Analysis of the literature revealed a wide range of theories relevant to research-policy links although some streams seem to be of more relevance to development contexts. These include:

• Percolation – research can exert a powerful indirect influence through introducing new terms and shaping the policy discourse;
• Policy narratives – development policies based on inaccurate arguments and narratives may continue because reproducing them is easier than taking difficult decisions;
• National systems of innovation (NSI) – research is just one of many elements within complex systems of innovation, and its impact on policy cannot be measured in isolation;
• Policy windows – getting issues on the policy agenda is an essential first step in policy change, ‘policy windows’ are openings in the policy agenda where it is possible to introduce new ideas;
• Street level bureaucrats’ – are the people who implement policies and thus determine what actually happens in practice. Understanding their incentives and constraints is an essential part of promoting policy change;
• Interactive Communication – continuous interaction, and re-communication based on feedback, leads to greater chances of getting a message across accurately;
• Provide the solution to a problem – in marketing theory, people buy products if they see it as the solution to a problem. Policy-makers will only buy the results of research if it solves their policy problems;
• Epistemic communities – are groups of people who share a similar approach or a similar position on an issue, and can create valuable informal channels for the flow of information and ideas which catalyse policy change;
• Communities of practice – are formalized coalitions that bring together various different actors – government, NGOs, think tanks, media – on the basis of a shared perspective can have a substantial impact.
  

Using the framework to analyse the uptake of research evidence into policy in the summary case studies (collected for the GDN project) and detailed case studies (undertaken for ODI) indicated that the political context is probably the most important dimension affecting the uptake of research into policy. Open political systems tend to foster a culture of research in which evidence can be freely gathered, assessed and communicated, but even in open systems many decisions are political and research-based evidence may be completely ignored. Policymaker demands for research are vital, but may not include issues of greater concern to society. Researchers must be sensitive to both. The degree of political contestation also matters greatly. Whether research evidence will contribute to change could be simplified to an arithmetical expression – the degree of demand minus the degree of contestation. Clearly researchers and think tanks that aim to impact policy need to know the key decision-makers and what information they need, understand the political context in which they operate, and provide the right information to the right people at the right time. More...

The quality of the evidence is also clearly important for policy uptake - the key dimensions seem to be relevance, credibility and communication. Research must relate to the topic of the day and be operationally useful. The research approach used, who does it, and how the results are presented all contribute to its credibility. Uptake is much more likely if there has been a clear communication strategy throughout the research process. Policy-orientated researchers have to find the right balance between the need to get useful information to policy makers quickly in a rapidly changing policy environment, with taking the time to be rigorous and obtain reliable results. Participatory approaches which involve both policy makers and communities, and action-research, which tests living examples of new approaches seem to be particularly effective tools for influencing practice. Strenuous advocacy efforts informed by long-term research programmes are usually required to impact higher-level policies. More...

The results of the First Phase were less clear about what impact the nature of links between researchers and policymakers had. Researchers and policy makers often interact in a wide range of formal and informal networks and these are clearly important. So too are intermediaries who champion research-generated ideas and evidence to policymakers. Continuous feedback loops between research, policy development, implementation and evaluation are a common feature in examples where research has had a clear impact on policy. Involving policymakers in research helps builds their ownership of the findings. But different approaches seem to work in different contexts, and more work is needed to explore how researchers can generate the legitimacy and trust to be able to influence policy processes. More...

The case studies confirmed that policymaking is becoming more open and participatory in many countries. With more space, new NGOs, media and private sector actors are becoming more involved in influencing the policy process. This is a positive step in its own right, and it seems to translate into more evidence-based policymaking for development. Capacity is emerging as a constraint in more open policy environments, both in policy-making itself, and in policy implementation. A new role is emerging for policy-research institutes to help build this capacity, help civil society to influence local policies, and provide evidence-based advice to promote pro-poor development policies among northern governments and donors. But more work is needed to understand how the new players use research-based evidence. So too the work emphasizes the importance of bilateral and multilateral donors. These have had a positive impact through an increasing emphasis on governance issues, but they also distort research agendas and policy-research capacity in poorer countries. More...