The editorial team of Evidence & Policy is pleased to see the publication of our fourth and final issue for 2025, Evidence & Policy Volume 21: Issue 4. This issue has a lot of work focused on how political elites use and are impacted by evidence in the policymaking process. A major thread through this work is that while evidence has an impact, there are important limitations.
The first piece examines programs designed to support scientists and engineers in engaging in public policy, specifically studying the state of Virginia. Through surveys and interviews of program leaders, the study finds evidence of perceived impact, though limits in the ability to implement evidence-based approaches.
The second article also finds impact and its limitation, but this time using policy documents. They find that policy think tanks draw from academic expertise more readily than governments.
Yet another approach is taken in the third article, which focuses on the personality traits of elites themselves. Studying Swiss elected officials, openness to experience is a stronger predictor of knowledge use than conscientiousness. Combined with other differences across other socio-economic characteristics, the study shows how to potentially connect knowledge dissemination tactics with personality differences of policymakers.
The fourth article turns to non-government organizations and their policy advocacy. Studying policy advocacy in China, the piece illustrates how different forms of prior political embeddedness (i.e., direct experiences in and with government) significantly enhance the advocacy of NGOs. Additionally, broad network connections beyond government are likewise essential, but political embeddedness is more powerful.
The fifth article moves to thinking about the ethical guidelines in clinical practice, seeking to illuminate their often opaque evidential basis. Grounded in the World Health Organization’s REIGN framework. In doing so, the piece offers a more structured method for thinking about where evidence is needed and how it should be applied.
The final article recognizes the increasing attention to ‘lived experience’ in research, policy and practice. Specifically, the authors examine disability lived experience and argue that it is distinct from lived expertise. The debate is informed by interviews with individuals with diverse disabilities and expertise. As the authors state, ‘This distinction aims not to diminish disability lived experience, but to more accurately recognise and legitimise the developed expertise many disabled people bring to various fields’.
Read Evidence & Policy Volume 21: Issue 4 online.
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 