LIST OF PANELS

We welcome papers that engage with the interaction of research, evidence, and policy from a critical perspective, with a particular focus on national and international bodies tasked with evidence use. In spite of the increasing push for evidence to inform policy and the proliferation of formal bodies tasked with evidence synthesis in many countries, there has been a dearth of theoretically and methodologically rigorous studies of the political factors influential in shaping the uptake and use of evidence for policy making. These can include institutional analyses of the structures, rules, or broader norms shaping evidence use for given public policy decisions, as well as other political elements including ideas, interests, and networks. This panel will include empirical analyses within or across countries to help fill this gap. We particularly encourage papers that utilise well established analytical lenses to study how different political systems influence the use of research and evidence for policy making – for example how federalism/decentralisation, or the structure of the bureaucracy may shape the structures, rules, and norms of evidence advisory systems. Similarly we welcome papers that utilise established methods of political analysis (e.g. discourse analysis, network analysis, political economy analysis, ethnography, comparative political analysis) to study the utilisation of evidence within formal government advisory systems. We welcome papers focussing on low, middle, and high income countries to provide comparative insights into state structures, local politics, and evidence use.  

This panel will draw together papers that apply political analysis to understand better the use of research and other relevant evidence to inform policy decisions. The increasing push for evidence to inform policy has led to a proliferation of recommendations for governments to do ‘what works’ under a banner of ‘evidence-based policy’. In line with this, there have been increased efforts to establish structures and agencies tasked with synthesising evidence for many social policy interventions. Yet a vast majority of literature on the use of evidence remains focussed on identifying supposed ‘barriers’ and ‘facilitators’ to the use of evidence from the perspective of a single study or single body of research. Much more limited has been political and institutional analysis that can draw broader lessons about factors influential in the use of evidence to inform policy. This is despite the fact that institutional analysis can help explore the structures, rules, and norms of evidence use built into national policy advisory systems. These provide the public space in which evidence is processed – i.e. debated and negotiated – to both become manageable information for policy decisions and be used to direct the flow of contestation in policy debates.   The field of health care is often seen as a leader in social policy sectors in its comprehensive use of evidence and embrace of advisory bodies, as well as establishing ranking and hierarchy systems  (such as GRADE (1)) in which policy relevant evidence can be evaluated. Yet even in health, critical voices have arisen to note the gap in academic study of evidence use from a political perspective. A recent systematic review (2013) by Liverani et al. (2) found a dearth of studies in the health sector engaging with institutional or political factors to help explain the uptake or use of policy relevant evidence. Similarly, in a recent critical review, Oliver and colleagues (2014)(3) have argued that the history of evidence based policy studies has suffered from theoretical naivety, with a lack of “empirical description and analysis of how research and policy interact in vivo”. This panel expressly targets this gap in work by calling for papers from across the public policy sectors that engage with the interactions of research, evidence, and policy from a political perspective. We particularly encourage papers that utilise well established analytical lenses to study different political systems – for example how federalism/decentralisation, or the structure of the bureaucracy may shape the structures, rules, and norms of evidence advisory systems. Similarly we welcome papers that utilise established methods of political analysis (e.g. discourse analysis, network analysis, political economy analysis, ethnography, comparative political analysis) to study the utilisation of evidence within formal government advisory systems. We welcome papers focussing on low, middle, and high income countries to provide comparative insights into state structures, local politics, and evidence use. References 1.          Guyatt G et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-6. 2.          Liverani M, et al. Political and Institutional Influences on the Use of Evidence in Public Health Policy. A Systematic Review. PloS one. 2013;8(10):e77404. 3.          Oliver K et al. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2014;12(1):34.