Presentation by Dr. Maurice Bolo, during the Scinnovent Centre' training on The Art of Influencing policy Change: tools and strategies for researchers, held on 12th -14th February 2013 at The African Academy of Sciences Campus Nairobi

1. BRIDGING THE RESEARCH – POLICY GAP
What role for researchers?
Maurice Bolo, PhD
Bolo@scinnovent.org / ochibolo@gmail.com

2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE
• Researchers as actors in the policy process
• Why does the research – policy gap exists?
• What can researchers do to bridge the
gap?

3. RESEARCHERS AS ACTORS IN THE POLICY PROCESS
Demand/advice/reactions
Research to
Policy Policy output
understand/inform researcher
the policy process /Research Policy recommendations
Centre
Governmental Designing actual
agency policies to be
implemented
Policy
Other analysts/
actors Centre

4. WHY DOES THE RESEARCH – POLICY GAP EXIST?
(b) Under-utilisation of
research owing to lack of
(a) Political factors policy-relevant research
shape the pull for and nature of decision-
research and utilisation making
of research in policy
Lack of policy-relevant
research due to poorly Policy – research
framed research and gap
lack of contextualised
communication

5. 1. LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE POLICY
PROCESS IN THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY
The formal and informal political processes that affect
decision-making, bargaining, opinion forming and
influencing within government clearly shape how
research is used or not used in policymaking.
Three key issues stand out:
(a) Randomness of the policy process
(b) Percolation and filtering of research ideas
(c) Politicization of policy choices

6. (a) Randomness of the policy process
• Policymaking is a random and messy process – formal theories have
not fully captured the nuances, trade-offs and developing country
contexts
• Policymakers are not always trying to make ‘the most balanced and
evidence-based decision’, instead they make ‘acceptable’ or
‘compromise’ policies based on the limits of the situation
• As the situation is fluid, how policymakers balance demands and
compare different policy options will vary according to the time they
have available and organisational constraints.

7. How then do issues get on the agenda?
Issues get on the agenda only when
three streams converge: a problem is
recognised, a solution is available, the
political climate makes it the right time
for change and the constraints do not
prohibit action (Kingdon 2003: 88).

8. What does this mean for researchers?
• The challenge is to navigate the political factors
that shape how policymakers translate issues
into problems
• Kingdon (2003: 131–3) ‘survival criteria’ for
how solutions/ideas survive the political
stream and get on the decision agenda:
• technical feasibility and value acceptability.

9. What does this mean for researchers?
• Technical feasibility refers to the feasibility of
implementation: whether it is ‘worked out’,
‘worked through’ or ‘ready to go’
• Value feasibility relates to alignment with a
certain political culture, a way of ‘seeing the
world’ or mainstream political thinking.

10. (b) Percolation and filtering of research ideas
• Rather than the specific findings, it is the
concepts and theoretical perspectives that
become embedded through a process of
‘enlightenment’.
• Policymakers ‘cannot disentangle the lessons
from their whole configuration of knowledge’.
• Policymakers test research ideas against their
own knowledge and judgement

11. What are the implications of this?
• Influencing policymakers is a painfully slow
process
• Research must fit with how policymakers frame
problems to even be considered.
• Policy actors often merge research together
and frame it with their other knowledge,
• Hence the importance of communication to get
research out in the public domain.

12. (c) Politicization of policy choices
Research is only utilized if it is in line with the prevailing
policy narrative i.e.
• Often have pre-assigned policy objectives and are
looking for evidence to fit within this.
• Often policymakers either look for, or absorb,
existing research that supports a predetermined
position
• Or they use research to ward off criticism and use
it as ‘political ammunition’

13. Politicization of policy choices cont’d
• Use of evidence is guided by political
expediency and whether it advances the
political actors’ agenda
• This can lead to de-contextualisation,
misquotation or selective use of research
findings to support existing policy narratives.
• Policymakers can also be held captive to public
opinion or political commitments

