HOW CAN ‘POLICY RESEARCH’ HAVE MORE ‘IMPACT’ ON THE ‘POLICY MAKING PROCESS’
AND ON ‘POLICY MAKERS’?
ABSTRACT
This paper seeks to critically assess the body of literature on what strategies could be employed to
increase the utilization and impact of research evidence to improve policy making and service
delivery. Although the scope of this paper focuses on England, and draws from other contexts for
comparative analysis and best lessons, the evidence can be adapted to Botswana and Southern
Africa. The contextual background of the policy making process, clarification of key concepts,
epistemological considerations, a brief outline of the policy making relevant theories will be done.
INTRODUCTION
The different strategies that have been used or recommended to increase the impact of research on
the policy making process and policy makers will be discussed in the context of England. The
central argument of this paper is that whereas scientific evidence is essential for policy making, it
must be considered alongside other factors such as the socio-political context and variable sources
of knowledge. The conclusion drawn is that an innovative and collaborative research process
between academic researchers, non-academic experts, funders and service consumers is essential in
increasing evidence uptake for impact at intermediate (policy) and final outcomes (practice) levels.
CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND
The quest to ensure that good quality evidence is incorporated in policies by policy makers is not
new (Haskins, 2018). Since Sir Richard Doll, a renowned British Epidemiologist who after the
Second World War advocated for the medical profession daily activities to be grounded on empirical
evidence from rigorous scientific studies, evidence-based policy and practice has been recognized as
a viable tool to add value to government service delivery structures and creating impact (Haskins,
2018).
Considerable work on evidence –based policy and practice evolved with randomized control studies
conducted in 1946 on the efficacy of Streptomycin in curing respiratory tuberculosis. In the early
1950s the Salk pilot studies effectively resulted in the elimination of polio which was a public health
scourge in the USA and the world. The Food and Drug Administration in 1962 also added value to
the discourse of evidence utilization in policy and practice when they demanded pharmaceutical
1
companies to subject their newly discovered medicines to rigorous randomized control tests atleast
twice before they could be administered to the public (Haskins, 2018).
The extent to which policy and practice are evidence based is not a function of the ‘evidence’ itself,
it is determined by the ‘meaning’ different policy actors as consumers of evidence and researchers as
producers attach to evidence. A significant body of scholarship has made strides in explaining and
enhancing the interaction between research, policy and practice through targeted and clear
communication strategies to create impact (Cvitanovic et al., 2015; Fazey et al., 2013).
CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS
Haskins (2018, pg.8) stated that ‘Evidence is facts or other information that help us to determine
whether something is true or false. When applied to programs designed to increase human wellbeing, ‘evidence’ allows us to decide whether the programs produce its intended impacts’
Reed et al., (2018, pg.3) define impact as “the positive and demonstrable benefits that can be
attributed to scientific research. These impacts can be instrumental, conceptual, attitudinal, cultural
and those related to capacity building and preparedness”.
Paul Spicker (2007, pg.1) stated that “policy research is a broad field of study, concerned both with
research about policy (what it is and how it works)-and research for policy”.
EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
In social research the discipline of Philosophy endeavor to understand why natural sciences cannot
answer questions regarding phenomena and further seek many answers to why those former
questions cannot be answered by science (Uddin and Hammiduzzaman, 2009). For instance, science
has not been able to answer or unravel questions on thought, emotion, and sensation. In this
regard, it is imperative to acknowledge the scientific methods and their limitations on what they can
answer. To answer questions that science cannot answer, social research has resolved to debating
issues on context in order to generate evidence and impact on policy and practice. Context is the
most critical epistemological element that determines understanding of the social phenomena
(Bednarek AT, Wyborn C, Cvitanovic C, et al. (2018), Ahmed et al., 2014).
Fundamentally, politics significantly influence and shape knowledge (Boswell et al., 2018).
Therefore, in our quest to develop knowledge we must be cognizant of the fact that our methods of
2
investigation cannot be completely divorced from governance. This is not a basic epistemological
concern but an ontological issue because social investigation knowledge is entangled in politics,
which gives rise to complexities in determining research questions and appropriate designs and
methods to answer them(Uddin and Hammiduzzaman, 2009). Subsequently, the evidence produced
from the research to be used in policy research must acknowledge and positively work with this
reality.
