LIST OF WORKSHOPS

General objectives

Evidence-based policy, also known as EBPM, has become a common practice in many areas of public policy. A key aspect of EBPM is that evidence is generated through policy evaluations, and the results must be relevant to the policy process. However, it is rarely clear which facts qualify as relevant evidence, and this remains a contentious issue in policymaking. Evidence is generated through evaluations whose results must be relevant to policymaking, yet it is often unclear which facts qualify as relevant evidence. Even when policy actors agree on appropriate forms of evidence, questions remain about how evaluation findings should be used. Such evidence can serve instrumental, conceptual, symbolic or procedural purposes (Saunders, 2012). Its use depends on legal requirements and institutional practices in specific contexts. We assume that evaluation evidence use is a political process shaped by institutional frameworks, stakeholder preferences, and configurations. The institutional, political and normative context of a policy area affects both evidence use and its political acceptance (Højlund, 2014), as well as issue polarisation (Contandriopoulos & Brousselle, 2012) and prevailing views of valid evidence (King & Alkin, 2019). The workshop examines contextual conditions, actor preferences and practices of evidence use in evidence-based policymaking. It will be held online, combining paper presentations with small-group discussions and a World Café–style plenary to promote interactive exchange.

Research questions

The institutional and political dimensions of evidence use give rise to many questions. Finding the answers to these questions should make evaluation-based evidence more useful for the policy process (Patton, 2020). The questions that arise concern the utilisation and impact of evidence, the institutional design and governance, the political dimension, methodological innovations and normative contexts of evidence.

This workshop aims to address – but does not limit to- the following questions:

Under what conditions is evidence effectively integrated into policy-making processes?

How do instrumental, symbolic, and conceptual uses of evidence manifest across different policy fields?

What role do power dynamics, institutional settings, and stakeholder interests play in shaping evidence use?

Which institutional structures foster or hinder evidence-based decision-making?

Which models of “evidence governance” have proven effective internationally, and what explains their success?

Is EBPM best understood as a technocratic ideal or as a political negotiation process?

What strategies do political actors employ to align evidence with their narratives and policy goals?

How can qualitative, participatory, and local forms of knowledge be systematically integrated into EBPM? And which types of methods or approaches tend to be overrepresented in EBPM?

What normative challenges arise regarding justice, representation, and inclusion in evidence practices?

Context and State-of-the Art

The proposed topic forms part of the practice and research of evidence-based policy making (EBPM), a long-established concept in public policy (Cairney, 2016). Yet EBPM faces persistent implementation obstacles. Expertise and expert knowledge are increasingly questioned (Eyal, 2019), while EBPM’s internal logic and processes are criticised (Straßheim, 2024; Straßheim & Kettunen, 2014). Different stakeholders recognise different empirical facts as evidence, creating epistemic resistance. Evaluation research has shown, for instance, that ‘qualitative methods’ still face challenges of adequate reporting standards, which in turn affect their usability for many contexts (Bodenstein and Kemmerling 2025). From a sociological perspective, evidence use has been examined as organisational ‘evidence culture’ (Bandola-Gill et al., 2024), as an object of politicisation (Smith et al., 2025), and within Policy Advisory Systems (Craft & Wilder, 2017). Further key contributions to the use of evidence have been made by evaluation research, which is often referred to as 'evaluation use'. Influential works on this topic have been published by King & Alkin (2019) Vedung (2021) and Patton (2020), among others, and demonstrate how evaluation evidence can be utilised. However, the specific perspective of public policy research remains underexplored. We therefore invite contributions that illuminate the context of evidence use, the role of governance and institutional design, actor strategies for adapting evidence, and the normative challenges of evidence-based policymaking.

Hypotheses

The following preliminary working hypotheses can be formulated for each of the dimensions listed for the questions. These hypotheses will serve as a framework for the workshop, and will then be reflected upon, expanded, and refined throughout the discussions held in the workshop.

H1: Institutional structures and evidence use

Effective evidence integration correlates with institutional arrangements that reconcile standardised procedures with plural forms of evidence.

H2: Politicisation and symbolic use

Greater politicisation in a policy field increases the likelihood of instrumental or symbolic evidence use.

H3: Epistemic pluralism and legitimacy

Including epistemic pluralism (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, local knowledge, and civic epistemologies) in evidence-based policy increases its perceived legitimacy in complex policy areas, but can also lead to backlash in those areas where evidence monocultures dominate.

