IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0214136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supporting evidence-informed policy and scrutiny: A consultation of UK research professionals

Author

Listed:
  • Lindsay A Walker
  • Natalia S Lawrence
  • Chris D Chambers
  • Marsha Wood
  • Julie Barnett
  • Hannah Durrant
  • Lindsey Pike
  • Gerard O’Grady
  • Sven Bestmann
  • Andrew P Kythreotis

Abstract

Access to reliable and timely information ensures that decision-makers can operate effectively. The motivations and challenges of parliamentarians and policy-makers in accessing evidence have been well documented in the policy literature. However, there has been little focus on research-providers. Understanding both the demand- and the supply-side of research engagement is imperative to enhancing impactful interactions. Here, we examine the broader experiences, motivations and challenges of UK-based research professionals engaging with research-users relevant to policy-making and scrutiny in the UK using a nationwide online questionnaire. The context of the survey partly involved contributing to the UK Evidence Information Service (EIS), a proposed rapid match-making service to facilitate interaction between parliamentary arenas that use evidence and research-providers. Our findings reveal, at least for this sub-sample who responded, that there are gender-related differences in policy-related experience, motivations, incentives and challenges for research professionals to contribute to evidence-informed decision-making through initiatives such as the EIS. Male and female participants were equally likely to have policy experience; however, males reported both significantly broader engagement with the research-users included in the survey and significantly higher levels of engagement with each research-user. Reported incentives for engagement included understanding what the evidence will be used for, guidance on style and content of contribution, and acknowledgement of contributions by the policymaker or elected official. Female participants were significantly more likely to select the guidance-related options. The main reported barrier was workload. We discuss how academia-policy engagement initiatives can best address these issues in ways that enhance the integration of research evidence with policy and practice across the UK.

Suggested Citation

  • Lindsay A Walker & Natalia S Lawrence & Chris D Chambers & Marsha Wood & Julie Barnett & Hannah Durrant & Lindsey Pike & Gerard O’Grady & Sven Bestmann & Andrew P Kythreotis, 2019. "Supporting evidence-informed policy and scrutiny: A consultation of UK research professionals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0214136
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214136
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214136&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0214136?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Flinders, 2013. "The Tyranny of Relevance and the Art of Translation," Political Studies Review, Political Studies Association, vol. 11(2), pages 149-167, May.
    2. Leighton Andrews, 2017. "How can we demonstrate the public value of evidence-based policy making when government ministers declare that the people ‘have had enough of experts’?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kythreotis, Andrew P. & Hannaford, Matthew & Howarth, Candice & Bosworth, Gary, 2024. "Translating climate risk assessments into more effective adaptation decision-making: the importance of social and political aspects of place-based climate risk," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122155, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruth Mayne & Duncan Green & Irene Guijt & Martin Walsh & Richard English & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Paul Almond & Judith van Erp, 2020. "Regulation and governance versus criminology: Disciplinary divides, intersections, and opportunities," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 167-183, April.
    3. Margaret Dalziel, 2018. "Why are there (almost) no randomised controlled trial-based evaluations of business support programmes?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Noam Obermeister, 2020. "Tapping into science advisers’ learning," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0214136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.