Public policy in Britain has experienced a major inclination towards evidence-based practice in
which the evidence produced through rational scientific processes is highly regarded for policy and
practice (Bednarek AT, Wyborn C, Cvitanovic C, et al. (2018). The evidence-based practice hype
culminated in the preference of experimentation and systematic reviews for producing evidence for
the policy and practice.The positivist approach has been hailed as the gold standard in the
production of knowledge through scientific methods and disregarding other sources of evidence
generation which are not based on the scientific methods of inquiry (Uddin and Hammiduzzaman,
2009).
The positivist approach is premised on the fact that progression from fictitious knowledge
generation through the abstract phase to the scientific inquiry (enlightenment) happened alongside
the evolution of human societies from simple and agrarian subsistence (mechanical) to the more
complex and sophisticated (organic) society. The exponential growth of societal challenges
associated with the industrialization and urbanization of the early 19th century necessitated the
objective analysis of the social world through a robust, reliable and replicable system of knowledge
generation to come up with solutions (Uddin and Hammiduzzaman, 2009).
On the other hand, a closer examination of the application of the scientific research methods to
determine and reinforce the ‘what works’ philosophy has come under attack as a double standard.
The main argument being that it is not just a ‘fallacy’ but a fiasco as it has dismally not achieved its
goal of closing the gap between research evidence and policy formulation and practice. There are
inevitable and deeply entrenched methodological and epistemological concerns faced by the
evidence-based research in understanding social phenomena (Bednarek et al. (2018).
The choice between private and public enterprise (that is, between private services and government
services) is pragmatic (empirically grounded) rather than ideological (abstract). Therefore, there is no
one single best way to achieve any given objective. ‘Many theories, frameworks, and tools are useful
3
for generating practice-based evidence, even if the practice settings, populations, or conditions vary’
(McKillop et al., 2017). Research knowledge is not an exclusive preserve of science, evidence has
many sources such as the political, economic, cultural and social dimensions which prompt critical
debates on its validity and worth (Harton et al., 2018).
Against this backdrop, what is considered a priority for policy discussion and subsequent adoption
into policy is a function of variable entities such as government, pressure groups, NGOs, think tanks
and academics. Given this reality, scientific evidence has been regarded as an elaborate definition of
issues not necessarily a platform that provide policy level options of repute with the potential to be
implemented at a meaningful and impactful scale (Cairney, 2016; Trisha and Rusell, 2009). Critically
engaging with the context through transparent communication will ensure uptake of research in
policy and practice (Boswell et al., 2017).
In this regard, the scientific method must be used flexibly as a spring board to effective generation
of evidence and its ultimate impact on policy and practice. This means in a nutshell, therefore, that
variable research designs will produce different outcomes capable of creating impact at different
levels of policy making process and this opportunity should not be overlooked in favour of the
scientific methods. Therefore, evidence from research cannot be divorced from the context of its
generation and application if it is expected to make impact.
THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS
Policy makers and practitioners need a range and variety of high quality and compelling evidence to
answer questions on not only ‘what works’, but also the nature of the problems, why they occur, and
which individuals and groups are most at risk (Davies, 2012 and Neilson, 2001). Policy is a concept
that embraces processes and outcomes and is connected to change because every intervention
involves ‘change’. Therefore, if ‘change’ is central to the policy making process, it is inevitable that
the policy formulation endeavor is not an obvious one. Researchers and policymakers function from
different contexts characterized by varying values, languages, timelines, incentives and networks
(Boswell et al., 2017). In this regard, evidence becomes a minor issue to policy formulation and
practice. To improve the impact of evidence in the policy making process and policy makers
communication and the use of intermediaries can help generate interest and its demand (Cairney,
2018).
