New Directions for Evidence-Based Policy Research

Context: Despite 20 years of research into evidence-based policy (EBP), and continued drive from both policy makers and researchers to increase the amount of research evidence used by policy, persistent barriers to the use of evidence remain are found in the literature. However, it is not clear what explains this persistence. Methods: This paper analyses this literature in detail to try and explain the persistence of barriers and facilitators. We critically describe the literature in terms of its theoretical underpinnings, definitions of ‘evidence’, methods, and underlying assumptions of the research. We aim to illuminate the EBP discourse by comparing the EBP literature with approaches from other fields. Findings: Much of the research in this area is theoretically naive, focusing primarily on the uptake of research evidence and privileging academics’ research priorities over policy makers’ priorities. Little empirical data analysing the processes or impact of evidence use in policy is available to inform researchers or decision-makers. EBP research often assumes that policy makers do not use evidence; and that more evidence – meaning research evidence - use would benefit policy makers and populations. Conclusions: We find that most EBP research is based on unsupported assumptions. The agenda of ‘getting evidence into policy’ has sidelined the empirical description and analysis of how research and policy actually interact in vivo. Rather than asking how research evidence can be made more influential, academics should aim to understand what influences and constitutes policy, and produce broader, more critically and theoretically informed studies of decision-making. We question the main assumptions made by EBP researchers, explore the implications, and propose new directions for EBP research. Keywords: Evidence-based policy; critical analysis, knowledge utilization, science and technology studies