EdLabs: Balancing on the political tightrope to improve evidence use in education

The policy world has witnessed a significant increase in the establishment of policy labs, a trend referred to as the ‘labification’ of the policy domain. This surge in popularity is driven by the promise of innovative solutions to societal challenges through experimental frameworks. In the field of education, EdLabs play a crucial role in bridging the gap between research and policy, aiming to improve decision-making in education. However, operating at the intersection of research and policy, EdLabs often find themselves navigating a complex landscape influenced by political dynamics.

This presentation highlights the importance of understanding the political context, identifying specific entry points for evidence use, and considering a multidimensional approach to the implementation of Edlabs. By understanding the political dynamics at play and addressing the challenges of evidence and sustainability, EdLabs can effectively contribute to evidence-informed policymaking and ultimately improve educational outcomes.

Understanding EdLabs

EdLabs are diverse in their organisational structures and functions, influenced by their proximity to government entities. Some labs are embedded within government ministries, while others operate independently. Regardless of their structure, the core aim of EdLabs is to facilitate evidence-informed policymaking in education.

Activities of EdLabs

• Evidence Prioritisation: Collaborating with policymakers to set research agendas.
• Evidence Assessment and Synthesis: Evaluating the quality and rigour of existing evidence, including conducting literature reviews to identify gaps.
• Evidence Translation and Dissemination: Translating complex research findings into accessible insights for stakeholders.
• Brokering: Mediating between diverse stakeholders, fostering connections, and building trust.
• Evidence Production: Conducting research and assessing educational programs.
• Testing Solutions: Implementing and evaluating innovative initiatives.
• Capacity Development for Evidence Use: Training policymakers and other stakeholders.

The political tightrope

While EdLabs offer a promising avenue for improving evidence use in education, they face unique challenges due to the inherently political nature of education policy.

Embedded EdLabs

• Benefit from structural proximity to policymakers, facilitating the direct application of evidence.
• Susceptible to political shifts, including changes in leadership, which can lead to funding cuts or even closure.

Non-Government EdLabs

• May encounter difficulties in gaining access to policymakers and influencing policy decisions.
• Face competition for attention and resources from other actors within the policy ecosystem.

Challenges and future directions

Limited Evidence of Effectiveness

Despite their growing popularity, comprehensive evaluations of EdLabs remain scarce, making it difficult to assess their long-term impact on policymaking. This lack of evaluation stems from:

• The diverse roles and contexts in which EdLabs operate.
• The tendency to focus on short-term outcomes, such as network building, rather than long-term policy impact.

Sustainability

The sustainability of EdLabs is often tied to political will and the availability of funding. To ensure their long-term impact, EdLabs need to:

• Cultivate strong relationships with policymakers and demonstrate their value in informing policy decisions.
• Advocate for greater local and international investment in education research to address the current funding gap.
• Promote a culture of evidence use within government institutions to ensure the integration of evidence into policymaking processes.

Recommendations for funders

By implementing these recommendations, funders can play a crucial role in fostering a robust and sustainable ecosystem of EdLabs that effectively contributes to evidence-informed policymaking and ultimately improves educational outcomes:

• Fund rigorous evaluations to determine EdLab effectiveness: Currently, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluations examining the impact of EdLabs on policymaking. Funding evaluations that assess EdLab objectives and their influence on policy processes at sector or landscape levels can address this evidence gap.
• Support documentation and sharing of learnings: Funders should encourage and support EdLabs in systematically documenting and sharing their experiences, including successes, failures, and lessons learned. This can contribute to a repository of knowledge that benefits the wider field of evidence use in education.
• Provide flexible, long-term funding: Recognising that EdLabs operate in dynamic policy environments, funders should adopt flexible funding approaches. Longer funding cycles and upfront endowments can provide EdLabs with the necessary adaptability to respond to emerging needs and challenges. Short-term, projectised funding with limited budget flexibility restricts EdLabs’ ability to build relationships, address capacity constraints, and strategically support government needs in the medium to long term.
• Promote a systemic approach to evidence use: Funders should encourage EdLabs to consider the broader evidence ecosystem, including the roles of different actors and existing initiatives. This involves supporting interventions at individual, organisational, and system levels, focusing on both “hard” and “soft” factors that influence evidence use.

Funders should actively learn about their own roles in the evidence ecosystem: This includes reflecting on power dynamics and incentives to ensure funding practices align with best practices for supporting evidence-informed policymaking.