Science communication poses barriers in Congress for evidence-based policymaking, but less so for science and engineering fellows

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


K. L. Akerlof, Maria Carmen Lemos, Emily T. Cloyd, Erin Heath, Selena Nelson, Julia Hathaway and Kristin M. F. Timm

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Science communication in Congress: for what use?’

A new model published in Evidence & Policy explains the factors that enable and constrain science communication in the U.S. Congress. We depict how the use of scientific information is most often called upon to support established positions, as opposed to formulating new policies, and that this changes the nature of the barriers to science communication. We studied this in the context of two types of Congressional staff: 1) science and engineering fellows who spend a year serving primarily in the personal offices of members (hereafter referred to as fellows), and 2) the legislative staff with whom they work. We found that fellows serving on the Hill experience fewer barriers to use of scientific information than legislative staff, which suggests the importance of scientific fluency for building congressional capacity.

Continue reading →

Putting meat on the bones of data – how legislators define research evidence

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Elizabeth Day

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘How legislators define research evidence’.

When people ask about my research area, I answer that I study how policymakers use research evidence. Their response always follows a similar thread: ‘That sounds hard’ and ‘Ha! Do they even know what research is?’ These reactions align with a broader opinion in the United States that elected officials are clueless when it comes to using research evidence in the decision-making process.

Yet there are plenty of examples in research, legislation, and regulations where policymakers do use research in their work. My colleague Karen Bogenschneider and I wondered if this mismatch – assuming policymakers don’t use research when there are examples that they do – might have to do with a jingle-jangle problem: Do researchers and legislators actually mean the same thing when they say ‘research evidence’?

Continue reading →

How to do knowledge mobilisation? What we know, and what we don’t

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Hannah Durrant, Rosie Havers, James Downe and Steve Martin

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Improving evidence use: a systematic scoping review of local models of knowledge mobilisation’.

Knowledge mobilisation (KM) describes a process for enabling the use of research evidence in policymaking and public service design and delivery. Approaches to KM have evolved over the last two decades – away from one-directional efforts to push research out to decision makers towards a kaleidoscope of research-policy-practice engagement across overlapping phases of knowledge production and policy action. These processes are generally poorly understood at local levels of decision-making, where the specificities of policy and public service context can undermine generic ‘what works’ claims.

Our recent Evidence & Policy article, ‘Improving evidence use: a systematic scoping review of local models of knowledge mobilisation’, identifies three key features of local KM as well as highlighting the gaps in our understanding of how KM is done and with what effect. 

Our aim was to determine how KM is done ‘on-the-ground’, which can get obscured in frameworks that emphasise complexity while simplifying process. We argue that more detail is needed on these practices of KM to inform and improve process. Equally, attention is also needed on demand for and impact of evidence on policy and practice decisions.

Continue reading →

Engaged scholarship entrepreneurship and policy impact

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Kiran Trehan

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Compatible bedfellows? Engaged scholarship entrepreneurship and policy impact’.

In a rapidly evolving world, the role of entrepreneurship research and its impact on policy is more critical than ever. In this blog, I expand on my commentary on Johnson (2023) by exploring the intricate relationship between theory and its real-world application, shedding light on the uncertainty that has long surrounded entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) research. For years, the debate on how research can truly impact practice has been at the forefront of social science discussions (Beyer & Trice, 1982; Starkey and Tempest, 2005; Rynes, 2007; Trehan et al., 2018, 2022). This debate has emphasized the need for applied research in entrepreneurial scholarship that reflects the actual experiences of businesses.

Recognizing and appreciating the importance of research impact is not just a strategic concern for university business schools; it’s a measure of research’s real-world value. The gap between researchers and practitioners has significantly influenced how research is perceived, with academics focusing on ‘rigor’ and practitioners on ‘relevance’. Striking a balance between these expectations is crucial for both communities (Trehan, 2022). Edwards (2018) asserts that achieving policy impact is not only desirable but feasible, despite challenges such as engaging small business owners and the requirement for sustained interaction over time. Policy impact is attainable, but significant challenges persist, particularly in catering to the needs of small business owners and maintaining prolonged engagement.

Continue reading →

What can we learn from local government research systems?

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Andrew Booth, Emma Hock and Alison Scope

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review’.

Local government has been unfairly characterised as a black hole when it comes to getting evidence into practice. While it is true that work remains to be done to cultivate interest in research across local government, our recent review found plenty of evidence of academia, local officials and other partners collaborating to make a difference around the generation and use of locally-meaningful research.  

