There is a renewed interest to promote the generation of evidence on evidence use. Initiatives by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the British Academy, FCDO and the William T. Grant Foundation, for instance, are attracting the attention of researchers in the field; especially in the Global South.<\/p>\n
This is a welcomed development. There is still need to explore and develop the sector. And research is a transformative vehicle to do it. It generates new knowledge and trains the future generation of evidence informed policy thought leaders and practitioners.<\/p>\n
However, many of the new calls, the research published and even the discussions in the field appear to forget, or are not aware of, some of the literature and knowledge that was widely shared and accepted not so long ago; in the early 2000s.<\/p>\n
I was extremely lucky to learn from experienced researchers and practitioners from across the world early in my career. I had the privilege of facilitating spaces and research projects that allowed that knowledge to be recorded.<\/p>\n
Many of the questions being asked today, I think, have been asked, and answered before.<\/p>\n
Claims that evidence on evidence informed policy is dominated by the Global North are inaccurate. The global academic literature is<\/em> dominated by researchers from the U.S. and Europe but there is<\/em> evidence on evidence use across think tanks, policy research organisations and research departments across the Global South. This evidence is shared in local publications, events and communities of practice. I am, once again, privileged to be party to it every day.<\/p>\n In this short annotated bibliography I take a trip back into the early years of my own career and the foundations of the evidence informed policymaking field – back when we used the term based<\/em> rather than informed<\/em>! It is not a systematic review: I started with a couple of studies and then followed their references, asked colleagues from my days at the RAPID programme and reflected on the work that influenced my own thinking. I used NotebookLM and ChatGPT to develop the summaries.<\/p>\n In doing this I have been reminded cases and ideas that I had forgotten. See, for instance the role of polarisation in the case study of think tanks and political parties in Bolivia. Our latest 2024 State of the Sector Report<\/a> found that polarisation undermines think tanks\u2019 influence. We announced it as a great finding! It turns out it was nothing new. Carlos Toranzo wrote a whole book chapter about it. Re-reading it reminded me of his view that “policymaking through plebiscite” was ruining Bolivia’s policymaking capacity and actively undermined the positive role evidence could play.\u00a0 Polarisation also featured in Emma Broadbent’s cases on the political economy of research update in Africa and in several other case studies and chapters in the literature included here.<\/p>\n Therefore, I hope this short annotated review is useful to anyone trying to drive the field forward<\/strong>. Old questions should asked again. But old answers should guide these new efforts.<\/p>\n I struggled to organise the documents in a particular order. I’ll do it after the holidays (to be updated).<\/p>\n If you know of similar resources and would like me to include them here, please do not hesitate to get in touch<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Literature review on evidence based policymaking: https:\/\/media.odi.org\/documents\/4507.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This literature review examines the debate surrounding evidence-based policymaking (EBP), particularly within the UK context and its relevance to developing countries. The review analyses various perspectives on EBP, including its challenges (speed, superficiality, spin, secrecy, and scientific ignorance<\/b>), its successes (improved policy evaluation and service delivery), and the limitations of different approaches to evidence gathering and appraisal (meta-analysis vs. narrative review<\/b>). Key themes explored include the integration of research into policy processes, the diverse types of evidence used, and the need for a more nuanced understanding of EBP that acknowledges the complexities of the policy cycle and the role of diverse stakeholders. Ultimately, the review aims to synthesise existing knowledge and offer insights for strengthening the use of evidence in policymaking.<\/p>\n <\/b>Bridging research and policy: an annotated bibliography: https:\/\/media.odi.org\/documents\/182.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This annotated bibliography examines the complex relationship between research and policy, moving beyond the traditional linear model. It critiques assumptions of one-way influence, distinct researcher-policymaker communities, and a solely positivistic knowledge production model. Instead, the bibliography emphasises a dynamic, two-way interaction<\/b> shaped by political context, actors (networks, organisations, individuals), and the message and media<\/b>. Its purpose is to expand existing overviews by including newer fields like social psychology and marketing communication, and to offer alternative perspectives that challenge conventional wisdom, ultimately exploring how ideas circulate and gain (or fail to gain) traction within research-policy networks.