H4: Process innovations in EBPM

Iterative, participatory and adaptive EBPM practices foster continuous evidence integration, promoting learning and long-term use.

H5: Normative dimension of evidence use

The extent to which evidence processes incorporate normative concerns of justice, inclusion and representation has a positive influence on the legitimacy and societal acceptance of evidence-based policies, regardless of their instrumental effectiveness, but it can also trigger backlash and polarization.

Papers

The workshop welcomes both theoretical and empirical contributions that tackle from different perspectives the question of evidence use in policy processes. Theoretical papers may address the conceptual foundations of evidence use, the role of policy contexts, institutional and political constraints, the influence of policy networks and circles in evidence-based policymaking, or the normative dimensions underpinning the mobilization of evidence. Empirical contributions may be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods in nature and may present case studies on this topic. Comparative studies are also welcome.

Agenda

The workshop aims to unite scientific and practical perspectives on evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) and develop a joint research agenda. After paper presentations, participants will work in small groups on clusters of hypotheses relating to institutions, politics, knowledge diversity, innovation, and normative dimensions. They will analyse challenges, refine hypotheses, and discuss implications. Results will be synthesised in a final plenary identifying cross-cutting issues and priorities. In a concluding co-creation phase, based on the World Café method, topics for a special issue or edited volume will be elaborated. The objective extends beyond the production of a special issue or edited volume: it is also to continue our cooperation in the long term in order to have a scientific and practical impact and advance long-term research on evidence use in EBPM.

Prospects for publication in a book, journal special issue, or dossier

We intend to publish the papers from this workshop as a special issue in a visible journal to initiate and encourage further research and debate on this topic. Our preferred publication medium is the International Review of Public Policy. With its strong interdisciplinary focus and broad readership, the journal is well-suited to bring together public policy and evaluation perspectives. Alternatively, an evaluation journal could be considered, such as Evaluation.

References

Bandola-Gill, J., Andersen, N. A., Leng, R., Pattyn, V., & Smith, K. E. (2024). A matter of culture? Conceptualizing and investigating “Evidence Cultures” within research on evidence-informed policymaking. Policy and Society, 43(4), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae036

Bodenstein, T., & Kemmerling, A. (2025). Taking Stock of Qualitative Methods of Evaluation: A Study of Practices and Quality Criteria. Evaluation Review, 0193841X251370426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X251370426

Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4

Contandriopoulos, D., & Brousselle, A. (2012). Evaluation models and evaluation use. Evaluation, 18(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389011430371

Craft, J., & Wilder, M. (2017). Catching a Second Wave: Context and Compatibility in Advisory System Dynamics. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12133

Eyal, G. (2019). The crisis of expertise. Polity Press.

Højlund, S. (2014). Evaluation use in the organizational context – changing focus to improve theory. Evaluation, 20(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013516053

King, J. A., & Alkin, M. C. (2019). The Centrality of Use: Theories of Evaluation Use and Influence and Thoughts on the First 50 Years of Use Research. American Journal of Evaluation, 40(3), 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018796328

Patton, M. Q. (2020). Evaluation Use Theory, Practice, and Future Research: Reflections on the Alkin and King AJE Series. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(4), 581–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214020919498

Saunders, M. (2012). The use and usability of evaluation outputs: A social practice approach. Evaluation, 18(4), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389012459113

Smith, K. E., Andersen, N. A., & Pattyn, V. (2025). Learning through comparison when studying evidence and policy. Evidence & Policy, 21(2), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000051

Straßheim, H. (2024). A world of evidence: The global spread and silent politics of evidence cultures. Policy and Society, 43(4), 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae029

Straßheim, H., & Kettunen, P. (2014). When does evidence-based policy turn into policy-based evidence? Configurations, contexts and mechanisms. Evidence & Policy, 10(2), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426514X13990433991320

Vedung, E. (2021). The Twelve-Part Typology of Evaluation Uses. Zeitschrift Für Evaluation, 2021(1), 101–130. https://doi.org/10.31244/zfe.2021.01.05

