Mathieu Ouimet
This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Use of research evidence in legislatures: a systematic review’.
Our Evidence and Policy article reports the findings from a systematic review of how and for what purpose legislators use research evidence. It also examines legislators’ perspectives on enablers and barriers to using research evidence.
We searched for all published studies, either in English or French, in which the type of use and the barriers and facilitators to using research evidence by legislators were empirically examined. We included relevant studies regardless of the year of publication, the country where the study was conducted or the kind of legislatures. We found twenty-one studies, most of which were conducted in the United States. There has been a noticeable growth in studies since the 2010s.
Adversarial political debates are what notably characterized legislative work. Not surprisingly, symbolic or tactical use of research evidence is the type of use observed in most studies. Other observed purposes for using research evidence include preparing for questions and debates in the House and committees or helping build consensus.
Enabling factors
Four categories of factors were found to facilitate or hinder the use of research evidence in legislatures: the legislature’s institution and organization, the characteristics of research evidence, the policy and political context and the characteristics of legislators or their staff.
A library and committees with a research focus or that receive and process research evidence early on in their work make it easier for legislators to use research evidence. Also, when the provider of research evidence is known and trusted by the legislator, it is seen as enabling the use of research evidence. Another enabler is the availability of research staff on committees supplying research evidence. The availability of research at the right time when a window of opportunity opens and evidence providers able to respond quickly to queries when issues arise are additional enabling factors found in the studies.
The research evidence’s format and content also seem to facilitate when evidence is provided concisely, succinctly, clearly understandable, or packaged to highlight how the findings can affect specific groups. The content may also enable the use of research evidence, including recommendations, standard statistical data, cost/benefit analysis or linking research evidence to stories and anecdotes.
Enabling factors also include when legislators have not yet formed an opinion regarding an issue, when the issue is important to them and their constituents or when the issue resonates with research evidence. The personal characteristics of legislators or staff can also contribute to their use of research evidence, such as knowing how evidence might be used and its quality reviewed. Supportive attitudes and beliefs towards research evidence are also seen as enablers, for example, the perceived credibility and practical relevance of research evidence.
Hindering factors
Overall, the reviewed studies found several barriers to using research evidence in legislative bodies. Legislature characteristics such as a lack of single paths for engaging with research evidence, the frequent turnover of legislators, and the consensus culture can also act as barriers to legislators’ use of research evidence. Also, social relations and trust can hamper the use of evidence when legislators trust people more than research evidence or when legislators are suspicious of the credibility of a provider of evidence. The lack of capacity among staff to screen and translate research evidence and the lack of funds for hiring library staff were also seen as hampering the use of research evidence. Limited access to databases of scientific publications and lack of timeliness of research evidence provided to legislators were also seen as impeding evidence use.
Hindrances related to the content of research evidence provided to legislators were also observed, such as verbose qualitative research, the lack of information on the economic impacts of policies, out-of-date research evidence, contradictory research findings or evidence not accepted by a legislator’s trusted lobbyist and evidence contradicting the legislator’s view.
High-profile and visible policy issues were seen as hampering the use of research evidence, such as polarizing and controversial issues that solicit passions. Well-known issues among lawmakers also render the use of research evidence less likely. Some studies found that interest group action can hinder the use of research evidence, notably through disseminating poor quality evidence and churning poorly designed studies, by attacking research evidence and the capacity of interest groups to rapidly communicate information in response to the needs of legislators. Heavy workloads among legislators, pressures to take quick decisions, and an overload of information were also seen as hampering the use of research evidence.
Lastly, studies have found several barriers linked to legislators and their staff’s characteristics like poor understanding of research, including the difficulty of distinguishing research evidence from other types of information, the difficulty in locating and searching for research evidence, difficulty in discerning what is valid, lack of interest in research evidence, the preference for anecdotes over research evidence, perception of research as biased, lacking credibility or neutrality, the perception that research does not have sufficient practical implications or answers the wrong questions, and perception that research evidence comes with too much uncertainty.
Mathieu Ouimet is a professor in Political Science at Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada. For the next five years, he will be leading the new International Francophone Science Advice Network (RFICS).
Image credit: Seating plan of the National Assembly of France
Read the original research in Evidence & Policy:
Ouimet, M. Beaumier, M. Cloutier, A. Côté, A. Montigny, E. Gélineau, F. Jacob, S. and Ratté, S. (2023). Use of research evidence in legislatures: a systematic review. Evidence & Policy, DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16656568731041. OPEN ACCESS
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read:
Building consensus in research partnerships: a scoping review of consensus methods
Strategies for enabling the use of research evidence
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Evidence & Policy Blog 