What seems to be less common, however, are coordinated approaches to organising research activity within and across an entire local government system. What can we learn from diverse approaches that harness mechanisms across different local government systems?

Continue reading →

Exploring evidence use in an Irish health service context

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Susan Calnan

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study.’

How do senior health service decision makers use evidence to inform their work and decision-making and what types of evidence do they use? What are the potential barriers and facilitators to research use by health service decision makers and are there ways to improve its usage?

We wanted to explore these questions in our qualitative study published in Evidence & Policy, which was conducted in Ireland’s national health service, the Health Service Executive (HSE). Our focus was on senior decision makers working in the organisation’s Healthcare Strategy, Clinical and Operations divisions, where evidence use has the potential to inform the quality and delivery of health services and workforce planning.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 participants between August 2021 and January 2022.

Continue reading →

What knowledge informs policy decisions? And how can we measure it?

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Jonas Videbæk Jørgensen

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Knowledge Utilisation Analysis: measuring the utilisation of knowledge sources in policy decisions.’

Using research-based knowledge to inform policy decisions constitutes a key ambition in most modern democracies. As such, enhancing the utilisation and impact of research has gained widespread attention among scholars and policymakers, with a range of initiatives to promote it. But how often is research-based knowledge used in policy decisions? And what kinds of knowledge have the strongest impact? Despite years of scholarship on the topic, measuring knowledge utilisation remains a significant challenge. In a new Evidence & Policy article, I discuss existing measures of knowledge utilisation and present a new approach called ‘Knowledge Utilisation Analysis’ (KUA).

Continue reading →

Four approaches to navigating boundaries in co-produced health research

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Chris Ackerley and Ellen Balka

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Navigating boundaries in coproduced research: a situational analysis of researchers’ experiences within integrated knowledge translation projects.’

Increasingly, researchers are collaborating with partners outside of academia – including patients, practitioners and policymakers – to create evidence that aims to be more useful and usable in practice. In the Canadian health sector, this kind of research coproduction is often called integrated knowledge translation (IKT).

A central idea in research coproduction is that bringing together people with different expertise is more likely create impactful evidence. Yet, collaborators’ differences can also present practical challenges for research projects.

Continue reading →

We need a balanced approach to research ethics if we want our research to help everyone

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Michael Sanders and Vanessa Hirneis

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Consent, assent and randomised evaluations’.

The last decade or so have seen an explosion in the number of randomised controlled trials conducted in schools in the UK, and a similar, if less stratospheric, rise elsewhere in the world. The rise in the UK can be attributed in large part not to methodological interest by education academics, but the creation of the Education Endowment Foundation. Forming part of the UK Government’s “What Works” network aimed at improving evidence-informed decision-making in policy and overseeing a budget of more than £100 million, the EEF has funded hundreds of randomised trials of different interventions to boost children’s and young people’s attainment.

Enthusiasts of randomised trials argue that they provide the best and simplest (or least statistically burdensome) way of findings out which interventions work. However, opponents, often those responsible for designing and delivering interventions, consider them unethical because they necessitate withholding a potentially beneficial intervention from young people. In our paper, we consider another aspect of the ethics of randomised trials with young people – consent.

Informed consent is the cornerstone of postwar research, and aims to ensure that people are not experimented on against their will. As a principle, it is hard to argue with and should be at the centre of our thinking about how to run these kinds of trials.

Continue reading →

Naturopaths place a stronger emphasis on the patient’s experience of their health compared to information from other health professionals when making clinical decisions

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Prof Amie Steel, Dr Iva Lloyd, Prof Matthew Leach and Dr Vicky Ward

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Naturopaths’ behaviours, attitudes and perceptions towards the use of knowledge and information sources’.

The modern health landscape is dominated by the evidence-based practice paradigm which asks health professionals to prefer research evidence over other forms of knowledge and information when providing care to their patients. However, clinicians from most areas of health – including general practice and allied health – have argued that the realities of practice are not so simple. While this ‘messiness’ of clinical practice is documented for many mainstream health professions, there has been little to no research examining how clinicians from traditional medicine systems use knowledge and information in their practice, until now.

An international survey of naturopaths was recently published in Evidence and Policy which found they used a diverse range of knowledge and information sources when making clinical decisions. The survey respondents practice naturopathy, a traditional medicine system originating from Europe but now practiced in 108 countries across all world regions. Naturopathy uses a highly patient-centred and holistic clinical approach that prioritises preventive health and wellness, and patient education and empowerment.

Continue reading →