Knowledge services designed to position evidence for use on development assistance are adjusting to keep up with a rapidly changing policy agenda. In this blog, I share how the IDS-led Knowledge for Development and Diplomacy Programme (K4DD) is managing this transformation in the demand for evidence.
Seismic realignment of areas of interest
For decades, K4DD partners have been providing rapid evidence synthesis services to the UK government and beyond. We are currently experiencing, along with many other providers of similar services, an unprecedented shift in demand. These changes are taking effect across OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) as Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) budgets shrink and new geopolitical priorities emerge. Demand driven evidence services have always experienced the ebb and flow of topics and geographies as policy agendas fluctuate and crisis occur. However, never before have we experienced such a seismic realignment of areas of interest in the social sciences for development.
K4DD produces over 200 rapid evidence reviews a year for the UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office’s (FCDO) civil servants and government officials. Although K4DD had already extended its services to cover both development and diplomacy, to reflect FCDO’s mandate, the current shift in demand goes far beyond this.
1 in 3 evidence requests non-ODA compliant
Almost one in three requests for these rapid evidence reviews from FCDO staff no longer qualify for ODA funding. They relate to a diverse mix of research questions on international security, science diplomacy and science and technology. Meanwhile, the focus of many of the more conventional international development inquiries, focused on low-income countries, is shifting away from DAC priorities, like sustainable development, the advancement of equalities among countries and poverty eradication. We are receiving an increasing number of requests on industrial strategy, growth, trade and migration, not all of which, depending on their focus, meet ODA requirements
These new and fast emerging policy priorities require deep thinking on how to best meet the needs of evidence users in policy and practice. For example, in areas like science diplomacy, research questions may emerge for which there is relatively little published academic literature. Therefore, evidence review methodologies have to be flexible and responsive to these needs. This is closely related to the long-standing debate around the trade-offs between the usefulness of evidence for policy and conventional standards in academic rigour.
For demand driven and policy focused evidence services, conventional literature searches do not always provide adequate relevant data and the urgency of the queries may require alternative methods. These might include drawing upon individuals’ expert knowledge and drawing upon non-traditional sources such as mainstream and social media.
New agendas require new types of evidence
Shifting evidence demand into new domains requires meaningful engagement with our clients to understand what they think constitutes relevant and useful evidence and why. Whilst it is important to challenge them to take a critical approach, we must also be open to having our own preconceptions challenged of what research rigour looks like under these circumstances. One must consider the usefulness of a range of data sources and expert knowledge, such as media reports and input from industry experts. These sources may include insights not yet captured by research outputs in the academic and grey literature.
The reality is that scientific research can be epistemically robust without offering any solutions to policy challenges, whereas for policy makers, rigour and effectiveness means evidence that produces ideas that can shape policy and programmes in real time. Simply stating what the gaps in evidence are, or suggesting that one waits for a stronger evidence base to emerge, is not always adequate. The Covid-19 pandemic reminded us that sometimes evidence just has to be good enough.
Asking the right questions
Another challenge one encounters during a period of transformation of policy agendas and uncertainty is the framing of questions posed by policy makers. During periods of great upheaval and the emergence of novel policy dilemmas, an important strategy is to work with our partners in policy to refine their research questions. If initial searches suggest there is little literature on a topic, or that it is too narrowly or too broadly articulated, then we can work with them to co-produce a better question that addresses the core problem within the limitations of the available data. This process may also reveal any presuppositions that are shaping the initial inquiry. As policy agendas have shifted, this ideation stage of evidence synthesis, has become increasingly important.
You may also find yourself working with clients who are relatively new to research synthesis services, having formerly relied mostly on expert advice and experiential knowledge. These collaborations will grow evidence users’ understanding of the benefits of rapid evidence synthesis. They will also support researchers’ appreciation of their clients’ motivations and needs. In K4DD we have found this pays great dividends in promoting a culture of evidence informed policy and practice.
Demand driven services can help shape research agendas
This pragmatic approach to delivering useful knowledge services to support evidence use during periods of shifting policy and programmatic priorities must run in parallel to the deliberate efforts to shape these agendas. Working in close partnership with government agencies on the provision of embedded knowledge services offers unique opportunities to influence evidence demand. As OECD DAC members align themselves around agendas focused on security, AI technologies, global health, immigration, humanitarian crisis and climate change, we can help to ensure the lived experiences of marginalised communities are considered.
As global policy agendas continue to rapidly evolve, knowledge services designed to supply the best possible evidence to inform decisions will play a crucial role in ensuring policy institutions are asking the right questions.
