Azrin ST, Moran G, Lichtenstein C, Blasinsky M. “Behavioral Health Insurance Parity for Federal Employees” New England Journal of Medicine. 2006; 354 :1378–86. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merchant RM, Elmer S, Lurie N. “Integrating Social Media Into Emergency-Preparedness Efforts” New England Journal of Medicine. 2011; 365 :289–91. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th Edition. New York: Free Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas J, Studdert DM, Burstin HR, Orav EJ, Zeena T, Williams EJ, Howard KM, Weiler PC, Brennan TA. “Incidence and Types of Adverse Events and Negligent Care in Utah and Colorado” Medical Care. 2000; 38 (3):261–71. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• West Virginia
• Online hoaxes
• Coronavirus
• Health Care
• Immigration
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Mitch McConnell
• Hakeem Jeffries
• Ron DeSantis
• Tucker Carlson
• Sean Hannity
• Rachel Maddow
• PolitiFact Videos
• 2024 Elections
• Mostly True
• Mostly False
• Pants on Fire
• Biden Promise Tracker
• Trump-O-Meter
• Latest Promises
• Our Process
• Who pays for PolitiFact?
• Advertise with Us
• Suggest a Fact-check
• Corrections and Updates
• Newsletters

Stand up for the facts!

Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. We need your help.

I would like to contribute

• Federal Budget
• Public Health
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks to supporters April 21, 2024, in Royal Oak, Mich. (AP)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is wrong about a ban on NIH research about mass shootings

If your time is short.

The Dickey Amendment, an appropriations bill provision, didn’t literally prohibit all federally funded gun-related research from 1996 to 2018, but federal administrators acted as though it did by not pursuing such research.

In 2018, Congress passed language that made it clearer that the federal government could fund gun-related research.

Since 2020, federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, have collectively funded millions of dollars in gun-related research, including studies addressing mass shootings.

The National Institutes of Health is the federal government’s main agency for supporting medical research. Is it barred from researching mass shootings? That’s what presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said recently.

Kennedy, whose statements about conspiracy theories earned him PolitiFact’s 2023 Lie of the Year , is running as an independent third-party candidate against President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic candidate, and the presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump.

On April 21 on X , Kennedy flagged his recent interview with conservative commentator Glenn Beck, which touched on gun policy. Kennedy summarized his gun policy views in the post, writing, "The National Institutes of Health refuses to investigate the mystery; in fact, Congress prohibits the NIH from researching the cause of mass shootings. Under my administration, that rule ends — and our kids’ safety becomes a top priority."

But this information is outdated. 

In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, an appropriations bill provision that federal officials widely interpreted as barring federally funded research related to gun violence (though some observers say this was a misinterpretation). Congress in 2018 clarified that the provision didn’t bar federally funded gun-related research, and funding for such efforts has been flowing since 2020.

Kennedy’s campaign did not provide evidence to support his statement.

After criticizing some federally funded research papers on firearms in the mid-1990s, pro-gun advocates, including the National Rifle Association, lobbied to halt federal government funding for gun violence research.

In 1996, Congress approved appropriations bill language saying that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." The language was named for one of its backers, Rep. Jay Dickey, R-Ark.

But the Dickey Amendment, as written, did not ban all gun-related research outright. 

"Any honest research that was not rigged to produce results that helped promote gun control could be funded by CDC," said Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist. But CDC officials, experts said, interpreted the Dickey Amendment as banning all gun-related research funding.

Featured Fact-check

This perception meant the amendment "had a chilling effect on funding for gun research," said Allen Rostron, a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who has written about the amendment . Federal agencies "did not want to take a chance on funding research that might be seen as violating the restriction" and so "essentially were not funding research on gun violence."

Also, the Dickey Amendment targeted only the CDC, not all other federal agencies. Congress expanded the restriction to cover NIH-funded research in 2011.

Although the Dickey Amendment didn’t bar gun-related research, federal decision makers acted as though it did by not pursuing such research. 

Over time, critics of the gun industry made an issue of the Dickey Amendment and gathered congressional support to clarify the amendment. 

In 2018, lawmakers approved language that said the amendment wasn’t a blanket ban on federally funded gun violence research. By 2020, federal research grants on firearms began to be issued again, starting with $25 million to be split between CDC and NIH.

By now, the CDC and NIH are funding a " large portfolio " of firearm violence-related research, said Daniel W. Webster, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. 

Also, the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice has funded the largest study of mass shootings to date, Webster said, and is seeking applications for studies of mass shootings. 

Kennedy said, "Congress prohibits the NIH from researching the cause of mass shootings."

Although the Dickey Amendment, a provision of appropriations law supported by the gun industry, didn’t prohibit all federally supported, gun-related research from 1996 to 2018, decisionmakers acted as though it did.

However, in 2018, Congress clarified the provision’s language. And since 2020, CDC, NIH, and other federal agencies have funded millions of dollars in gun-related research, including studies on mass shootings. 

We rate Kennedy’s statement False.