<\/p>\n Does Evidence Matter? Meeting series: https:\/\/media.odi.org\/documents\/206.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This monograph summarises a series of meetings exploring the complex relationship between evidence and policymaking in development. The meetings featured diverse speakers\u2014researchers, policymakers, NGO activists\u2014who examined how political context<\/b>, the nature of evidence<\/b>, and the communication of research findings<\/b> influence policy decisions. Key themes included the challenges of translating research into effective policy, the limitations of a purely “evidence-based” approach, and the crucial role of policy entrepreneurship<\/b> and effective communication strategies in achieving policy change. The ultimate purpose is to better understand and improve the utilisation of research evidence in development, highlighting both successes and failures in various contexts.<\/p>\n Bridging research and policy: insights from 50 cases: https:\/\/media.odi.org\/documents\/180.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This Overseas Development Institute working paper, authored by Court and Young in 2003, analyses 50 case studies examining the complex relationship between research and policy in developing countries. The study uses a framework focusing on three key interconnected domains: context<\/b> (political and institutional factors), evidence<\/b> (research quality and communication), and links<\/b> (between researchers and policymakers). The authors aim to understand why some research influences policy while other research is ignored, ultimately seeking to improve development outcomes by strengthening research-policy linkages. The paper presents descriptive statistics of the case studies, discusses emerging themes within the framework, and offers preliminary recommendations for policymakers, researchers, and donors to improve the effectiveness of using research to inform policy decisions in diverse developing country contexts.<\/p>\n Good news from troubled contexts: https:\/\/cdn-odi-production.s3.amazonaws.com\/media\/documents\/3707.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This document synthesises findings from 18 case studies examining how civil society organisations (CSOs) in developing countries leverage evidence to influence pro-poor policies. Using the RAPID framework (which considers context, evidence, links, and external influences), the analysis explores diverse strategies employed by CSOs, highlighting successes and failures. Key themes include the crucial role of evidence<\/b> (its source, type, and presentation), the importance of links<\/b> between CSOs, policymakers, and international networks in building legitimacy, and the impact of external factors<\/b> like donor funding and global trends. The study identifies “invited spaces”<\/b> as crucial entry points for CSO influence, emphasising the need for strategic adaptation and the often-overlooked importance of explicitly considering evidence use in policy advocacy. Ultimately, the report aims to provide practical recommendations for CSOs seeking to effectively inform and shape policy processes in complex, resource-constrained environments.<\/p>\n Linkages between researchers and legislators: https:\/\/media.odi.org\/documents\/2989.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This Overseas Development Institute working paper is a scoping study by Datta and Jones exploring the connections between researchers and legislators in developing countries. The study uses the RAPID framework to analyse formal and informal linkages, examining factors like the executive’s power, legislative structures, political competition, and external influences (including donors). Key themes include the nature of evidence used in policymaking\u2014emphasising accessibility and credibility\u2014and the varying degrees of influence researchers hold across different political contexts and regions (Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, East Asia). Ultimately, the paper aims to identify effective mechanisms for improving the use of research to inform legislation and strengthen legislative capacity.<\/p>\n Bridging research and policy: CEL framework: https:\/\/media.odi.org\/documents\/184.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This Overseas Development Institute (ODI) working paper from 2002 explores how research influences international development policy. The authors argue against simplistic models of knowledge transfer, proposing a three-dimensional framework\u2014context (politics and institutions), evidence (credibility and communication), and links (influence and legitimacy)<\/b>\u2014to analyse research impact. They emphasise the importance of understanding the political and institutional environments, the quality and communication of research findings, and the relationships between researchers and policymakers (including the establishment of legitimacy chains<\/b>). The paper ultimately aims to identify how research can better contribute to evidence-based policies<\/b> that reduce poverty and improve lives, suggesting a comparative, historical approach for future research.