4
The policy making process is often assumed to be a rational activity with clearly stated goals and
outcomes and their associated means to achieve them (Black, 2001). However, in practice policy
actors are from different backgrounds not only in terms of their respective disciplines but also
orientation to the world which then makes the whole process of prioritizing, agreeing and executing
options or decisions is often a negotiated process. The lack of agreement on what constitute impact
between researchers and policy makers undermines the uptake of research evidence into policy and
practice (Boswell et al., 2017). Policy entrepreneurs dedicated to policy advocacy and research
utilization can help in the uptake of research evidence in policy and practice (Cairney, 2018).
The policy making process is a consistent bargaining act of give and take, and to some extent other
actors are overlooked by design or fault in pursuit of speedy decisions to meet the expectations of
the stakeholders or to retain power and control (Black, 2001; Robinson et al., 2018).In this regard,
evidence may not find its way into the policy documents or decisions and it is ideal therefore, to
acknowledge these variable factors and integrate them alongside research knowledge (Davies,2012).
Caplan (1979) observed that the tendency of not using evidence is a clear feature of discord between
policy makers and researchers in their perception of the world of reality, and their way of doing
things. On the other hand, Wiess (1997) asserted that the dialectics of ‘use’ or ‘non-use’ must be
understood as gradual process of evolution in thinking or paradigm shift. Critical engagement with
all stakeholders can therefore increase evidence impact in policy and practice.
The orthodox linear process of policy making which follows clearly progressive steps which
culminate into an effective policy document has been challenged (Dunlop et al., 2018). What counts
as good evidence to politicians is entirely different from knowledge produced by science. It has been
noted that in reality ‘evidence is seldom self-evident or definitive’ Davies, 2012. In some instances,
this calls for pilot interventions to create a baseline from which the evidence could be scaled up into
macro interventions.
The consensus that youth unemployment, poverty, terrorism, migration, refugees, HIV/AIDS,
climate change and other epidemics must be tackled by robust and effective policies is not
accompanied by the same vigour when it comes to what goes in the policy agenda (Cairney, 2018).
This emanates from the fact that evidence from research just like any other source of knowledge is
not pure, it does have its impurities as researchers are human beings and operate within a sociopolitical context which heavily influences the policy outcomes (Caplan 1979 and Weiss, 1979). ‘The
5
policy making process is a political process, with the basic aim of reconciling interests in order to
negotiate a consensus, not implementing logic and truth’ (Weiss,1997. P.533). Politics is not
concerned with what is factual, but what fits in securing power and binding decisions (Robinson et
al., 2018). To improve evidence uptake in this context, it is essential for researchers to make the case
for provision of consumer fundamental needs through direct and targeted lobbying of policy
decision makers (Gluckman, 2016).
HOW EVIDENCE CAN IMPACT ON THE POLICY MAKERS AND POLICY MAKING PROCESS
A study by Nutley et al., (2011) revealed that what counts as good evidence dependents on what we
want to know, why we want to know it, and how we envisage that evidence being used. Therefore,
there is a need to move beyond the hierarchy of evidence and acknowledge that policy makers and
practitioners are often influenced more by other factors such as politics over the strength of
evidence in making policy decisions and interventions. Critical engagement and dialogue between
academics and bureaucrats on evidence in each context to draw out its meaning has the potential to
positively impact on the policy making process and its actors.
In their study Breckon et al (2016) stated that in the health sector variable strategies such as building
awareness and presenting an optimistic view and perception towards future outcomes enthused
policy makers to engage communities to use mosquito nets to prevent malaria. Therefore,
consciously making efforts to make evidence part of the routine activities normalizes its usage as
policy makers and practitioners get to appreciate it. Similarly, deliberate engagement in sustainable
long-term partnerships to build coalitions change can improve research uptake (Cairney and Oliver,
2017).
On the other hand, positive recognition in the form of rewards to practitioners who are innovative
and enterprising in the use of evidence or mainstreaming it in their practice was found to be helpful
in making research evidence utilized (Gluckman, 2016; Cairney, 2017). Similarly, being deliberately
discriminatory in the delivery of services and giving priority to customer preferences could also help
in the use of evidence as practitioners will be guided by the context and positively discriminating
services to fit the needs of their customers (Davies and Nutley, 2001).
