The evidence-informed policy (EIP) field has long acted as a lighthouse, guiding a rich and dynamic network of researchers and practitioners, such as policy-makers, think tanks, international non-governmental organisations and funders.
For decades, we have striven to find better and new ways of promoting the use of evidence and have witnessed how the field has evolved constantly and positively: new concepts have been coined, new approaches and frameworks have been promoted, new capacity development activities have been supported, and lessons have been learnt (and not learnt!).
However, we have also faced recurrent bottlenecks within the EIP field because of very complex and sensitive problems that we call ‘thorny issues’.
While often acknowledged in the literature and reflections, these issues are seldom addressed explicitly or directly due to their challenging nature. However, at OTT, we believe that the space for innovation and for evidence to have a real and transformative impact will be reduced if we continue to avoid these issues.
Addressing thorny issues in EIP is not only important but necessary for creating credible, effective and transformative interventions. By recognising and tackling these complex problems, we believe we can help EIP scholars, practitioners and funders to make a lasting difference.
This article explores what these thorny issues are and why it’s important to work together to address them directly.
What are the thorny issues in EIP?
We understand thorny issues as complicated, sensitive and often controversial problems, which impede the effective generation, communication and use of evidence in policy-making.
They are characterised by the following:
- Their complexity: these issues often involve deep-seated structural, political or cultural factors, which cannot be easily understood or solved.
- Their influence: these issues can skew and derail the best-laid plans to promote better-informed policy.
- Their distance from the EIP field: these are issues that have their own academic and practitioner communities and, thus, are not the focus of EIP scholars and practitioners.
- The discomfort they cause among stakeholders: this makes them difficult to discuss and resolve openly.
For us, thorny issues are exist both in the environment in which evidence is generated, communicated and used as well as in the way the sector is structured.
Contextual thorny issues
Contextual issues relate to factors that are part of our political, economic and social context. Unlike other approaches to understanding the context we understand these to be endogenous to the context in which EIP plays out. They cannot be placed in the “external environment” category.
Some examples are outlined below.
- Corruption in the allocation of research funds
Corruption can divert funds meant for research and skew the evidence towards the interests of those in power rather than the public good.
- Political patronage and vested interests
Political patronage can influence the evidence that’s considered in policy-making, often sidelining important research that does not align with the interests of powerful stakeholders.
- Values and beliefs
People’s values and beliefs affect their acceptance of evidence or their position on certain issues, which often leads to them dismissing or misunderstanding new research.
These values and beliefs shape policy narratives that are very difficult to challenge, regardless of the evidence presented or the mechanisms developed to institutionalise evidence use.
- Misinformation and disinformation
The speed at which facts are being undermined, intentionally or not, is outmanoeuvring the EIP community.
Unlike us within the EIP field, who want to inform, explain and convince about something, those using misinformation and disinformation only need to plant doubt to undermine the credibility of experts.
- Polarisation and its effect on evidence interpretation and use
In highly polarised environments, evidence can be dismissed or manipulated to fit pre-existing opposing ideologies, thus hindering sound policy-making.
Populist and polarising political movements and governments are on the rise across the world and post-truth practices pervade public spaces and processes.
- The precariousness of the education sector and labour force
Across the Global South, there have been decades of underinvestment in education and science.
This has translated to a lack of sufficiently trained and experienced researchers, knowledge translators and policy-makers, who are needed by EIP programmes, projects, embedded labs and think tanks.
EIP-sector thorny issues
Sectorial issues correspond to the way that actors in the EIP field strategise and how they organise, coordinate and fund their work. Some examples are outlined below.
- Incentives and motivations for working in EIP
Funding schemes, the reputation of organisations and networks, how success is defined, what types of approaches and disciplines are legitimised, and who to partner with or include in projects are among the drivers for many evidence producers.
However, these incentives and demands are not always clear and transparent and can limit the scope, depth and breadth of the work done within the field.
- Playing the role of ‘insiders’
EIP practitioners have developed a largely ‘insider’ role within the policy research ecosystem.
Much of the literature and practice today focuses on developing embedded units in public agencies, institutionalising evidence use, and offering services to/working with governments and parliaments.
Funders promote this approach but it makes addressing thorny issues like corruption and state capture difficult.
Addressing thorny issues: challenges
We don’t doubt the importance of addressing these issues, but we also acknowledge that this is fraught with challenges.
While the challenges are daunting, addressing such issues with courage and persistence will pave the way for a renewal of the EIP field.
Arguably, external thorny issues are challenged by internal ones: funding models, prevailing incentives to become a professional in the field, and our positioning as insiders and partners of governments make it hard to address recurrent bottlenecks.
We also continue to participate in repetitive discussions, with little room for manoeuvring change.
Other challenges include those listed below, which will play out differently in different sectors, contexts and circumstances.
- Cultural and political sensitivities
Different cultural and political contexts can make it difficult to address certain issues openly. What might be a straightforward problem in one context could be highly sensitive in another, requiring nuanced and context-specific approaches.
We find, for instance, that northern funders and southern practitioners often avoid direct discussions about widespread corruption in the Global South.
However, we, in the Global South, know that corruption affects the generation, communication and use of evidence – as it affects everything else.
The learning coalition we want to develop will need to find ways to talk to the South in general, but in a way that also embraces the particularities and nuances of different settings.
- Institutional barriers
In many regions, especially in the Global South, institutions may be less established and lack the necessary resources to tackle thorny issues effectively.
Many research organisations and public institutions lack the necessary funding, time, and networks/partners to participate in research, as well as the reflective efforts to address these problems.
- Complexity and nuance
Thorny issues are inherently complex and multifaceted, making them difficult to address with simple or one-size-fits-all solutions. They require a deep understanding of the underlying factors and a willingness to engage in difficult conversations and processes.
EIP scholars and practitioners may not have the necessary knowledge or skills, and reaching out to and engaging with other fields may feel like a distraction or a loss of control.
- Urgency
Addressing these issues requires us to rethink the timeframes of our efforts. Designing and launching an embedded policy lab can fit nicely within a year-long project. But it could take decades to address the civil service’s lack of capacity in using a policy lab’s evidence, or the institutionalised corruption and rent-seeking that directly influences how and what decisions are made.
How is OTT addressing thorny issues?
The Knowledge translation in the Global South project was led by OTT and the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), and was supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The findings revealed that we need to expand our understanding of knowledge translation beyond its traditional boundaries.
Among the key takeaways, was that the Global South is a space marked by weaker institutional structures, where evidence use faces unique challenges – such as limited public funding for science and research, structural inequalities, and political landscapes dominated by vested interests.
This is why OTT is exploring the potential of jointly developing a learning coalition that dares to look at these issues directly, staring them down even when it’s uncomfortable. This is being explored under OTT’s evidence-use workstream, alongside other southern-led regional and global networks like Southern Voice, the Africa Evidence Network and the LAC Hub.
Through such collaborative approaches, we aspire to generate new knowledge on how to approach these issues from the perspective of the Global South.
Encouraging ongoing dialogue, including uncomfortable conversations and collaborative efforts to address thorny issues, will ultimately lead to a more robust and resilient policy-making process.
We invite you to send us your comments and share your experiences and insights on handling thorny issues, and thus contribute, to a collective understanding and to the advancement of the EIP field.
Join us by signing this Call to Action.