This paper argues that evidence-based policy has clearly made a worldwide impact, at least at the rhetorical and institutional levels, and in terms of analytical activity. The paper then addresses whether or not evidence-based policy evaluation has had an impact on policy formation and public service delivery. The paper uses a model of research-use that suggests that evidence can be used in instrumental, conceptual and symbolic ways. Taking four examples of the use of evidence in the UK over the past decade, this paper argues that evidence can be used instrumentally, conceptually and symbolically in complementary ways at different stages of the policy cycle and under different policy and political circumstances. The fact that evidence is not always used instrumentally, in the sense of “acting on research results in specific, direct ways” (Lavis et al., 2003, p. 228), does not mean that it has little or no influence. The paper ends by considering some of the obstacles to getting research evidence into policy and practice, and how these obstacles might be overcome.
AmaraN.OuimetM.LandryR. (2004), ‘New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies’, Science Communication, 26, pp. 76–106.
2.
BalasE.A.BorenS.A. (2000), ‘Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement’, in Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2000: Patient-Centered Systems, Stuttgart, Germany, Schattauer, pp. 65–70.
3.
BarberM. (2007), Instruction to Deliver: Tony Blair, the Public Services and the Challenge of Achieving Targets, London, Methuen Publishing Ltd.
4.
BestA.HolmesB. (2010), ‘Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods’, Evidence and Policy, 6, 2, pp. 145–59.
5.
BeyerJ.M. (1997), ‘Research utilization: bridging the gap between communities’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 6, 1, pp. 17–22.
BrysonA.DorsettR.PurdonS. (2002), The Use of Propensity Score Matching in The Evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies, Working Paper Number 4, London, Department for Work and Pensions.
9.
Cabinet Office (1999a), Modernising Government White Paper, London, Cabinet Office.
10.
Cabinet Office (1999b), Professional Policy Making for the Twenty-First Century, London, Cabinet Office.
11.
Cabinet Office (2000), Additing It Up: Improving Analysis and Modelling, London, Cabinet Office.
12.
Cabinet Office (2003), Adding It Up: Improving Analysis and Modelling in Central Government, London, Cabinet Office.
13.
CampbellD. (2005), ‘Getting a ‘GRIPP’ on the research-policy interface in NSW’, New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, 16, 10, pp. 154–6.
14.
CampbellS.BenitaS.CoatesE.DaviesP.PennG. (2007), Analysis for Policy: Evidence-Based Policy in Practice, London, Government Social Research Unit.
15.
ChowdryH.EmmersonC. (2010), An Efficient Maintenance Allowance?, London, Institute for Fiscal Studies, available at: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5370.
CIHR (2006), Evidence in Action, Acting on Evidence: A casebook of health services and policy research knowledge translation stories, Canadian Institute of Health Services and Policy Research, Ottawa, Canada, available at: www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/ihspr_ktcasebook_e.pdf.
18.
DaviesP.T. (2004), ‘Is Evidence-Based Government Possible?’, Jerry Lee Lecture to the 4th Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Washington D.C., 19 February.
19.
DeardenL.EmmersonC.FrayneC.MeghirC. (2001), Education Maintenance Allowance: The First Year — A Quantitative Evaluation, London, Department for Education and Skills (now archived at The National Archives website).
20.
DeardenL.EmmersonC.FrayneC.MeghirC. (2008), ‘Conditional cash transfers and school dropout rates’, The Journal of Human Resources, 44, 4, pp. 827–57.
21.
DorsettR.Campbell-BarrV.HamiltonG.HoggartL.MarshA.MillerC.PhillipsJ.RayK.RiccioJ.A.RichS.VegerisS. (2007), Implementation and First-Year Impacts of The UK Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Demonstration, Research Report 412, London, Department for Work and Pensions.
22.
FiszbeinA.ShadyN. (2009), Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty, Washington D.C, The World Bank.
23.
GabbayJ.Le MayA. (2004), ‘Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines?” Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care’, British Medical Journal, 329, pp. 1013–8.
24.
GreenhalghT., RobertG., BateP., MacfarlaneF. and KyriakidouO. (eds) (2005), Diffusion of Innovations in Health Service Organisations: A Systematic Literature Review, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
HendraR.RiccioJ.A.DorsettR.GreenbergD.H.KnightG.PhillipsJ.RobinsP.K.VegerisS.WalterJ.HillA.RayK.SmithJ. (2011), Breaking the Low-Pay, No-Pay Cycle: Final Evidence from the UK Employment, Retention and Advancement (ERA) Demonstration, London, Department for Work and Pensions.