Creating a platform for co-production of evidence between researchers and policy makers can also
be an add on strategy to the effective use of evidence by policy makers and practitioners (Harton et
al., 2018). For instance, The Alzheimer’s Society involved their dementia patients in shaping the
6
research strategy. The consensus on the research agenda and questions significantly increased the
propensity of the evidence from research being used for policy and practice. Thus, creating an
ambient environment for an agreed agenda on what constitute evidence between researchers, policy
makers, practitioners and end users of services is another strategy of increasing the impact of
research in policy making (Robinson et al., 2018, Cairney, 2016).
Improving evidence dissemination and accessibility through customized messages packaged suitably
for end users and availed timeously can also improve evidence impact in policy making (Ellen et al
(2018). Thus, unpacking the technical information from research to make it simple to understand
and use by decision makers. Compelling advocacy strategies on the benefits of using evidence in the
form of analyzing the good and bad outcomes of not using evidence, and the agility in conveying
risks numerically to send a clear message across could improve the uptake of evidence.
The use of incentives to get the message across can also improve evidence uptake, coupled with
familiar concepts such as metaphors can be helpful in simplifying complex ideas to the audience and
hence increase evidence uptake (Reed, 2017). Similarly, creating connections, profound experiences
and emotional appeals through bold multi-media branding was found to be an effective strategy to
help in evidence utilization. Thus, generating a basket of compelling communication strategies and
proper timing of messages can increase the impact of evidence and its uptake.
Nutley et al (2003) in their research observed that in some areas the challenges to the uptake of
evidence emanate from the reality that academic knowledge by its nature is very specialized or
discipline specific whereas social issues are often multidimensional. This result in discrepancies
between the demand and supply, unclear communication and understanding between researchers
and policy makers, functional or practice misalignment challenges and fragile social support
networks and social connections.
Against this backdrop, academic research in most situations has been attacked for creating an impact
gap (Glied et al., 2018). Strategies such as involving third parties such as consultants, creative
engagement with the media and seasoned think tanks have been helpful in simplifying research
evidence to the policy makers and practitioners to enable its usage (Harton et al., 2016).
The Department of Workforce Services report noted that determining the extent to which research
evidence has influenced policy is complex (Boa et al., 2010).. There are many ways in which research
7
evidence can be brought to bear on the policy formulation and practice processes by government
and these are not always obvious. Therefore, strategic policy entrepreneurship was proposed as a
solution to increasing evidence impact against the backdrop that diverse policy making processes
will inevitably require variable evidence utilization (Christian, 2018).
Research by Talbot et al (2014) on the contribution of the academics into the arena of policy making
through research noted that collaboration with media sources both private and public is a viable
conduit through which policy makers can access research from the academia. However, in many
instances access to academic research has not translated into utilization in professional programme
management by policy makers and practitioners (Gluckman, 2016).
The discordant relationship between what policy makers perceive to be relevant to their discourse as
opposed to academic community inclination to produce publications (Boswell et al., 2018; Murphey,
2017). The proposed strategy to make academic research and expertise impact policy making and
practice was to tailored to the interests of the policy makers and presented in simple and clear
formats to enable understanding and acting upon (Petes and Meyer,2018).
In an attempt to further close the gap between academic research and practice Ellen et al., (2018)
recommended knowledge transfer and exchange as a viable medium to increase research uptake. It’s
‘a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound
applications of knowledge to improve the health(citizens), provide more effective health services
and products and strengthen the health care systems.’(Smith and Steward, 2017).
A significant body of scholarship has outlined effective implementation strategies that increases
evidence uptake such as strategic dissemination interventions, educational and social influence
networks (Nesta, 2011). Research impact on policy making and practice can be achieved through
proactive activities such as translating evidence to make it relevant to the context, strategic
integration and support of evidence mainstreaming in programming, agile leadership and thorough
contextual analysis to enable synthesis of different sources of evidence and high level of credibility
(Boswell et al., 2017).
Best practice success stories on using evidence to improve policy and practice from innovative
institutions such as the Centre for Court Innovation, included pilot testing ideas and recording
experiences which were then applied in different contexts through practice (Nesta, 2011).
