Policymaking is rarely 'evidence-based'. Rather, policy can only be strongly evidence-informed if its advocates act effectively. Policy theories suggest that they can do so by learning the rules of political systems, and by forming relationships and networks with key actors to build up enough knowledge of their environment and trust from their audience. This knowledge allows them to craft effective influencing strategies, such as to tell a persuasive and timely story about an urgent policy problem and its most feasible solution. Empirical case studies help explain when, how, and why such strategies work in context. If analysed carefully, they can provide transferable lessons for researchers and advocates that are seeking to inform or influence policymaking. Oxfam Great Britain has become an experienced and effective advocate of evidence-informed policy change, offering lessons for building effective action. In this article, we combine insights from policy studies with specific case studies of Oxfam campaigns to describe four ways to promote the uptake of research evidence in policy: (1) learn how policymaking works, (2) design evidence to maximise its influence on specific audiences, (3) design and use additional influencing strategies such as insider persuasion or outsider pressure, and adapt the presentation of evidence and influencing strategies to the changing context, and (4) embrace trial and error. The supply of evidence is one important but insufficient part of this story.

The project team would like to express deep gratitude to all those who participated in this project, in particular Naresh Giangrande (Transition Network) and Chris Church (Low Carbon Communities Network); the group members who attended the workshops and undertook the M&E trials: and members of the Advisory Network for their input and encouragement. All remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.

In the UK there now exist hundreds of low carbon community groups (LCCGs) that aim to decrease collective resource consumption and/or generate renewable energy via diverse social and environmental interventions. These groups have in recent years become the subject of political attention and various funding schemes, underpinned by beliefs that LCCGs play key roles in fostering resilience to climate change and meeting national-level greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. While previous research into LCCGs has focussed on drivers barriers, and some outcomes of LCCG action, there is now growing policy and academic interest in groups' capacities for, and uses of, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes and tools. However, little is known about the experiences, opportunities and potential challenges for LCCGs using M&E. In response, this paper draws on a Knowledge Exchange project that explored M&E processes and tools with a sample of UK LCCGS. It outlines the benefits and drawbacks of groups' attempts to achieve change and to account for their outcomes and/or impacts, individually and as part of a wider movement. As such-while M&E could be one way for groups to 'scale up' their impact without losing their grounding in place and community-issues of capacity, resources and utility remain paramount.

No abstract