The Challenge
Policymakers must decide every day between many alternative choices, whether they’re changing the health services to which citizens are entitled, or creating a system for citizens to request information from the government. “Policymaking” is a complex process, running from agenda setting, to policy formulation, decision-making, implementation and evaluation of policies and programs to inform the process again. While there are debates about just how much of the policy process should rely exclusively on evidence, evidence should at least inform policy choice and design, ideally to a greater degree than tends to occur today.
Understanding the actors and processes that bridge the gap between evidence and policymaking is key to enhancing their effectiveness. While a universe of ill-defined terms exist to describe the process by which evidence and ideas move into policy, our study focuses on “translation” – an active process through which different actors filter, adapt, and communicate evidence for the purposes of policymaking. “Translators” can be evidence producers, policymakers, or intermediaries such as journalists, advocates, and expert advisors. Those who support evidence-informed policymaking need a better understanding of who translators are, and how different factors constrain their ability to promote the use of evidence in policymaking.
The Opportunity
Our aim is to identify these policy translators, understand their characteristics and how they view “success” in their work, and assess how effective they are in translating evidence into policy. Of key importance is the development of an intellectual framework, validated by retrospective and observational research, to flesh out the key characteristics and context factors that contribute to translators’ success or failure. This scoping study, generously funded by the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, will both provide actionable information to shape Hewlett’s Evidence-Informed Policy Program, and contribute to the evidence-informed policy field more broadly.
Our Work
Our research methodology combines intellectual framework development, retrospective case studies, and real-time, qualitatively-rigorous observational research. The study focuses on two cases to validate and debunk some of the intellectual frameworks around policy translators that R4D and others in the field have already developed: the recent revisions to the national health insurance scheme’s benefits package in Ghana and the new right to information law in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Our findings will inform Hewlett’s revamped global strategy to encourage evidence-informed policymaking, as well as that of other actors’ who support evidence translators and evidence-informed policymaking more broadly.