8
Expanding the scope of knowledge by integrating experiences from local and national levels,
targeted communication, specialized training and appreciating and implementing multiple strategies
of analyses improved evidence utilization. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy
combined the ‘Monte Carlo simulation’ with other factors such as populations outcomes, economic
viability of the intervention and what is effective increased research impact on policy making and
practice (Nesta,2011).
In their comparative study of the role of academic research impact on the policy making process in
the United Kingdom, Unites States of America and Israel Glied et al., (2018) observed key strategies
that enabled evidence uptake in the policy making process that can be adopted and adapted in
different contexts. Their first observation was that the relationship between research and policy is
heavily determined by politics. Therefore, for research to impact on policy academics must be
employed or attached in government policy institutions to facilitate the understanding of the
connection between research evidence and the needs of policy makers.
Second, the academics by virtue of their background can help identifying knowledge gaps relevant
for the infusion of evidence in the ultimate policy making decisions and processes. Put differently,
they are capable of contextualizing research, evaluate divergent findings, critically integrate research
to topical policy debates and agendas, connect evidence to powerful stakeholders and provide useful
justifications for policy propositions.
Third, whereas it is acknowledged that research in many instances may not find its place at the site
of policy debate, academics in government are in a good position to include evidence from research
in the policy debates that never considered it as a critical input in the policy making process before.
In the same vein, platforms such as symposiums were found to be useful in creating a balance
between competing policy positions backed by evidence.
Fourth, research evidence from academia will impact policy more if targeted to a specific functional
policy area or context. Evidence made more impact where it was timeously availed to the policy
makers in the form of policy briefs and summarized research reports. The study indicates that these
were more likely to get the attention of policy makers and be included in the policy decisions. The
added advantage of having academics in government was that they can learn from about how the
system of policy making works and build connections that could facilitate their future research being
assimilated into policy.
9
Weiss (1980) observed that in due course data provides enlightenment effect that translates into
understanding and utilization of information to respond to compelling policy choices and decisions.
For evidence to have impact on the policy making process and practice it has to be of high quality
and comply with the user specifications. The information must also clearly articulate actionable steps
to be followed to integrate it into policy. Lastly, the data must be comprehensive and well refined to
enable interventions that will change the current state of affairs into a more progressive and positive
future.
In their study Cvitanovic et al., (2016) found that personal attributes have the potential to shape the
research, policy and practice interface. Qualities such as honesty, humility, openness and resilience
were useful in creating an ambient environment for research uptake in policy making and practice.
Honesty was regarded as crucial in building trust which is essential for policy makers to positively
consider the evidence source in determining whether to use or not use the evidence (Gibbons et al.,
2008; Lacey et al., 2018).
Beneficence created a platform for meaningful engagement and trust building which increased
evidence uptake (Wright et al., 2018; Gibbons et al., 2018). Openness to different means of
achieving goals and learning hugely contributed to evidence uptake as it allowed flexible modes of
operation (Love et al., 2011; Moon and Blackman, 2014). Having the grit to persevere in the face of
repeated rejections also improved the uptake of evidence by policy makers as it demonstrated
authenticity (Evans et al., 2018; Graber et al., 2015 and Nature, 2018).
Conclusion
This paper provided a clear, cogent and coherent systematic review of the literature on the variable
methods used to increase the impact of policy research on policy and practice. Some of the key
10
concepts in the evidence-based policy and practice discourse were defined to enable putting the
discussion in the proper context.
A brief discussion on the epistemological concerns that arise such as methodologies and research
questions formulation were discussed in relation to how they potentially hinder or increase the use
of research evidence. The policy making process and its variable theories as espoused by Caplan
(1979) and Weiss (1980) was discussed in the context of how evidence can improve policy and
practice. A detailed and informed discussion on how evidence can improve policy was done through
critical engagement with existing evidence and sources. Overall, the paper concluded that for
evidence to have impact on policy and practice, research producers must collaborate with different
stakeholders such as decision makers, end-users of services and sponsors during the research agenda
setting and data collection for ownership and subsequent use of research output for policy and
practice.
