Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Background Note: Policy Briefs As A Communication Tool For Development Research
Background Note: Policy Briefs As A Communication Tool For Development Research
May 2008
Overseas Development
Institute
P
al., 2005) as well as innovative knowledge translation
olicy briefs are short documents that present initiatives such as multi-stakeholder research partner-
the findings and recommendations of a ships between researchers, NGOs and policy-makers
research project to a non-specialist reader- (Jones and Villar, 2008) and the establishment of
ship. They are often recommended as a key dedicated knowledge hubs within line ministries in
tool for communicating research findings to policy some developing countries (Lavis, 2007). However,
actors (Young and Quinn, 2007). However, there has a number of key structural and professional tensions
been little systematic research in the development field persist between researchers and policy-makers. These
about the communication needs of developing country are presented below, with a particular emphasis on the
policy-makers and how such research can be used natural science field.
to inform policy brief content and design. This back-
ground note presents recent research by the Research Specialised research expertise vs democratised
and Policy in Development (RAPID) Group at ODI and knowledge
the Science and Development Network (SciDev.Net) Efforts to communicate research-based information for
on the research communication environment involving policy application underscore tensions between scien-
researchers, policy-makers and development practi- tific knowledge as ‘privileged’ information and the per-
tioners from the North and South in science, technol- ceived diluting effects that a democratised knowledge-
ogy and innovation. base may introduce (Weingart, 1999). Some fear that
We begin with an overview of the theoretical litera- the capacity of the current system of communication
ture on bridging research and policy, with a focus on between researcher and policy communities is inad-
insights from scholars interested in the science–pol- equate to rule out excessive dilution of scientific knowl-
icy interface. Drawing on an international survey and edge (Clark and Juma, 2002). Moreover, the pluralisa-
country case studies, we then highlight the barriers tion of knowledge in policy can, in fact, cause debate to
to, and opportunities for, strengthening communica- stagnate rather than encourage it. Policy-makers, con-
tion between researchers, knowledge brokers and strained by time and overwhelmed by various sources
policy-makers working in international development, of information, are likely to make a snap decision by
and the key requisites of policy briefs to meet the selecting the ‘evidence’ most appropriate to their politi-
challenges of this landscape. cal leanings (Edwards, 1999). The clear warning is that,
without efforts to improve these communication chan-
nels, research may lose its ‘purity’ when used in the
Characterising the divide between the
short timeframes of the political sphere.
research and policy communities
Scholarship on the research–policy interface in recent Engagement vs objectivity
years has done much to unpack the complexities of A divide between ‘engaged’ and ‘objective’ researchers
the uptake of research evidence into policy-making is highlighted in the literature concerning science com-
processes (Cash et al., 2003; Scott, 2006; Choi et al., munication in developed countries in particular, and
2007; Fairhead et al., 2006). There is now a growing to a lesser degree in studies on developing countries.
The Overseas Development Institute is the UK’s leading independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues.
ODI Background Notes provide a summary or snapshot of an issue or of an area of ODI work in progress. This and other ODI Background
Notes are available from www.odi.org.uk
Background Note
Two broad categories of researchers emerge: research- demands of politicians who are often compelled to
ers engaged in policy-making processes and those work under very tight deadlines to produce short-
who separate themselves from policy. The divide term, tangible policy results. On the other hand,
often occurs between ‘strictly objective’ researchers, policy-makers often struggle to stay apace of new
who believe that engaging in civic debate under- scientific thinking, especially in terms of developing
mines objectivity, and ‘citizen scientists’, who believe relevant policies and infrastructure to enable as well
researchers can – and at times should – help decision- as regulate the implementation of scientific and
makers incorporate sound scientific knowledge into technological advances (Clark and Juma, 2002).
