The evidence-informed approach to policy-making and implementation is, at its core, about better decisions for a better future. It is focused on the effective use of scarce resources, on avoiding harm and maximising good. It is grounded in principles of equity and equality, of accountability and transparency. Given these characteristics, for those of us who work in this field, there is arguably a moral, economic, social and political case for paying closer attention to evidence-informed decision-making ecosystems in the South. Evidence-based policy and implementation, or evidence-informed decision-making in line with the most recent thinking, is often framed from two inter-related but limited perspectives: first, it is viewed as an approach that has originated from ‘developed’ Northern countries, and second, it is conceptualised as a technical intervention. However, there has been a shift in how the approach is conceived, moving away from assumptions that it is an intervention implemented from outside, from the North, for the benefit of the South. As part of this shift, certain initiatives in Africa have gained greater momentum. It is in acknowledging that there are different ways to think (epistemic diversity) about Southern evidence-informed decision-making, that this work has arisen. It seizes on the opportunity to view evidence-informed decision-making in a new light, exploring the evidence ecosystems in the South as systems strongly influenced by, but not defined by, Northern stimuli, including, but not limited to, technical interventions. This work set out to describe the evidence ecosystem in South Africa. In doing so, it finds that the ecosystem is increasingly resilient despite some limitations. It has strong structural foundations, includes many diverse organisations, is supported by not inconsiderable investment, is enabled by growing and significant capacity, contains iterations and innovations, and last but not least, incorporates complexity that gives the ecosystem resilience. The work demonstrates, through its focus on South Africa’s evidence ecosystem, that the global movement has much to learn from the South.

In this article, we examine a key premise underlying evidence-informed decisionmaking (EIDM) – that research is for all, including service users and potential users, service providers and a wide range of decision-makers, from those running local services to national government officials and international agencies. Qualitative data collected on terminology used when writing and talking about EIDM over a period of 15 years during the implementation of a number of capacity development programmes in South Africa were combined with critical reflections in practice. Findings reveal that tensions exist in the titles and terminology used to describe the relationships between academia and government or between research and policy, and that these tensions have shifted over time, but not necessarily diminished. An analysis and critique of this terminology is provided to identify and unpack these tensions, which challenge the central premise of 'research for all'. The perpetuation of divisive labels that profile people, of job titles and specific terminology that describe agency, as well as the use of technical language, continues to exclude people from the approach. These have the effect of setting up users against producers of evidence. In conclusion, we challenge the advocates of the EIDM approach to review language and terminology to be more inclusive, to enable relationship-building and ease the process of engagement to ensure evidence-informed decision-making is true to its premise that research is for all.

No abstract

No abstract