Read About Our Process

The Principles of the Truth-O-Meter

Our Sources

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., post on X , April 21, 2024

National Institutes of Health, " NIH Awards Additional Research and Training Grants to Support Firearm Injury and Mortality Prevention Science ," Sept. 20, 2023

National Institute of Justice, " Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories ," Feb. 3, 2022

National Institute of Justice, " NIJ FY24 Research and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings ," Feb. 5, 2024

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, " Funded Research ," accessed April 22, 2024

American Psychological Association, " A thaw in the freeze on federal funding for gun violence and injury prevention research ," April 1, 2021

Allen Rostron, " The Dickey Amendment on Federal Funding for Research on Gun Violence: A Legal Dissection " (American Journal of Public Health), July 2018 

Email interview with Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, April 22, 2024

Email interview with Daniel W. Webster, professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, April 22, 2024

Email interview with Jaclyn Schildkraut, executive director of the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, April 22, 2024

Email interview with Mike Lawlor, University of New Haven criminologist, April 22, 2024

Email interview with Allen Rostron, University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor, April 22, 2024

Browse the Truth-O-Meter

More by louis jacobson.

Support independent fact-checking. Become a member!

A university lecture, with a dash of jumping jacks

Study finds possible value in class exercise breaks.

A university professor has found a way to help students -- and himself -- power through long lecture classes: exercise breaks.

In a new study, a professor at The Ohio State University showed that five-minute exercise sessions during lectures were feasible and that students reported positive impacts on their attention and motivation, engagement with their peers and course enjoyment.

The results may not be particularly surprising, but they do suggest a solution for a long-standing issue in college classrooms, said Scott Hayes, author of the study and associate professor of psychology at Ohio State.

"Nobody can stay on task for 80 minutes straight without their mind wandering and their attention waxing and waning," Hayes said.

"If you give students a break and get their bodies moving for just a few minutes, it can help them get their minds back to the lecture and probably be more productive. I know it helps me, as well."

The study was published recently in the journal Frontiers in Sports and Active Living .

Hayes said he was inspired to do this research by a similar laboratory-based study of how students responded to exercise breaks during a single video lecture.

That study found positive results, but Hayes wondered if it could work in the real world of in-person university lectures, over the course of a full semester.

He tested it in four of his own classes. One to two student-led exercise sessions (five minutes each) were implemented in each lecture during upper-level psychology courses with 20 to 93 students. The classes were 80 minutes long.

At the beginning of the course, Hayes broke the class into small groups, and each group was responsible for developing a five-minute exercise session. Hayes reviewed the exercise sessions beforehand to make sure they were workable and safe.

"I wanted the students to design and lead the sessions because I thought it would help them buy into the idea, and help with their engagement and investment," he said.

Hayes admitted that the sessions were sometimes a bit awkward at the beginning of the semester. The students didn't know exactly how to act, and they weren't used to doing something like this during a class.

But students soon got into the flow and had fun with the sessions. Some of the exercises students included were jumping jacks, lunges, overhead press (with a backpack) and hamstring stretches.

Hayes said a few student groups got creative in designing their sessions.

"One of the groups designed a theme of going to an orchard and picking apples. So they had their fellow students reaching up as if they were picking apples from a tree and reaching down to put them in a basket," Hayes said.

Hayes said he knew the program was a success when students spontaneously provided anonymous comments with their end-of-semester students evaluations. One student's comment reflected a common response: "I enjoyed the exercise breaks in class and really felt like they motivated me to focus more."

In one of the classes studied, Hayes gave the students a survey at the end of the course about the exercise sessions. All the students reported that they had never taken a class that had an exercise break during the lecture.

Students rated the exercise breaks as improving attention, enjoyable, and improving peer engagement. They reported that, compared to other classes, they preferred the class with an exercise break and they would like more classes to offer such sessions.

One open question could be whether these exercise sessions improved student learning and grades. Hayes said that is beyond the scope of this study, and it would be difficult to do that kind of research. Comparisons of different classes, at different times of day, and with a variety of teachers, would make comparisons challenging to make.

But this study found that exercise breaks were feasible to do and that students enjoyed them and found them useful -- which he said may make it worthwhile for other faculty to try.

Some already have.

"Two colleagues in the psychology department here at Ohio State have told me they have started exercise breaks in their courses," Hayes said. "It may be catching on."

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging.

• Educational Psychology
• Learning Disorders
• Education and Employment
• Educational Policy
• STEM Education
• Illusion of control
• Special education
• Noam Chomsky
• Environmental impact assessment
• Limbic system

Story Source:

Materials provided by Ohio State University . Original written by Jeff Grabmeier. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Scott M. Hayes. Establishing the feasibility of exercise breaks during university lectures . Frontiers in Sports and Active Living , 2024; 6 DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1358564

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Collisions of Neutron Stars and Black Holes
• Advance in Heart Regenerative Therapy
• Bioluminescence in Animals 540 Million Years Ago
• Profound Link Between Diet and Brain Health
• Loneliness Runs Deep Among Parents
• Food in Sight? The Liver Is Ready!
• Acid Reflux Drugs and Risk of Migraine
• Do Cells Have a Hidden Communication System?
• Mice Given Mouse-Rat Brains Can Smell Again
• How Do Birds Flock? New Aerodynamics

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.