<\/p>\n Policy engagement for poverty reduction: https:\/\/media.odi.org\/documents\/196.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This Overseas Development Institute briefing paper examines how civil society organisations (CSOs) can enhance their impact on policy for poverty reduction. The paper argues that while CSOs play a crucial role in development, their policy influence is often limited due to internal constraints<\/b>, such as insufficient capacity and evidence use. It proposes a framework for more effective policy engagement, emphasising the importance of rigorous evidence-based advocacy<\/b> throughout the policy process (agenda-setting, formulation, implementation, and evaluation). The paper ultimately suggests that by strategically employing various engagement mechanisms and addressing internal weaknesses, CSOs can achieve greater pro-poor impact<\/b> and sustained policy influence<\/b>.<\/p>\n Political and economic transition in Vietnam and its impact on think tanks: https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/DattaMendizabal_PoliticalandEconomicTransitioninVietnam_FINAL-1.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This working paper by Datta and Mendizabal examines the evolution of think tanks in Vietnam following the Doi Moi economic reforms of 1986. The authors analyze how shifts in key political actors (including a more active National Assembly and business elites), dominant ideas (balancing socialist ideology with economic pragmatism), networks, and formal\/informal institutions shaped the demand for, location of, and functions of Vietnamese think tanks. The paper highlights the challenges think tanks face, such as maintaining research quality and independence within a still largely state-controlled environment, and explores their diverse communication channels and ultimately limited, yet politically nuanced, influence on policy. The overall purpose is to understand the complex interplay between political and economic transition and the development of think tank traditions in a specific context.<\/p>\n Political economy of research uptake in Africa: https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/9118.pdf\u00a0<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This paper analyses the role of research-based evidence in African policy debates, challenging the simplistic notion of “evidence-based policy.” It examines four case studies from sub-Saharan Africa, revealing that while research-based evidence is sometimes used, its influence is often limited and intertwined with various factors. Key themes include the interplay between different types of evidence (research-based, practical, communal), the framing effect of dominant discourses and narratives (often influenced by international development agendas), and the crucial role of political context and agency in shaping evidence use. The author argues that simply increasing research capacity is insufficient; addressing the political incentives that may discourage the use of research-based evidence is crucial for genuine evidence-informed policymaking in Africa. Ultimately, the paper advocates for improving the quality of policy debates themselves to foster more critical thought and a deeper understanding of evidence.<\/p>\n The policy paradox in Africa<\/b>: https:\/\/idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org\/server\/api\/core\/bitstreams\/dab6bcea-893b-45a2-8167-84244e0a1ca3\/content<\/a><\/p>\n This book, “The Policy Paradox in Africa,” explores the complex relationship between economic research and policymaking on the African continent. Edited by Ayuk and Marouani, it compiles papers presented at a 2005 SISERA conference in Dakar, focusing on strengthening the links between research and policy. The book examines the challenges inherent in bridging the gap between research findings and policy implementation, highlighting the often dominant influence of international donors and institutions. Key themes include the iterative nature of policymaking, the need for research capacity building in Africa, the importance of effective communication strategies for researchers, and the role of various actors (governments, donors, civil society) in shaping policy. Ultimately, the book advocates for a more participatory and research-informed approach to policymaking in Africa, promoting locally generated knowledge and reducing reliance on externally imposed solutions.<\/p>\n V\u00ednculos entre la pol\u00edtica y el conocimiento:<\/b> https:\/\/cies.org.pe\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/dyp-51.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n This document is a collection of research papers exploring the relationship between research, policymaking, and media in Latin America. The book is structured in three sections: the first presents framework studies analysing the interaction between researchers, policymakers, and journalists; the second offers case studies illustrating this interaction in specific contexts; and the third section provides an overall assessment and suggests future research directions. Key themes include the role of think tanks in policy influence, the challenges of bridging the gap between research and policy, and the mediating role of the media in this process. The overall purpose is to increase understanding of how research impacts policymaking in Latin America’s unique political and institutional landscape, emphasising the need for further investigation into these complex relationships.