The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics

Many academics have strong incentives to influence policymaking, but may not know where to start. We searched systematically for, and synthesised, the ‘how to’ advice in the academic peer-reviewed and grey literatures. We condense this advice into eight main recommendations: (1) Do high quality research; (2) make your research relevant and readable; (3) understand policy processes; (4) be accessible to policymakers: engage routinely, flexible, and humbly; (5) decide if you want to be an issue advocate or honest broker; (6) build relationships (and ground rules) with policymakers; (7) be ‘entrepreneurial’ or find someone who is; and (8) reflect continuously: should you engage, do you want to, and is it working? This advice seems like common sense. However, it masks major inconsistencies, regarding different beliefs about the nature of the problem to be solved when using this advice. Furthermore, if not accompanied by critical analysis and insights from the peer-reviewed literature, it could provide misleading guidance for people new to this field.

[1]  I. Boyd Research: A standard for policy-relevant science , 2013, Nature.

[2]  T. Srinivasan The Washington Consensus a Decade Later: Ideology and the Art and Science of Policy Advice , 2000 .

[3]  C. Tyler Wanted: academics wise to the needs of government. , 2017 .

[4]  N. McGlynn Thinking fast and slow. , 2014, Australian veterinary journal.

[5]  Kevin Currie-Knight Review of The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone , 2017 .

[6]  Matthew Wood,et al.  The Politics of Co-Production: Risks, Limits and Pollution. , 2016 .

[7]  J. Lloyd Should academics be expected to change policy? Six reasons why it is unrealistic for research to drive policy change , 2016 .

[8]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  The adaptive toolbox. , 2001 .

[9]  A. Boaz,et al.  How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement , 2018, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[10]  Hilary Thomson,et al.  Improving utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy: the three Rs (relevance, rigor, and readability [and resources]). , 2013, American journal of public health.

[11]  J. Ward,et al.  Evidence for close linkage of human amylase loci. , 1972, Nature: New biology.

[12]  B. Jones,et al.  Agendas and instability in American politics , 1993 .

[13]  S. Chapman,et al.  From "our world" to the "real world": Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers. , 2011, Social science & medicine.

[14]  W. Sutherland,et al.  Policy advice: Use experts wisely , 2015, Nature.

[15]  D. Norse The nitrogen cycle, scientific uncertainty and policy relevant science , 2005, Science in China Series C: Life Sciences.

[16]  B. Latour,et al.  The Whole World is Becoming Science Studies: Fadhila Mazanderani Talks with Bruno Latour , 2018, Engaging Science, Technology, and Society.

[17]  Katherine E. Smith,et al.  We Need to Talk about Impact: Why Social Policy Academics need to Engage with the UK's Research Impact Agenda , 2016, Journal of Social Policy.

[18]  Meg Wiggins,et al.  Using Random Allocation to Evaluate Social Interventions: Three Recent U.K. Examples , 2003 .

[19]  K. Oliver,et al.  How Should Academics Engage in Policymaking to Achieve Impact? , 2018, Political Studies Review.

[20]  P. John,et al.  Is There Life After Policy Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, and Punctuations: Using Evolutionary Theory to Explain Policy Change? , 2003 .

[21]  K. J. Sy As Scientists and Citizens , 1989 .

[22]  D. Gough,et al.  Clarifying differences between review designs and methods , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[23]  Paul Cairney,et al.  Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs , 2018, Practical Lessons from Policy Theories.

[24]  S. Witter,et al.  Embedded health service development and research: why and how to do it (a ten-stage guide) , 2018, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[25]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Michael D. Jones,et al.  How can we use the ‘science of stories’ to produce persuasive scientific stories? , 2017, Palgrave Communications.

[27]  R. Nichols Science and technology advice to government , 1988 .

[28]  Heather Douglas Weighing Complex Evidence in a Democratic Society , 2012, Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal.

[29]  B. Crisp,et al.  Theoretical reflections on the nexus between research, policy and practice , 2008 .

[30]  N. Zahariadis The Multiple Streams Framework , 2019, Theories of the Policy Process.

[31]  N. Stenseth,et al.  Communication of Science Advice to Government. , 2016, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[32]  D. Koshland Science advice to the president. , 1988, Science.

[33]  I. Boyd,et al.  How to increase the potential policy impact of environmental science research , 2015, Environmental Sciences Europe.

[34]  T. Lorenc,et al.  A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[35]  Cheryl Brumley Academia and storytelling are not incompatible – how to reduce the risks and gain control of your research narrative. , 2014 .

[36]  William G. Lang,et al.  Report of the 2011-2012 Standing Committee on Advocacy: The Relevance of Excellent Research: Strategies for Impacting Public Policy , 2012, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education.

[37]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences , 2006 .

[38]  Herman Aguinis,et al.  Customer-Centric Science: Reporting Significant Research Results With Rigor, Relevance, and Practical Impact in Mind , 2010 .

[39]  Wil Lepkowski Heritage Foundation's Science Policy Advice for Reagan: Although latest study does not contain comprehensive discussion of science policy, it does give a conservative slant on many technical issues , 1984 .

[40]  H. Davies,et al.  Using Evidence: How research can inform public services , 2007 .

[41]  Heather Douglas Politics and Science , 2015 .

[42]  M. G. Morgan,et al.  Improving Science and Technology Advice for Congress , 2001, Science.

[43]  Katherine E. Smith,et al.  'Black magic' and 'gold dust' : the epistemic and political uses of evidence tools in public health policy making , 2015 .

[44]  David Saah,et al.  So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice , 2017 .

[45]  A. Shestakov,et al.  Toward strategic, coherent, policy-relevant arctic science , 2016, Science.

