In recent years, the concept of the education policy lab (EdLab) — a dedicated hub that brings together evidence, innovation and decision-making in education — has gained traction. According to our research, EdLabs are dynamic hubs that foster innovation and evidence-informed decision-making in education. Their logic is compelling: bring research and policy closer through embedded or arms-length arrangements, test new models, broker between evidence producers and education decision-makers, and thereby improve outcomes.
Yet the evidence also points to a major caveat: without a robust local policy-research ecosystem behind them, EdLabs are unlikely to fulfil their promise. Below, I argue three interlocking reasons why investing in the broader ecosystem — local researchers, policy-research organisations, evidence-brokering intermediaries, and the institutional apparatus of evidence use — is indispensable, and outline implications for funders, governments and practitioners.
Find more about EdLabs and evidence use in education.
1. EdLabs depend on a supply of locally relevant evidence
An EdLab cannot function in a vacuum. It needs:
- Data, research and evidence that addresses questions rooted in the local education system;
- Synthesis, translation and discussion of that research into forms usable by decision-makers; and
- Intermediaries or brokers who can navigate the flow between research and policy – and practice.
EdLabs, like other embedded or arms-length policy units, operate at the intersection of evidence-use and education policy, drawing on both a “supply side” (research-production) and a “demand side” (user capacity) of evidence. A key finding of research we undertook for the Building Evidence in Education Working Group suggests that many efforts have focused on “supply” (more research, more papers) but neglected the “users” of evidence and the institutional structures that enable ongoing evidence use.
Sadly, too many of these efforts have started with a design that prioritised or awarded greater advantages to foreign researchers and research centres. This greatly limited the opportunities for local researchers to participate in the design and delivery of the research that the EdLabs need.
If the local policy-research ecosystem is thin – or has low density -, then an EdLab may struggle to find the quality, quantity and relevance of evidence that – when translated and brokered – can inform policy. Without that, the lab becomes overly dependent on external research, may struggle with legitimacy or contextual fit, and risks being a “stand-alone” unit that cannot embed in the system. Indeed, our review of policy labs in education found that the ‘evidence-production landscape affects evidence use’ and that institutionalisation of evidence use depends on ecosystem factors.
Hence, any investment focused only on creating an EdLab (the “lab” vehicle) without investing in the local research ecosystem (the “engine room”) risks failure or limited results.
2. Embedding and sustainability require institutional and systemic foundations
EdLabs, like any other institution, face sustainability challenges: they may be heavily shaped by funding cycles, political shifts, or organisational structures that are insufficiently supported.
A strong local ecosystem helps in several ways:
- A cadre of policy-research organisations with stable capacity can provide continuity when individual labs face turnover or political change.
- Evidence-broking intermediaries, research translation units, and data infrastructure mean that evidence use is not dependent solely on the lab, but is embedded in a network of actors; and
- Local institutional memory, context knowledge, and trusted relationships matter in sensitive policy areas like education, especially when power, politics and context influence uptake. OTT’s review emphasises the need to incorporate politics and power in evidence-use interventions.
The case of MineduLab is very relevant. It was created in close physical and political proximity to the minister. But after several changes at the head of the Ministry of Education, it lost its positioning. Whatever access it had to power guaranteed its sustainability; this is no longer the case.
But the reliance on foreign funding and foreign researchers can also undermine the lab’s sustainability. If they are not seen as part of the local policy research ecosystem by their peers, they will not be included in local efforts to resist all too often attacks on the sector.
In short, we should think of EdLabs not as discrete “plug-in units” but as nodes within a broader system. Investing in the system means the lab can anchor itself, leverage and amplify the ecosystem, and survive beyond initial projects.
3. Funding and capacity investments need to be systemic rather than project-centric
The review of policy labs in education highlights a critical point for funders: short funding timelines, rigid, inflexible budgets, and narrow project focus undermine the long-term capacity building required for evidence use.
But if we broaden our view to the ecosystem, investment needs look different:
- Long-term core funding for local policy-research organisations: to build staff, infrastructure, data systems, networks, and trust;
- Support for intermediaries and knowledge translation: not only producing research, but making it accessible and usable to decision-makers and other stakeholders;
- Investment in institutional mechanisms within governments and civil society: e.g., evidence units, advisory councils, evidence brokers embedded in ministries or parliaments, and training of decision-makers in using evidence;
- Support for brokering connections across actors: laboratories, universities, think-tanks, civil society, government, the private sector, the media, etc., and
- Creating feedback loops from policy back into research, so that local researchers are responsive to policy needs and policy improves based on evidence.
Without ecosystem investment, labs risk being satellites floating above a weak foundation: they may generate interesting pilots but fail to embed, scale, or sustain.
In fact, our research shows that part of the challenge is that EdLabs often focus on short-term outcomes (i.e., setting them up, undertaking experiments, publishing results) rather than long-term policy impact.
Implications
For governments:
- View EdLabs not as standalone initiatives but as part of a system of evidence use: ensure coordination among labs, research organisations, ministries, and civil society.
- Allocate resources to strengthen the local policy-research ecosystem – public and private: data collection and analytics, capacity for research translation, institutional arrangements for evidence use.
- Foster relationships and trust across actors: local researchers, policy-makers, intermediaries. Lab models embedded in government benefit from proximity but also face risks when the ecosystem is weak.
For funders and donors:
- Move beyond funding only the “lab” and instead support the broader ecosystem: capacity building, core funding, and network building.
- Provide flexible, long-term funding that adapts; enable labs and ecosystem actors to evolve in dynamic policy environments.
- Promote learning and evaluation: fund ongoing monitoring of lab models (is it working?) and ecosystem functions, document lessons, encourage sharing of failures and successes.
- Be conscious of power dynamics: local ecosystem actors often struggle for legitimacy; evidence-use funding should empower local researchers, not just subcontract them. The literature emphasises localisation: locally led evidence and locally relevant questions.
For EdLab practitioners:
- From the start, map the ecosystem: What local research capacity exists? Which organisations already broker evidence? What gaps exist?
- Build partnerships with local policy-research organisations and intermediaries. Avoid reinventing research production when capable local actors already exist.
- If necessary, build local capacity to ensure long-term sustainability.
- Focus on embedding evidence use in organisational and system culture, not just on one-off pilots. That means building capacity, routines, structures, and relationships.
- Document and share learning: strengthening the ecosystem means enabling other actors to adapt, replicate, and learn.
Conclusion
EdLabs offer promising vehicles for strengthening evidence-informed policymaking in education: they can engage with innovators, broker between research and decision-makers, test new models, and help embed evidence in policy.
But for that promise to be realised, the broader local policy-research ecosystem must be nurtured and strengthened. Without it, EdLabs risk being islands of excellence, isolated from the systemic changes needed for institutional-level, sustained evidence use.
And in time, the islands may sink and disappear from the front line of decision-making.
Therefore, investment in the ecosystem is not optional — it is integral. Building local research capacity, translation intermediaries, institutional mechanisms for evidence use, and sustainable funding models creates the fertile soil in which EdLabs can flourish.
The question is not just “can we build a lab?” but “can we build the ecosystem that makes the lab meaningful?”