<\/p>\n The RAPID programme experience: https:\/\/media.odi.org\/documents\/7524.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Background Note analyses the Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) program’s ten-year experience building capacity for better research uptake in development. The report details RAPID’s evolution, highlighting its shift from initial research on policy entrepreneurship to a broader focus on advice, mentoring, and networking across themes like research communication, knowledge management, and outcome mapping. Key to the analysis is the examination of RAPID’s methods \u2013 including toolkits, workshops, and communities of practice \u2013 and a candid assessment of the successes and challenges encountered, particularly concerning the “evidence-based policy in development network” (ebpdn) and the complexities of building sustainable, equitable partnerships in the Global South. The ultimate purpose is to draw lessons and provide recommendations for future capacity-building initiatives focused on improving the use of research in development policy.<\/p>\n CSO capacity for policy engagement consultation: https:\/\/media.odi.org\/documents\/148.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This Overseas Development Institute (ODI) working paper analyses lessons learned from consultations with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America regarding their capacity to influence pro-poor policy. The study, part of the ODI’s Civil Society Partnerships Programme (CSPP), examines the interplay between political context, the quality and communication of evidence, CSO capacity (including resources and networking), and external influences like donor funding. The paper uses a framework focusing on these four areas to structure its analysis of numerous case studies, ultimately offering recommendations for improving CSO policy engagement and for the future direction of the CSPP. The main goal is to understand how Southern CSOs can more effectively leverage evidence to shape policy decisions, emphasising the need for context-specific strategies and strong collaborations.<\/p>\n Learning from research and evaluation at DFID: https:\/\/cdn.odi.org\/media\/documents\/6327.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This report assesses lesson-learning within the Department for International Development (DFID), focusing on how research and evaluation findings are used to inform policy and programming. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, including interviews with DFID staff and an online survey, to explore three perspectives on learning: the influence of research outputs, the integration of evidence into decision-making, and DFID’s capacity as a learning organisation. Key findings revealed that while DFID effectively utilizes research within project cycles, organisational learning and the incorporation of evidence into complex decision-making processes require improvement. The report concludes with actionable recommendations for strengthening research uptake, improving evaluation practices, enhancing knowledge management, and addressing staff turnover’s impact on institutional memory, ultimately aiming to make DFID a more effective learning organisation.<\/p>\n Distilling or diluting? https:\/\/www.water-alternatives.org\/index.php\/volume1\/v1issue1\/23-a-1-1-9\/file<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This 2008 article by Cleaver and Franks analyses the complex relationship between water research and policymaking, particularly concerning poverty alleviation. The authors critique the prevalent “instrumental” approach, which focuses on readily applicable “success stories” and “best practices,” arguing that this neglects the underlying social, political, and economic structures<\/b> shaping water governance. They propose a more reflexive<\/b> approach that incorporates social ontologies<\/b> (worldviews) and acknowledges the political negotiation of knowledge<\/b>. Their framework emphasises the interplay of resources, mechanisms of access, actors, processes, and diverse outcomes for different groups, aiming to understand how and why specific water governance arrangements produce varied results, especially for the poor. Ultimately, the authors advocate for more nuanced, context-sensitive research that engages critically with power dynamics to create more equitable and effective water policies.<\/p>\n Political science? Strengthening science policy dialogue: https:\/\/cdn.odi.org\/media\/documents\/474.