policy (Higgins et al., 2006). Debate between these
camps is said to render many researchers unwilling Evidence vs contextual factors in policy decision-
to engage in civic discourse: some are convinced by making
the argument for strict objectivity, while others recog- Research findings have been responsible for many
nise that it is safer, professionally, to focus solely on improvements in quality of life. Better use of research
research and risky to advocate on behalf of anything, evidence in development policy-making can save
even science. However, more nuanced arguments lives through more effective policies that respond
suggest that when researchers recoil too far from the to scientific and technological advances, use
policy implications of research, they leave a ‘vacuum’ resources more efficiently and better meet citizens’
that is filled by politically motivated parties who offer needs (WHO, 2004). However, too often the linkages
their own interpretations, and without credible opposi- between research and policy-making are viewed as a
tion, can mislead the public towards their own goals. linear process, in which research findings are critically
analysed and the best option implemented into policy
Researchers’ vs policy-makers’ incentive struc- (Young and Court, 2004). In reality, the integration of
tures and timescales evidence into policy decision-making is a complex
Problems caused by the divergent timescales and process of multiple, frequently competing and / or
incentive structures of researchers and policy-makers intertwined sets of influences in which evidence
lie at the heart of communication issues at the plays just one of many roles (see Figure 1). In practice,
research–policy interface. On the one hand, the time- research evidence is considered through the lens of
consuming nature of ‘pure’ research, not bound by policy-makers’ experience, expertise and judgement,
time constraints, is difficult to integrate with the policy contextual pragmatics, available resources and
Experience and
expertise
Pragmatics and
Judgement
contingencies
Evidence
Resources
Lobbyists and
pressure groups
Habits, values
and tradition Policy content
2
Background Note
Other 6
Too much scientific information to be useful 15
Lack of incentives 56
the policy context, along with the habits, values Study findings
and traditions of policy-makers, and the influence Despite the emphasis in the literature on the
of lobbyists and pressure groups (Davies, 2005). polarisation between researcher and policy-maker
Increasing the usage of evidence in policy-making communities, the 2007 ODI/SciDev.Net study found
therefore requires a communication approach that is that greater opportunities for interaction, discussion
informed by an understanding and engagement with and deliberation between researchers and policy-
these competing influences. makers would significantly improve the uptake of
research findings in policy decision-making. The
survey findings underscored the large unmet need for
Research methodology
greater communication of scientific and technological
This background note is based upon the findings of evidence for policy-makers. Some 50% of policy-
a 2007 ODI/SciDev.Net international study on the makers and 65% of researchers felt that there is
research–policy interface in the field of science, insufficient dissemination of research findings for
technology and innovation. The study involved a policy uptake (59% of respondents overall, see
systematic literature review, expert interviews, seven Figure 2). Policy briefs were identified as a key tool
developing country case studies (China, Cambodia, for addressing this gap, with 79% of respondents
India, Ghana, Zambia, Nicaragua and Bolivia) and an from both developed and developing countries
international survey with researchers, policy-makers ranking policy briefs as valuable communications
and intermediary organisations. Research questions tools along with opinion articles written by experts,
focused on how research information is accessed for news items and discussion fora. Similarly, more
developmentpolicy-making (particularlyin developing in-depth interviews with sub-national developing
countries), what types of communication of research country policy-makers confirmed that they not only
evidence are most useful / effective for policy actors, read policy briefs, but often actively seek them out
and the ways in which an intermediary organisation to inform their decision-making processes. As one
can facilitate the communication process between Indian sub-national level policy-maker emphasised:
researcher and policy-making communities. ‘I often read policy briefs for both my official and
This note draws primarily on the survey findings,1 non-official needs. I cannot think of going forward
as well as more in-depth qualitative work undertaken without consulting policy briefs. It expands my
with an expert panel2 and key informant interviews in knowledge as I get an opportunity to understand
Brazil and India.3 what is happening around me’.
3
Background Note
Presentation of evidence-informed • Presentation of author’s own views about policy implications of research findings
opinions • But clear identification of argument components that are opinion-based
4
Background Note
Box 1: Views of developing country policy- their position by sector, level of government, and role
makers in policy-making. A policy brief should, therefore, be
written to address the needs of the target audience as
well as in accordance with the particular point in the
‘Policy briefs provide valuable information in an
understandable format…when I read policy briefs I
policy cycle that one aims to influence, whether it be
look for the quality of the information, adequate tables agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation
and figures, and connection of the evidence to policy or evaluation.
processes.’ (Sub-national level policy maker, Brazil) Patterns of evidence use differ by audience segment,
including country, sector, role in policy-making (e.g.
‘Briefs should be inspiring. They should be practical, legislator, minister, policy engaged NGO), level of
realistic and relevant to the local contexts.’ (President of government, etc. For example, non-science related
local-level government body, Kerala State, India)
ministries report employing scientific information
‘When I read policy briefs I look for concise information primarily in the stages of policy evaluation (64%)
that takes into account the policy process, and provides and implementation (59%). By contrast, science-
information relevant to the problems at hand.’ (Sub- related ministries use scientific information primarily
national level policy-maker, Brazil) for policy conceptualisation (88%), and formulation
(85%), suggesting that non-science policy-makers
use scientific information to legitimate and evaluate
review and synthesis of existing information, or the policy decisions, whereas science-related ministries
culmination of a programme of work? This transpar- rely more heavily on scientific information to
ency can be aided by providing a short annotated list formulate policy. There is also strong demand for
of the most important sources and publication on the more regionally and locally specific policy briefs:
topic for further reading. over 50% of developing country based policy-makers
prefer regionally specific information over globally
Credibility of the messenger applicable information. Having this information
End-users of policy briefs emphasised that they do translated into local languages is also important if
pay attention to who is producing the policy brief and readership and engagement with new research is to
that this influences their acceptance of the evidence be enhanced.