REFERENCES
11
1. Bednarek AT, Wyborn C, Cvitanovic C, et al. (2018) Boundary spanning at the science–
policy
interface:
the
practitioners’
perspectives.
Sustain
Sci
1–9
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9.
2. Black, N (2001) Evidence based policy: proceed with care. BMJ (Clinical research ed), 323
(7307). pp. 275-9. ISSN 0959-8138 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7307.275.
3. Boswell C, Smith K (2017) Rethinking policy ‘impact’: four models of research-policy
relations. Pal Commun 3(1):44. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0042-z
4. Cairney P, Oliver K, Wellstead A (2016) To bridge the divide between evidence and
policy: reduce ambiguity as much as uncertainty. Public Adm Rev 76 (3):399–402.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12555.
5. Cairney P (2016) The politics of evidence-based policy making, 1st edn. Palgrave Pivot,
New York, p 20.
6. Caplan N (1979) The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Sci
22(3):459–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427902200308.
7. Christian K (2018) Communicating your research: get it right, do it often. It really
matters. http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2018/03/30/communicatingyour-researchget-it-right-do-it-often-it-really-matters.
8. Colin Talbot and Carole Talbot (2014).Sir Humphrey and the professors: What does
Whitehall want from academics?. A survey of senior civil servants’ views on the
accessibility and utility of academic research and expertise. Policy@Manchester .The
University of Manchester.
9. Cvitanovic C, McDonald J, Hobday AJ (2016) From science to action: principles for
undertaking environmental research that enables knowledge exchange and evidencebased
decision-making.
J
Environ
Manag
183(Part
3):864–874.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.038
10. Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ, van Kerkhoff L, Marshall NA (2015) Overcoming barriers to
knowledge exchange for adaptive resource management; the perspectives of Australian
marine scientists. Mar Policy 52:38–44. . https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.026
11. Davies, P. (2012). The State of Evidence-Based Policy Evaluation and its Role in Policy
Formation. National
Institute
Economic
Review, 219(1),
R41–
R52. https://doi.org/10.1177/002795011221900105
12. Dunlop CA, Radaelli CM (2018) The lessons of policy learning: strategies, triggers,
hindrances and pathologies. Policy Polit 46(2):255–726. https://doi.org/
10.1332/030557318X15230059735521
13. Evans TM, Bira L, Gastelum JB et al. (2018) Evidence for a mental health crisis in
graduate education. Nat Biotechnol 36(3):282–284. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nbt.4089.
14. Fazey I, Evely AC, Reed MS et al. (2013) Knowledge exchange: a review and research
agenda
for
environmental
management.
Environ
Conserv
https://
doi.org/10.1017/S037689291200029X
15. Gibbons P, Zammit C, Youngentob K et al. (2008). Some practical suggestions for
improving engagement between researchers and policy-makers in natural resource
management. Ecol Manag Restor 9(3):182–186. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.14428903.2008.00416.x.
12
16. Glied, Sherry & Wittenberg, Raphael & Israeli, Aviv. (2018). Research in government and
academia: The case of health policy. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research. 7.
10.1186/s13584-018-0230-3.
17. Gluckman P (2016) The science-policy interface. Science 353(6303): 969 https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8837
18. Graber R, Pichon F, Carabine E (2015) Psychological resilience: State of knowledge and
future research agenda. Overseas Development Institute, London.
19. Greenhalgh, Trisha & Russell, Jill. (2009). Evidence-Based Policymaking: A Critique.
Greenhalgh, T. and Russell, J. (2009) Evidence-based policymaking: a critique.
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52 (2). pp. 304-318. ISSN 00315982. 52.
10.1353/pbm.0.0085
20. Haskins, R. (2018). Evidence-Based Policy: The Movement, the Goals, the Issues, the
Promise. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 678(1), 8–37.
21. Ian Boa, Paul Johnson and Suzanne King (2010). The impact of research on the policy
process. Department for Work and Pensions.
22. Jonathan. B and Jane. D.(2016). Using Evidence What works?. A discussion paper.
Alliance for Useful Evidence.