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This Overseas Development Institute working paper investigates the science-policy interface in developing countries. Employing a mixed-methods approach\u2014a literature review, expert interviews, country case studies, and a large-scale international survey\u2014the authors identify six key tensions hindering effective science-policy dialogue. These tensions include the politicisation of science, the divergence between scientists’ and policymakers’ goals and timescales, and the challenges of balancing specialised expertise with democratised knowledge. The paper ultimately argues for the crucial role of intermediary organisations in bridging this gap by acting as knowledge brokers and capacity builders, advocating for targeted information dissemination, and fostering greater deliberation and participation between researchers, policymakers, and the public.<\/p>\n Gold Standard is not a single bullet: https:\/\/media.odi.org\/documents\/3695.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This Overseas Development Institute opinion piece critiques the overreliance on experimental and quasi-experimental impact evaluations (IEs) in development aid. The author argues that while increased funding for IEs is positive, the current emphasis on a perceived “gold standard” methodology\u2014favouring experimental designs\u2014is too narrow and risks hindering learning and accountability. This bias, driven by institutional incentives and donor preferences for easily quantifiable results, neglects other rigorous methods and may unfairly disadvantage interventions harder to evaluate experimentally. The piece advocates for a more pluralistic approach to IE methodology, emphasising the importance of fostering the use of evaluations, building appropriate institutional capacity, and aligning incentives to promote genuine learning and accountability within development programs.<\/p>\n Political knowledge regimes: https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/Garceetal_WP3-1-1.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This working paper explores the concept of “Political Knowledge Regimes” (PKR) to explain differences in policymaking between Chile and Uruguay from 1989-2015. The authors hypothesise that the interaction between the type of policymaking regime (open or closed) and the societal valuation of science (rationalist or pragmatist) shapes knowledge regimes and policy outcomes. Using case studies of international trade, fiscal, and educational policies in both countries, they find that Chile’s closed regime and high valuation of science led to greater expert influence<\/b>, while Uruguay’s open regime and lower valuation of science resulted in policy debates driven more by political considerations<\/b>. The paper contributes to understanding the interplay of technocracy and democracy in policymaking, suggesting that while both countries experienced policy innovation, their approaches differed significantly due to their distinct PKRs.<\/p>\n Knowledge, policy and power: https:\/\/media.odi.org\/documents\/4919.pdf<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n This ODI (Overseas Development Institute) report explores the complex interplay between knowledge, policy, and power in international development. It examines six key dimensions of this interface: the diverse types of knowledge used in policymaking (research-based, participatory, etc.); the influence of political context (democratic vs. authoritarian); the varying dynamics across different policy sectors (technical vs. participatory); the roles of various actors (governments, NGOs, think tanks); the application of innovative frameworks (complexity theory, innovation systems); and the crucial processes of knowledge translation and the roles of intermediaries in bridging the gap between knowledge producers and policymakers. The report aims to stimulate more nuanced debates and the development of tailored tools for actors involved in evidence-informed policy development, ultimately contributing to improved pro-poor outcomes.<\/p>\n Communicating complex ideas:<\/b> https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/communicating-complex-ideas_full-book-2.pdf<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n This book examines five case studies illustrating the challenges and strategies of communicating complex research findings to policymakers and the public to effect policy change. Key themes include the limitations of solely evidence-based approaches, the importance of adapting communication strategies based on context and audience, and the need for diverse forms of legitimacy beyond purely scientific evidence (political alliances, emotional appeals, etc.). The cases \u2013 Argentina’s electoral reform, Indonesia’s budget transparency, education reform in the Middle East, pesticide use in Ecuador, and breastfeeding promotion in South Africa \u2013 highlight the iterative nature of communication, emphasising the integration of research and communication from the outset, and the evolving roles researchers play, sometimes becoming active participants in social movements. The overarching purpose is to provide practical lessons and frameworks for researchers seeking to translate complex research into impactful policy interventions in developing world contexts.