27.
TreasuryHM (2003), The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government, London, HM Treasury.
28.
HM Treasury (2011), The Magenta Book: Guidance for Evaluation, London, HM Treasury.
29.
IFS (1999), Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) Evaluation, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London (summary available at: http://www.ifs.org.uk/projects/98).
30.
JowellR. (2003), The Role of ‘Pilots’ in Policy-Making. Report of a Review of Government, Government Social Research Unit, London, HM Treasury.
31.
LavisJ.DaviesH.OxmanA.DenisJ-L.Golden-BiddleK.FerlieE. (2005), ‘Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making’, Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10, Supplement 1, pp. 35–48.
32.
LavisJ.N.RobertsonDWoodsideJ.M.McLeodC.B.AbelsonJ. and the Knowledge Transfer Study Group (2003), ‘How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?’, The Milbank Quarterly, 81, 2, pp. 221–48.
33.
LeighA. (2009), ‘What evidence should social policymakers use?’, Australian Treasury Economic Roundup, 1, pp. 27–43.
34.
LomasJ. (2000), ‘Connecting research and policy’, Canadian Journal of Policy Research, Spring, pp. 140–4.
35.
LomasJCulyerT.McCutcheonC.McAuleyL.LawS. (2005), Conceptualizing and Combining Evidence for Health System Guidance: Final Report, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Ottawa.
36.
MarshD. (2006), ‘Evidence-based policy: framework, results and analysis from the New Zealand biotechnology’, International Journal of Biotechnology, 8, 3–4, pp. 206–24.
37.
MartinJ.P. (2000), ‘What works among active labour market policies: evidence from OECD countries' experiences’, OECD Economic Studies, 30, pp. 80–113.
38.
MilaniC.R.S. (2009), Evidence-Based Policy Research: Critical Review of Some International Programmes on Relationships Between Social Science Research and Policy-Making, Paris, France, UNESCO.
39.
MoldJ.W.PetersonK.A. (2005), ‘Primary care practice-based research networks: working at the interface between research and quality improvement’, Annals of Family Medicine, 3, 1, May/June 2005, S12–S20.
40.
NAO (2007), Evaluation of Regulatory Impact Assessments 2006–07, London, National Audit Office.
41.
NAO (2009), Delivering High Quality Impact Assessments, London, National Audit Office.
42.
NAO (2010), Assessing the Impact of Proposed New Policies, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 185 Session 2010–2011, London, National Audit Office.
43.
NutleyS.M.WalterI.DaviesH.T.O. (2007), Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services, Bristol, Policy Press.
O'ConnorT. (2008), How The Prime Minister Monitors Performance and Assesses Delivery, Presentation to GORSInduction, Tony O'Connor CBE, Chief Operational Research Analyst, Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, 8 May.
46.
Office of the Presidency (2010), Guide To The Outcomes Approach, Pretoria, Office of the Presidency of South Africa.
47.
OuimetM.LandryR.ZiamS.BédardP. (2009), ‘The absorption of research knowledge by public servants’, Evidence and Policy, 5, 4, pp. 331–50.
48.
PurdonS. (2002), Estimating The Impact of Labour Market Programmes, Working Paper No. 3, London, Department for Work and Pensions.
49.
QuetsH.RobinsP.K.PanE.C.MichalopoulosC.CardD. (1999), Does SSP Plus Increase Employment? The Effect of Adding Services to the Self Sufficiency Project's Financial Incentives, Ottawa, Social Research Development Corporation.
50.
RosenbaumP, and RubinD. (1983), ‘The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects’, Biometrika, 70, 1, pp. 41–55.
51.
SpielhoferT.GoldenS.EvansK.MarshallH.MundyE.PomatiM.StylesB. (2010), Barriers to Participation in Education and Training, Slough, NFER.
52.
ToppL.McKetinR. (2003), ‘Supporting evidence-based policy making: A case study of the illicit drug reporting system in Australia’, Bulletin on Narcotics, 55, 1–2, pp. 23–30, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna, Austria.
53.
TownsendT.KunimotoB. (2009), Collaboration and Culture. The Future of the Policy Research Function in the Government of Canada, Policy Research Initiative, Ottawa, Canada, March.
54.
WeissC.H. (1982), ‘Policy research in the context of diffuse decision making’, Journal of Higher Education, 53, 6, pp. 619–39.
55.
ZussmanD. (2003), ‘Evidence-based policy making: some observations of recent Canadian experience’, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 20, pp. 64–71, June.