23. Lacey J, Howden M, Cvitanovic C et al. (2018) Understanding and managing trust at the
climate science-policy interface. Nat Clim Change 8(1):22–28. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0010-z.
24. Love JH, Roper S, Bryson JR (2011) Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth in
UK
business
services.
Res
Policy
40(10):1438–1452.
https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.RESPOL.2011.05.016.
25. McKillop, A., Shaw, J., Sheridan, N., Gray, C. S., Carswell, P., Wodchis, W. P., Connolly,
M., Denis, J. L., Baker, G. R.,… Kenealy, T. (2017). Understanding the Attributes of
Implementation Frameworks to Guide the Implementation of a Model of Communitybased Integrated Health Care for Older Adults with Complex Chronic Conditions: A
Metanarrative Review. International journal of integrated care, 17(2), 10. doi:10.5334/ijic.2516
26. Megan C. Evans and C. Cvitanovic (2018). An introduction to achieving policy impact
for early career researchers. Palgrave Communications 4:88.
27. Moon K, Blackman D (2014) A guide to understanding social science research for natural
scientists. Conserv Biol 28(5):1167–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/ cobi.12326.
28. Moriah E. Ellen, John N. Lavis et al., (2018).Health Research Policy and
Systems.16:64.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0345-6.
29. Murphy T (2017) Revising the research excellence framework: ensuring quality in
REF2021, or new challenges ahead? Perspectives 21(1):34–39. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13603108.2016.1246386
30. Nature (2018) Editorial: Time to talk about why so many postgrads have poor mental
health. Nature 556(7699):5–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018- 04023-5.
31. NESTA (2011). Evidence for Social Policy and Pratice. Perspectives on how research and
evidence can influence decision making in public services.
32. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & O., H. T. (2003). From Knowing to Doing: A Framework for
Understanding the Evidence-into-Practice Agenda. Evaluation, 9(2), 125–148.
13
33. OPM (2005).The impact of research on Policy-Making and Practice: Current status and
ways forward: Literature review, Report for the Audit commission, London: Audit
Commission.
34. Paul Cairney (2018). Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs. Policy and Politics.
Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 199-215(17).
35. Peter Horton and Garrett W. Brown (2018). Integrating evidence, politics and society:
a methodology for the science–policy interface. Palgrave Communications.4:42.
36. Petes LE, Meyer MD (2018) An ecologist’s guide to careers in science policy advising.
Front Ecol Environ 16(1): 53–54 https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1761.
37. Reed MS (2017) The productive researcher. Fast Track Impact, Aberdeenshire, UK.
38. Robinson, JJ; Mays, N; Fraser, A (2018) Improving research and policy interactions
requires a better understanding of what works in different contexts. Israel journal of
health
policy
research,
7
(1).
p.
60.
ISSN
2045-4015
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-018-0256-6.
39. Samiul .P.A and Nafeesa. T (2014). In the Light of Epistemological Debates about
Knowledge, is ‘Evidence-Based’ Policy Making (in the Britain) Anything More than
Political Rhetoric?. Public Policy and Administration Research.Vol 4, No 4 .
40. Smith KE, Stewart E (2017) We need to talk about impact: why social policy academics
need to engage with the UK’s research impact agenda. J Soc Policy 46(1):109–127.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279416000283.
41. Spicker, P., 2007. The ethics of policy research. Evidence & Policy, 3 (1), pp. 99-118.
42. Stephen. N.(2001). Knowledge Utilisation and Public Policy Processes: A literature
Review. IDRC-Supported Research and its Influence on Public Policy. Evaluation Unit
IDRC.
43. Uddin, Mohammad Nashir and Hamiduzzaman, Mohammad(2009). The Philosophy of
Science in Social Research. The Journal of International Social Research, Vol. 2, No. 6,
Winter 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1887224
44. Weiss CH (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev 39 (5):426.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3109916
45. Weiss, C. (1977). Research for Policy's Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social
Research. Policy Analysis, 3(4), 531-545.
46. Wright M, Lin A, O’Connell M (2016) Humility, inquisitiveness, and openness: key
attributes for meaningful engagement with Nyoongar people. Adv Ment Health 14(2):82–
95. https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2016.1173516.
14