[46]  P. Collins The Politics of Scientific Advice: Quality control in scientific policy advice: the experience of the Royal Society , 2011 .

[47]  P. Fafard Beyond the usual suspects: using political science to enhance public health policy making , 2015, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

[48]  Paul Cairney,et al.  The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making , 2016 .

[49]  Andrew M. Rous,et al.  Being relevant: Practical guidance for early career researchers interested in solving conservation problems , 2015 .

[50]  Sandy Oliver,et al.  Introducing Systematic Reviews , 2019, Conducting Systematic Reviews in Sport, Exercise, and Physical Activity.

[51]  A. Boaz,et al.  Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature , 2011, BMC Research Notes.

[52]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy , 2018, Ambio.

[53]  F. de Vocht,et al.  Defining ‘evidence’ in public health: a survey of policymakers’ uses and preferences , 2015, European journal of public health.

[54]  C. Whitty What makes an academic paper useful for health policy? , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[55]  L. Locock,et al.  Research, Policy and Practice – Worlds Apart? , 2004, Social Policy and Society.

[56]  M. Schwartz,et al.  Policy Relevant Conservation Science , 2015 .

[57]  J. Knottnerus,et al.  Methodology of the 'craft' of scientific advice for policy and practice. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[58]  Irene Kwan,et al.  Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach? , 2015 .

[59]  Tikki Pang,et al.  Evidence for Health II: Overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice , 2016, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[60]  R. Fernández How to be a more effective environmental scientist in management and policy contexts , 2016 .

[61]  Tanya Heikkila,et al.  Comparison of Theories of the Policy Process , 2018 .

[62]  Bryan D. Jones,et al.  The cognitive underpinnings of policy process studies: Introduction to a special issue of Cognitive Systems Research , 2017, Cognitive Systems Research.

[63]  Frank R. Baumgartner,et al.  Endogenous disjoint change , 2017, Cognitive Systems Research.

[64]  W. Fuller The needs of the many... , 2010, The Florida nurse.

[65]  John W. Kingdon Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[66]  Giandomenico Majone,et al.  Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process , 1989 .

[67]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. , 1991 .

[68]  K. Oliver,et al.  Reducing ambiguity to close the science-policy gap , 2018 .

[69]  Michael Jones,et al.  Narratives as tools for influencing policy change , 2018, Practical Lessons from Policy Theories.

[70]  Anthony King Science, politics and policymaking , 2016, EMBO reports.

[71]  P. Cairney,et al.  How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies , 2017, Palgrave Communications.

[72]  M. Meyer,et al.  An ecologist's guide to careers in science policy advising , 2018 .

[73]  J. Tyndall How low can you go? Towards a hierarchy of grey literature. , 2008 .

[74]  R. Farmer How to Influence Government Policy with Your Research: Tips from Practicing Political Scientists in Government , 2010, PS.

[75]  A. Thompson,et al.  What Is the Value of History in Policymaking , 2015 .

[76]  K. Oliver,et al.  Networks and network analysis in evidence, policy and practice , 2018, Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice.

[77]  M. Hammersley The Myth of Research-Based Policy and Practice , 2013 .

[78]  D. Atkins,et al.  Making evidence from research more relevant, useful, and actionable in policy, program planning, and practice slips "twixt cup and lip". , 2009, American journal of preventive medicine.

[79]  D. Moher,et al.  Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network , 2010, BMC medicine.

[80]  J. Lavis,et al.  How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? , 2003, The Milbank quarterly.

[81]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide , 2005 .

[82]  Sara K. Yeo,et al.  The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[83]  D. Edwards,et al.  Reframing the evidence base for policy‐relevance to increase impact: a case study on forest fragmentation in the oil palm sector , 2017 .

[84]  Clare Wilkinson,et al.  Evidencing impact: a case study of UK academic perspectives on evidencing research impact , 2019 .

[85]  N. Allum,et al.  Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes , 2004 .

[86]  E. Kerr,et al.  Helping health service researchers and policy makers speak the same language. , 2015, Health services research.

[87]  N. Pyenson,et al.  How to Produce Translational Research to Guide Arctic Policy , 2017, BioScience.

[88]  P. Cairney,et al.  Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre , 2018, Palgrave Communications.

[89]  J. Pielke The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics , 2007 .

[90]  J. Burgess Follow the argument where it leads: some personal reflections on ‘policy‐relevant’ research , 2005 .

[91]  Elinor Ostrom,et al.  Sustainable Social-Ecological Systems: An Impossibility? , 2007 .

[92]  M. Kohn Darwin 200: The needs of the many , 2008, Nature.

[93]  R. Cormier,et al.  Censoring government scientists and the role of consensus in science advice , 2015, EMBO reports.

[94]  M. Evans,et al.  An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers , 2018, Palgrave Communications.

[95]  E. Araral,et al.  The institutional analysis and development framework , 2012 .

[96]  David C Rose,et al.  The case for policy-relevant conservation science , 2014, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[97]  J. Haidt The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. , 2001, Psychological review.

[98]  A. Yadav Knowledge Management Policy , 2011 .

[99]  Christl A. Donnelly,et al.  Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy , 2018, Nature.

[100]  H. Simon,et al.  Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. , 1959 .

[101]  Peter Gluckman,et al.  Policy: The art of science advice to government , 2014, Nature.

[102]  L. Locock,et al.  Whose evidence is it anyway , 2015 .

[103]  J. Parkhurst The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence , 2016 .

[104]  W. Sutherland Review by quality not quantity for better policy , 2013, Nature.

[105]  C. Weiss The many meanings of research utilization. , 1979 .

[106]  B. Head,et al.  Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges , 2010 .