14. 2. WEAK DEMAND FROM POLICYMAKERS
FOR RESEARCH EVIDENCE
Three factors affect the demand and
pull for research evidence
(a) The nature of the decision-making
process
(b) Bureacracy of policymaking
(c) The type of evidence

15. (a) The nature of the decision-making process
•Decisions are a cumulative result of conflict and
cooperation among different actors within a policy
arena.
•Understanding the decision-making processes can help
us understand when evidence can play a role in altering
the momentum towards different decisions
•Demand for and receptivity to research increases when
policymakers anticipate the need to make an important
decision, particularly, after winning an election,
appointing new ministers or responding to an urgent
policy problem (e.g. climate change or financial crisis).

16. (b) Bureaucracy of policymaking
•The capacity of policymakers to engage with
research (new or existing) is often very low.
•Habit and tradition, often embedded in a civil
service culture, may reduce the demand for new
research evidence.
•Parliamentary terms, timetables for policy
reviews, procedures for consultation and the
weak administrative capacity of many government
ministries can reduce demand for research.

17. (c) The type of evidence
•How policymakers value different types and forms of evidence is
shaped by the political context and the nature of the policy process
and their ideological leaning, their professional expertise and their
appreciation for research
•Some of the issues policymakers look for while judging evidence
include:
•Quality: Credibility (reputation) and reliability
(methods/analysis)
•Relevance (to policy) and generalizability: how does it make me
look good/do my job?
•Sensitivity: is it disruptive to the status quo/current definition of
problems?
•Clarity: is it easy to digest and apply?

18. 3. POOR SUPPLY OF POLICY-RELEVANT
RESEARCH
Getting research evidence to influence
policy suffers from two supply-side
problems:
(a) Asking the wrong questions: poorly
framed and poorly contextualized
(b) Poorly contextualized communication

19. (a) Asking the wrong questions?
•Research can take time to carry out and the review
process which ends up in papers being published in a
journal can be lengthy.
•Often by this time, policymakers will have drawn on tacit
knowledge or their own pool of knowledge or contacts to
make decisions or to frame their thinking.
•Research questions need to try to address current
evidence gaps in policy debates, or try to supply evidence
that helps to frame policy debates.

20. Asking the right questions?
Whose research question?
•Policymakers often want research that shows how impacts take
place and why? or that produce evidence that demonstrate how
things should be done differently or that offer practical guidance.
•Policymaking is to some degree about problem-solving.
Therefore how policymakers define ‘useful’ research will often
depend on whether the evidence helps them solve a policy
problem.
•Local, national and international social and political processes
constrain and facilitate how programmes are designed and
implemented and affect who gains access to them and who is
excluded. Pay attention to the political context

21. (b) Poorly contextualized communication
•Good communication work can’t substitute for good
research; and can’t replace the absence of a political lens.
•How policy change is understood affects how messages
are framed, and the timing and nature of influencing
activities.
•A lack of understanding of the nature of policymaking,
how policy narratives are created and the room for
manoeuvre policymakers have, can mean policy
messages and recommendations are poorly framed

22. How can researchers help bridge the research – policy gap?
What we know Key lessons Putting it to practice
The policy Policymaking is a random Be realistic about what is Build informal relations
process and and slow process. achievable with government
the political Decision-making is based on It is easier to change the
context what is politically feasible. way problems are Develop an
Research often percolates understood than specific incremental influencing
slowly to influence thinking. policies. strategy
Weak demand Policymakers make Assumptions about Understand how
from judgements about the evidence are embedded policymakers define
policymakers usefulness of evidence in social and political credibility and
for research institutions. usefulness.
evidence These judgements are more It is crucial to assess Analyse how they
political than rational political space and frame debates, and
prevailing policy their views about
narratives. evidence.
Poor quality Research is often poorly Successful Create partnerships
supply of contextualised. communication is about with government
research Advocacy is often poorly knowing how to shape Integrate political-
informed by political messages, and developing economy questions
analysis. strategies based on into
political realities. research design

23. www.scinnovent.org