Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience

Abstract

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.

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

“…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).…”

“…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.…”

Reframing Integration for Mixed Methods Research

“…They are consistent with the ''integration yielding understanding or knowledge'' view discussed earlier. Adopting the stance that publication is part of an integrated set of actions designed to achieve the desired social outcome, then the roles of publications and communicative devices shifts from a final product to a targeted act that is part of a strategy (Mayne et al, 2018). It also shifts the emphasis of producing papers, reports, or other communicative devices toward addressing questions as to how we use communicative devices to modify underlying representations, including action.…”

Creating and communicating social research for policymakers in government

“…Against the background of limited empirical evidence regarding how academics can create impact on policy (Oliver and Cairney, 2019), the sharing of our day-to-day work provides important tangible experiences and recommendations for how academics can effectively engage with policymakers. In this paper we draw on our experiences to offer practical recommendations for how academics can engage with policymakers to ensure policy making is evidence-informed (Mayne et al, 2018), and consequently to improve policy effectiveness and programme efficiency (UK Government, 2013).…”

“…Table 1 shows that not all of the problems posed by the disconnect between academics and policymakers apply to GSR and policymakers, in large part because of our role as knowledge brokers. Although differences exist between GSR' and academics' relationship with policymakers, we have valuable 'insider' insight into the policy process, creation of evidence and evidence dissemination that scholars recognise to be critical for academia to understand (Monaghan, 2011;Mayne et al, 2018;and Cooper, 2016).…”