|
Various theoretical approaches have attempted to provide answers
to the questions of how policy is made and to what extent research
and evidence is incorporated into the policy process. The traditional
question on this topic was based on the model of a linear and rational
progression, and could be phrased: ‘How can research be transported
from the research to the policy sphere?’ Now, however, the
shortcomings of the linear model are widely recognised, and the
question that is asked instead concerns research uptake pathways:
‘Why are some of the ideas that circulate in the research/policy
networks picked up and acted on, while others are ignored and disappear?’
Or, to phrase it from the perspective of those engaged in research:
‘How can we market our ideas so that they are noticed? What
do we have to do to influence policy in a pro-poor and evidence-based
direction?’
Based on a review of the literature, and preliminary and detailed
case studies, ODI has identified over 30 theoretical
models which help to answer these questions. They are summarised
below. The first four are cross-cutting models or frameworks, while
the remainder are loosely grouped into three categories guided by
ODI’s three-dimensional framework:
context, evidence and links.
General Models (Index
of Models)
The linear model, already discredited,
has been replaced by more complex models including the percolation
model in which research exerts a powerful indirect influence
on policy by shaping the discourse, and the
tipping point model where a number of small factors combine
to start a social epidemic. The context,
evidence and links model, developed by ODI provides a general
framework within which to interpret the other models.
Context (Index
of Models)
Policy makers are enormously influenced by simple stories, and the
prevalent policy narratives
are extremely difficult to break with research findings. The
systems model, which grew out of studies of national systems of
innovation and external forces,
describes a complex process in which policy making is situated within
a wider institutional, political and historic context. Policy makers
may have limited room for
manoeuvre to change of develop new policies despite convincing
evidence, and street level
bureaucrats have great power over how policy is implemented on
the ground. Policies often evolve through constant revision and refinement,
leading to the view that policy is, in fact, a form of social
experiment. Although critical moments in the policy process, may
provide policy windows for
more substantial change, or multiple factors may contribute to a
tipping point leading to fundamental change. The
crisis model notes that paradigm
shifts only happen when there is a crisis, although the routine
and incremental decisions that are made as organisations simply muddle
through can contribute to significant change over time.
Evidence (Index
of Models)
Some ideas seem to be so widely accepted that they form a ‘framework
for possible thought’, outside which new ideas are instantly
dismissed. Attempts to explain this have identified various sets of
credibility variables which
relate new ideas to the previous knowledge and values of individuals.
The source of the information
is often more important than its content, a good reputation enhances
credibility and an the capacity of an individual to influence change
can be explained by their sources of power. Linear
models of communication (like linear models of policy processes)
are now widely discredited and replaced by interactive
models. Communication suggests that surprising
and simple stories can be very effective, and marketing theory
that providing solutions,
packaging, and encouraging policy
makers to respond to ideas can
increase policy impact dramatically. Although improvements in information
technology undoubtedly contribute to information sharing, there is
little evidence that it increases impact unless it is translated
into the cultural context within which it is to be used.
Links (Index
of Models)
Networks between and among researchers and policy makers are clearly
extremely important. Epistemic
communities tend to be insider-networks where members collaborate
on specific policy issues, whereas policy
communities include a wider range of individuals and organisations
who share a common interest in the same policy area. Advocacy
coalitions or communities of practice include a wide range of
actors who work together to lobby key figures. While some form of
negotiation through official
networks is now a frequent part of any policy process, other
discussions through shadow
networks may be more influential. Chains
of accountability between researchers and the communities and
populations with a direct stake in the research and subsequent policy
changes are important to strengthen legitimacy and accountability.
Strategies to promote dialogue
between communities and external agents are vital for sustainable
social change, and campaigns modelled on pyramids,
wheels or webs have been shown to be very effective.
|
