IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v6y2020i1d10.1057_s41599-020-0453-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Policy Labs as a process to bring evidence closer to public policymaking: a guide to one approach

Author

Listed:
  • Saba Hinrichs-Krapels

    (King’s College London, The Policy Institute)

  • Jocelyn Bailey

    (University of the Arts London, Social Design Institute)

  • Harriet Boulding

    (King’s College London, The Policy Institute)

  • Bobby Duffy

    (King’s College London, The Policy Institute)

  • Rachel Hesketh

    (King’s College London, The Policy Institute)

  • Emma Kinloch

    (King’s College London, The Policy Institute)

  • Alexandra Pollitt

    (King’s College London, The Policy Institute)

  • Sarah Rawlings

    (King’s College London, The Policy Institute)

  • Armida Rij

    (King’s College London, The Policy Institute)

  • Benedict Wilkinson

    (King’s College London, The Policy Institute)

  • Ross Pow

    (Power of Numbers)

  • Jonathan Grant

    (King’s College London, The Policy Institute)

Abstract

While robust evidence is one ingredient in the policymaking process, it is by no means the only one. Engaging with policymakers and the policymaking process requires collaborative working models, navigating through the experiences, values and perspectives of policymakers and other stakeholders, as well as communicating evidence in an accessible manner. As a response to these requirements, over recent years there has been proliferation of activities that engage producers of evidence (specifically, academics), policymakers, practitioners, and the public in policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. In this article, we describe one engagement approach for facilitating research evidence uptake into policy and practice—an activity called a ‘Policy Lab’—as conducted by the team at The Policy Institute at King’s College London on numerous policy challenges over the past four years. Drawing on our experience in running 15 Policy Labs between January 2015 and September 2019, we (a) provide a guide to how we have run Policy Labs, while sharing our learning on what has worked best in conducting them and (b) demonstrate how these labs can contribute to bringing evidence closer to policymaking, by comparing their characteristics to enablers for doing so identified in the literature. While this approach to Policy Labs is not the only one of its kind, we suggest that these types of Labs manifest characteristics identified in previous studies for influencing the policymaking process; namely: providing a forum for open, honest conversations around a policy topic; creating new networks, collaborations and partnerships between academics and policymakers; synthesising available evidence on a policy topic in a robust and accessible format; and providing timely access to evidence relevant to a policy issue. We recognise the limitations of measuring and evaluating how these Labs change policy in the long-term and recommend viewing the Policy Lab as part of a process for engaging evidence and policymaking and not an isolated activity. This process serves to build a coalition through participation of diverse communities (thereby establishing ‘trust’), work on the language and presentation of evidence (thereby enabling effective ‘translation’ of evidence) and engage policymakers early to respond when policy windows emerge (thereby taking into account ‘timing’ for creating policy action).

Suggested Citation

  • Saba Hinrichs-Krapels & Jocelyn Bailey & Harriet Boulding & Bobby Duffy & Rachel Hesketh & Emma Kinloch & Alexandra Pollitt & Sarah Rawlings & Armida Rij & Benedict Wilkinson & Ross Pow & Jonathan Gra, 2020. "Using Policy Labs as a process to bring evidence closer to public policymaking: a guide to one approach," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:6:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-0453-0
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-0453-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-0453-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-020-0453-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian Boyd, 2013. "Research: A standard for policy-relevant science," Nature, Nature, vol. 501(7466), pages 159-160, September.
    2. Chris Tyler, 2017. "Wanted: academics wise to the needs of government," Nature, Nature, vol. 552(7683), pages 7-7, December.
    3. Ruth Mayne & Duncan Green & Irene Guijt & Martin Walsh & Richard English & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Philip Davies, 2015. "Getting evidence into policy and practice," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 393-401, December.
    5. Kathryn Oliver & Paul Cairney, 2019. "The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jessica H. Phoenix & Lucy G. Atkinson & Hannah Baker, 2019. "Creating and communicating social research for policymakers in government," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Kathryn Oliver & Paul Cairney, 2019. "The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Andrea Saltelli & Mario Giampietro, 2015. "The fallacy of evidence based policy," Papers 1607.07398, arXiv.org.
    4. Robin Fears & Claudia Canales Holzeis & Volker ter Meulen, 2020. "Designing inter-regional engagement to inform cohesive policy making," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-5, December.
    5. David Lewis & M. Feisal Rahman & Revocatus Twinomuhangi & Shababa Haque & Nazmul Huq & Saleemul Huq & Lars Ribbe & Asif Ishtiaque, 2023. "University-Based Researchers as Knowledge Brokers for Climate Policies and Action," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(3), pages 656-683, June.
    6. Winkler, Klara J. & Scown, Murray W. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2018. "A classification to align social-ecological land systems research with policy in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 137-145.
    7. Hukkinen, Janne I., 2020. "Knowing when knowledge performs its power in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    8. Miguel Szekely, 2015. "Closing the evaluation cycle," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 453-461, December.
    9. Antonopoulou, Vivi & chadwick, paul & McGee, O & Sniehotta, Falko & Lorencatto, Fabiana & Meyer, Carly & O'Donnell, Amy & Lecouturier, Jan & Kelly, Michael P & Michie, Susan, 2021. "Research Engagement with Policy Makers: a practical guide to writing policy briefs," OSF Preprints m25qp, Center for Open Science.
    10. Tanja Brüchert & Paula Quentin & Sabine Baumgart & Gabriele Bolte, 2021. "Barriers, Facilitating Factors, and Intersectoral Collaboration for Promoting Active Mobility for Healthy Aging—A Qualitative Study within Local Government in Germany," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Yi Ran & Yuanyuan Hu & Shouming Chen & Fangjun Qiu & Ahmed Rabeeu, 2022. "The Impact of Two-Invoice System on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Selling Expenses in China: A Difference-in-Differences Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, April.
    12. Megan C Evans & Christopher Cvitanovic, 2018. "An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Howard White, 2019. "The twenty-first century experimenting society: the four waves of the evidence revolution," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-7, December.
    14. Posso, Alberto & Zhang, Quanda, 2023. "Social R&D: Does academic freedom contribute to improved societal outcomes?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    15. Stevanov, Mirjana & Krott, Max, 2021. "Embedding scientific information into forestry praxis: Explaining knowledge transfer in transdisciplinary projects by using German case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    16. Noam Obermeister, 2020. "Tapping into science advisers’ learning," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    17. Franco Fassio & Isaac Enrique Perez Borda & Elisa Talpo & Alessandra Savina & Fabiana Rovera & Ottavia Pieretto & Davide Zarri, 2022. "Assessing Circular Economy Opportunities at the Food Supply Chain Level: The Case of Five Piedmont Product Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-32, August.
    18. Mai, Nhat Chi, 2022. "The Impact of Two-Invoice System on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Selling Expenses in China: A Difference-In-Differences Approach," OSF Preprints 68fsb, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:6:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-0453-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.