New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature

Abstract

Despite 40 years of research into evidence-based policy (EBP) and a continued drive from both policymakers and researchers to increase research uptake in policy, barriers to the use of evidence are persistently identified in the literature. However, it is not clear what explains this persistence – whether they represent real factors, or if they are artefacts of approaches used to study EBP. Based on an updated review, this paper analyses this literature to explain persistent barriers and facilitators. We critically describe the literature in terms of its theoretical underpinnings, definitions of ‘evidence’, methods, and underlying assumptions of research in the field, and aim to illuminate the EBP discourse by comparison with approaches from other fields. Much of the research in this area is theoretically naive, focusing primarily on the uptake of research evidence as opposed to evidence defined more broadly, and privileging academics’ research priorities over those of policymakers. Little empirical data analysing the processes or impact of evidence use in policy is available to inform researchers or decision-makers. EBP research often assumes that policymakers do not use evidence and that more evidence – meaning research evidence – use would benefit policymakers and populations. We argue that these assumptions are unsupported, biasing much of EBP research. The agenda of ‘getting evidence into policy’ has side-lined the empirical description and analysis of how research and policy actually interact in vivo. Rather than asking how research evidence can be made more influential, academics should aim to understand what influences and constitutes policy, and produce more critically and theoretically informed studies of decision-making. We question the main assumptions made by EBP researchers, explore the implications of doing so, and propose new directions for EBP research, and health policy.

Identifying public health policymakers’ sources of information: comparing survey and network analyses

“…31 Together, these findings do not suggest that particular professional groups are more or less likely to be important sources of information -rather that there is an important role for interpersonal skills and relationship building, and that this type of interactional data should be a target for future research. 36 Applying different methods to the same question inevitably generates different answers. Had we carried out in-depth qualitative analysis, we may have generated theory about the role of strategies to control knowledge, for example, but this was not possible within this study.…”

Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias

“…There appears to be an underlying assumption in much of the EBP movement that fidelity to evidence and scientific honesty will be valued in their own right-seen, for instance, in the continued surprise when evidence is misused, as well as the enormous efforts placed on efforts to 'translate' or 'transfer' research into policy-typically efforts that do not question whether anyone would not wish to use evidence, and which assumes that non-use of evidence must be because the evidence is either not known, or not understood (Rutter et al 2013;Oliver et al 2014;Caplan 1979). …”

The UK government’s imaginative use of evidence to make policy

“…EBM is a useful reference point because its ideal is influential across several disciplines-including health, environmental, and management sciences-and, if represented too simplistically, it produces naïve expectations for EBPM (Oliver et al 2014b;Cairney 2016a, p. 65;Cairney et al 2016a). Despite more modest and thoughtful intentions to combine evidence and experience (Sackett et al 1996;Oliver and Pearce 2017), EBM is often associated with (a) gathering the best evidence on interventions (policy solutions), based on a hierarchy of methods, in which randomised control trials (RCTs) and their systematic review are at the top; and, (b) ensuring its direct impact on policy and practice (Oliver et al 2014b;Cairney et al 2016a).…”

“…Despite more modest and thoughtful intentions to combine evidence and experience (Sackett et al 1996;Oliver and Pearce 2017), EBM is often associated with (a) gathering the best evidence on interventions (policy solutions), based on a hierarchy of methods, in which randomised control trials (RCTs) and their systematic review are at the top; and, (b) ensuring its direct impact on policy and practice (Oliver et al 2014b;Cairney et al 2016a).…”