and argument presented. Legitimacy stems not only
from the quality of the evidence base, but also from Tailoring findings to audience interests
the author of the information and / or the organisation The purpose of a policy brief should be linked to the
publishing the brief. target audience. As shown above, the ODI/SciDev.Net
Survey respondents identified professional survey found that the informational needs of science-
scientific and international organisations as the most ministry officials differ from those of non-science
legitimate potential mediators between researcher ministries. A policy brief should therefore be written
and policy-maker communities. However, mediating at to address the specific purpose for which its target
the science–policy interface is not necessarily part of audience uses information, whether it be to formulate
the mandate of such organisations. This suggests that or validate policies. As a policy-maker from Kerala
there are many undefined roles to be filled in this area State, India, explained:
by other possible knowledge brokers such as: policy
advisors, donors and web-based organisations. When
acting as a knowledge broker and producing policy Box 2: Country Case Study Examples
briefs, organisations should consider partnering with
authoritative research institutes so as to augment In India and Cambodia, the uptake of scientific informa-
their credibility. tion into policy is also closely linked to its resonance
with broader national development priorities. For ex-
ample, in India the framing of biotechnology research
Context findings in pro-poor discourse (improved crop yields
as a means to reduce rural poverty) has contributed to
Tailoring findings to political context
widespread policy implementation. In Cambodia as in
Presenting results so that they are applicable to the other post-conflict societies, research messages pre-
specific national and sub-national contexts in which sented as part of broader socio-economic rehabilitation
policy-makers operate emerged as an important efforts are more likely to receive policy support. In both
challenge. Policy-makers do not represent a cases, demonstrating the complementarity of research
homogenous group of actors, but rather have different evidence with social and economic data is often highly
needs, priorities and uses for information based on effective.
5
Background Note
‘Primarily, I look for applicability within my working their findings. Interestingly, while those in both the
framework. Usually, there are a hundred policy briefs North and South preferred researchers to express their
on a single subject but the majority are irrelevant to opinions, the demand for opinion, value judgments
local contexts and situations.’ and advice on policy actions was particularly high
in the South, both at the national and sub-national
This suggests that there may then be a need for levels.
separate tailored versions of policy briefs for different
policy actors, not only according to the level of the Presenting messages in clear language
political arena (international, national, sub-national There was a strong consensus among study
and local) but also depending on the policy sector participants that briefs need to be written in clear,
in which they work, and whether or not they are civil jargon-free language, and pitched towards educated
servants or elected officials. In this vein, persuading non-specialists in the topic. This is because many
the reader to take a particular course of action based policy-makers are generalists and do not come from
on research evidence can be enhanced by highlighting research or even strong educational backgrounds:
the benefits that are likely to accrue by following 64% of ODI/SciDev.Net survey respondents were of
a particular course of action. Country case studies the view that low levels of scientific understanding
in the ODI/SciDev.Net study showed, for instance, by policy-makers constituted a significant obstacle
that linking research evidence to socio-economic to the uptake of scientific information (Figure 2
benefits in particular can be especially persuasive, above). Moreover, a significant number of policy-
due to overarching attention to poverty reduction and makers emphasised that much research evidence is
economic growth. unnecessarily verbose and dense.
6
Background Note
however, even with a well-crafted policy brief in hand, engagement (e.g. global advocacy campaigns,
the research communication process has not ended community radio) as a platform from which to
but is only beginning. approach policy-makers and advocate for more
To foster uptake and implementation, face-to- accountable decision-making (Hovland, 2004).
face and / or electronic discussion and deliberation This approach was also strongly endorsed by over
with policy-makers about the policy brief evidence 90% of ODI/SciDev.Net survey respondents who
and policy guidance is critical. What is needed is called for more efforts to build the public’s capacity
active mediation and translation among knowledge to engage in research-policy debates. Improved
producers, knowledge brokers and end users, as research communication is therefore critical, not only
well as an integrated communications approach that between researcher and policy-maker communities,
takes into consideration individual, organisational but also among the broader public. Lastly, efforts
and systemic levels. It is critical to foster close to strengthen researchers’ communication and
collaboration between researchers and policy-makers knowledge brokering skills need to be complemented
from the outset, rather than disseminating research by efforts to strengthen the institutional capacity of
results at the end of a project, to reach consensus on policy agencies to take up research. This includes
the key questions to be addressed and to promote enhancing individual capacities and skills, as well as
understanding of research methodologies as well as developing institutional channels, procedures and
ownership of findings. incentive structures to promote evidence-informed
Constructing an appropriate platform from which policy processes.
to communicate is also key, especially if research
findings challenge current policy approaches. This Background Note was written by Cora Walsh and Nicola Jones
Informed by insights from literature on advocacy and is based on work conducted in the RAPID programme at ODI,
commissioned by SciDev.Net and funded by DFID. For more infor-
and user engagement, there is a growing realisation mation contact Nicola Jones (n.jones@odi.org.uk) or visit www.odi.
of the efficacy of promoting broad engagement org.uk/rapid. More information on science and policy can also be
and participation on an issue, and using public found at www.scidev.net
7
Background Note
Communication toolkits:
Hovland, I. (2005) Successful Communication: A Toolkit for
Researchers and Civil Society Organisations. London: ODI.
(http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/rapid/tools2.pdf).
Overseas Development Institute, 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7JD, Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0300,
Fax: +44 (0)20 7 922 0399, Email: publications@odi.org.uk. Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce material from
ODI Background Notes for their own publications, but as copyright holder, ODI requests due acknowledgement and a
copy of the publication. This and other ODI Background Notes are available from www.odi.org.uk.
© Overseas Development Institute 2008. ISSN 1756-7610.