Tips for influencing government policy with research

By John Thwaites

Considering three questions can help researchers interested in better use of evidence in government policy making:

1. how is evidence used by politicians?
2. why is best evidence not always followed?
3. what can be done to improve the likelihood that evidence will inform policy?

How evidence is used by politicians

It is useful to start with an appreciation that politicians look to many forms of evidence other than academic research, including the grey literature, government reports, reports from Royal commissions, various other forms of expert evidence (including the politician’s favourite expert), the experience of citizens, anecdotal evidence, reports from interested parties produced by consultants, the media and Google searches.

It is also useful to understand the different orientations of politicians and researchers towards evidence:

• they operate on completely different time scales.
• the focus is very different, with researchers tending to focus on one issue answering a particular question whereas politicians have to focus on multiple issues that are connected in complex ways.
• the research method is totally different from the political decision-making method and there’s really not a lot of understanding in politics about the research method.
• politics, more than research, is driven by values and emotion and interests, and the right answer in politics is not necessarily an objective evidence-based answer, but rather the best fit to a complex array of interests and values. Politics is very much the art of the possible.
• for very good reasons, politics is about compromise, and indeed resolving conflicts of values and interests in a peaceful way is the great achievement of modern democracy.

Why best evidence is not always followed

Here it’s necessary to really focus on the nature of modern government.

First, power is very much at the top (the prime minister, the president or the premier of a state) and the way the top person sees an issue or evidence has a huge impact on how that evidence will be treated.

Second, time pressure is extreme. For example, as Health Minister, I was woken up at six every day with the latest crisis and then worked all day and into the evening without a break, with constant decisions to be made.

Third, politics is all about continuous campaigning. It’s very much a partisan field where the government and opposition parties see every issue through the lens of the competition that they’re in for political power. This is exacerbated by the complexity of the issues, the very short media cycle, the media now running campaigns rather than just reporting the news, social media, and huge expectations of stakeholders, including for community engagement.

Fourth, it can be quite hard for researchers who are passionate about their work to understand that unless the issue is on what the politicians call “the grid,” that is the politicians’ major issues, the researchers are probably not even going to be listened to. In addition, long-term complex issues are often put in the too hard basket because politicians are so busy. When there’s no easy answer, the best thing to do is simply deal with the issues later.

Fifth, politicians rely hugely on trusted advisors, who are not only seen as giving good advice but are also loyal in the very adversarial political situation. For any particular issues, these advisors will be weighing up the political benefit against the political effort and the political risks, as well as considering who benefits and who loses, and how stakeholders will react.

Sixth is the role of emotions (such as anger, fear, pride, compassion) in considering evidence both for the politicians and for the general public, with emotions being very much linked to values. Researchers seeking to influence the political process really need to take account of the potential emotional response to their evidence.

Finally, politicians are so busy they have to rely on heuristics or mental shortcuts, such as stereotyping and how an issue is framed. Further, politicians are prone to hyperbolic discounting, that is favouring short-term relatively small initiatives rather than risk the political downsides of very large initiatives that might have bigger long-term gains.

What can be done to improve the likelihood that evidence will inform policy

Researchers can benefit from following the “ten commandments” of influencing government:

1. know what you want to achieve.
2. know what the government wants to achieve.
3. understand who the decision maker is and what their priorities are.
4. come up with a solution not a problem.
5. operate as a collaborative team.
6. be prepared and be persistent.
7. timing: be an opportunist.
8. understand the power of values and emotions in communication.
9. don’t just think about the evidence, think about the messenger who is going to deliver the message and how it is going to be communicated.
10. prioritize and compromise.

Researchers can also support wider initiatives, such as:

• providing professional development for politicians and their advisors, as well as elite journalists, in understanding systematic reviews, research evidence and the research method.
• providing accessible evidence and searchable databases.
• establishment of proper evidence reviews for cabinet submissions and other government processes.
• establishment of “what works” centres.
• establishment of transdisciplinary task forces.

Conclusion

How well do the ideas presented here gel with your own experience? Do you have other considerations to share? Are there other improvements that you would suggest?

To find out more:

This i2Insights contribution is an extract from a more detailed plenary presentation “Speaking truth to power, but are they listening?” at the 2021 virtual Evidence and Implementation Summit. Online – 58 minute YouTube video: https://youtu.be/MRq6gskrvmM

Biography: John Thwaites AM is a Professorial Fellow, Monash University, and Chair of the Monash Sustainable Development Institute and Climateworks Centre, all in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. He was Deputy Premier of Victoria from 1999-2007 holding various Ministerial portfolios including Minister of Health and Minister of Environment, and he was Victoria’s first Minister for Climate Change.