<\/p>\n Knowledge to policy<\/b>: https:\/\/idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org\/server\/api\/core\/bitstreams\/93e23735-313b-4aa2-80c8-1c0986c1059d\/content<\/a><\/p>\n This document presents a comprehensive evaluation of 23 case studies conducted by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) on how development research influences public policy, particularly in developing countries. The core theme explores the complex and often indirect ways research impacts policy decisions, moving beyond simple cause-and-effect relationships to encompass capacity building, broadening policy horizons, and affecting decision-making processes. The analysis emphasises the crucial role of context, highlighting how factors like political stability, institutional capacity, economic pressures, and effective communication strategies significantly influence a research project’s ability to affect policy. The overarching purpose is to identify best practices and lessons learned for maximising the policy impact of development research, ultimately aiming to improve development outcomes. The study uses a multiple-case approach, detailed case summaries, and a methodological overview to support its findings and conclusions.<\/p>\n Discerning policy influence<\/b>: https:\/\/idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org\/server\/api\/core\/bitstreams\/aa1c4238-0d10-46b0-a9ed-4960b0799f78\/content<\/a><\/p>\n This 2001 paper by Evert A. Lindquist proposes a framework for strategically evaluating the policy influence of research funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The core argument centers on the complexity of assessing research impact on policy, especially in Southern contexts, due to the multiplicity of actors<\/b> and dynamic interplay of values and beliefs<\/b>. Lindquist expands the conventional notion of “research” to encompass “policy inquiry,” including data generation, analysis, publications, and convocation activities. The framework integrates existing theories of knowledge utilisation, policy communities and networks, advocacy coalitions, and agenda-setting to guide evaluations, emphasising the need for longitudinal analysis<\/b>, consideration of informal networks<\/b>, and realistic expectations about research influence. Ultimately, the paper aims to provide a nuanced, yet practical, approach for evaluating IDRC projects by focusing on intermediate influences such as capacity building and horizon broadening, rather than solely on direct policy impact.<\/p>\n A study of policy influence<\/b>: https:\/\/citeseerx.ist.psu.edu\/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=478a3ad160688e67f383efe0a8320f37c83e5590<\/a><\/p>\n This document is a study commissioned by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) to assess the impact of their funding on a research program supporting the G-24, a group of developing countries negotiating international monetary and financial issues. The study examines the programme’s influence on policy, exploring both direct (linear) and indirect (“enlightenment”) approaches to shaping policy. It analyses three types of policy influence: expanding policy capacities, broadening policy horizons, and affecting policy regimes. The authors also investigate internal and external factors\u2014such as personalities, outreach strategies, political issues, and budgetary constraints\u2014that either enhanced or hindered the programme\u2019s effectiveness. Ultimately, the study aims to understand how research impacts policy and to provide insights for future IDRC initiatives.<\/p>\n Knowledge utilisation in public policy processes: a literature review:<\/b> https:\/\/idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org\/server\/api\/core\/bitstreams\/c9ee9fb7-3789-4eec-99d3-ff7ce5fa1c94\/content<\/a><\/p>\n This 2001 literature review by Stephanie Neilson for the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) examines how research influences public policy, particularly within the context of development research. The review analyses existing theories of knowledge utilisation, highlighting Caplan’s “two communities” theory (the cultural gap between researchers and policymakers) and Weiss’ “enlightenment function” of research (its gradual, indirect impact). It then explores various policy process models\u2014rational (linear, incremental, interactive) and political (policy networks, agenda-setting, policy narratives, policy transfer)\u2014assessing their implications for research influence. Finally, it discusses crucial issues such as research quality, perceived versus actual influence (“faking influence”), and the challenges posed by new policy fields (like ICTs) and environments (newly independent states). The ultimate purpose is to help IDRC better understand and enhance the policy impact of its research funding.<\/p>\n Bridging research and policy in transition countries<\/b>: https:\/\/biceps.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/brpsynthesis_final_version_december8_with_all_changes-_205.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n This study presents an overview of the GDN\u2019s Bridging Research and Policy project from 1999 to 2007. It highlights 4 main gaps: supply side gaps, information and communication gaps, demand gaps and governance gaps.<\/p>\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n