The use of evidence in evidence-based policy is playing an increasingly important role in the design and implementation of public policy. However, the effectiveness of public policy can only be increased through the use of evidence if the results of evaluations are received in the policy process and their recommendations are implemented. The use of evidence depends on numerous contextual conditions that interact in complex ways and vary depending on the policy area. This workshop aims to improve understanding of how evidence is used in policy processes, the purposes it serves and the conditions under which it can contribute to improving the quality and effectiveness of public policy. The basic assumption is that evidence generation depends on techniques that may be contested, leading to a lack of consensus and generally accepted results. On the other hand, the use of evidence and evaluation also has a political dimension that determines who commissions evaluations, what questions are asked, and the purpose and intended use of the evaluations. The workshop will facilitate intensive discussion on these issues and bring together public policy and evaluation experts. The use of evidence is thus a complex phenomenon involving technical, political and ethical dimensions. The aim of the workshop is to facilitate a fruitful dialogue about this phenomenon by bringing together very different perspectives. Theoretical starting points include the role of political polarisation in accepting evaluation results, the structure and context of policy arenas, and the importance of stakeholders and normative dimensions in evidence use.

This workshop welcomes a wide range of questions. Topics of interest include who commissions evaluations and for what purpose, which forms of empirical evidence are considered relevant for evaluation purposes and which are not, which actors and groups are recognised as central stakeholders in evaluations, who judges the political relevance of evaluations, at what point in the policy process evaluation use is permitted, and what the limits are for evidence to serve its functions within the policy cycle. Which types of evidence are applied in the policy process: instrumental, conceptual, symbolic or process-related? The workshop therefore welcomes contributions in the form of theory, syntheses and meta-studies of existing research, as well as concrete case studies of evidence use in the policy process. Contributions from various social science research paradigms are welcome. Furthermore, the workshop welcomes descriptive and exploratory studies that raise new questions and theoretical assumptions. The workshop will take place online. As well as paper presentations, the workshop format will allow for group discussions on specific aspects of the topic, as well as a World Café discussion.

Evidence-based policymaking plays a central role in the design and implementation of public policy. Evidence-based policymaking is becoming common practice in many areas. This trend promises to increase the effectiveness of policy measures by improving policy planning based on solid data and enabling the rapid adaptation of policies. However, for this to happen, the evaluation results must be incorporated into the policy process and implemented. This, in turn, depends on several contextual factors whose interactions can be complex and depend on the policy area in question. The workshop therefore examines the conditions under which evidence can be optimally used in the policy process. Topics covered will include controversial forms of evidence, the role of politicisation in evidence use, how context and institutional conditions in policy areas influence evidence use, innovations in evidence processes and the normative dimensions of evidence use. The list of topics is not exhaustive, however, and welcomes a wide range of contributions. Contributions that deal with the topic theoretically, present syntheses or meta-studies of existing findings, or conduct empirical studies on specific case studies or comparative studies are welcomed. The workshop will take place online. As well as paper presentations, the workshop format will allow for group discussions on specific aspects of the topic, as well as a World Café discussion.

Thilo Bodenstein is an associate professor in the Department of Public Policy at the Central European University (CEU) in Vienna. His research focuses on evaluation and public policy, particularly evaluation research, qualitative evaluation approaches, and the use of evidence in policymaking. He examines how evaluation practices influence governance and learning within public administrations, particularly within ministries. His work also explores development policy and democracy support. Prior to joining the CEU, he held a Jean Monnet Chair in European Integration and Global Governance at the Free University of Berlin, and was a visiting research fellow at the Center for European Studies at Harvard University. His recent work addresses the methodological and practical challenges of the politics of evicence, policy learning, as well as the role of development policy in democracy support.

Gaia Taffoni is Research and Teaching Associate at the School of Transnational Governance, European University Institute in Florence. Her research interests include regulatory governance and policy evaluation, with a particular focus on the theories and approaches of the policy process. Before joining the EUI, Gaia was Research Fellow at University College London, working in the ERC project Protego, studying the administrative procedures and policy instruments for effective governance. Gaia has also been Adjunct Public Administration and Comparative Public Policy professor at University of Genoa and Università degli Studi di Milano.

Achim Kemmerling is Gerhard Haniel Chair of International Development and Public Policy and director of the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt. He holds a PhD from Freie Universität in Berlin and has previously worked at Central European University Budapest, Jacobs University Bremen and the Social Science Research Centre in Berlin. He does research on the political economy of social, labour and tax policies in developing countries.