Challenges in Evidence-Based Public Policy Process - Research Paper Example

Running Head: EVIDENCE-BASED PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS Challenges in Evidence-Based Public Policy Process Name Course Tutor’s Name Date Challenges in Evidence-Based Public Policy Process Evidence-based policy making takes the place of conventional wisdom, ideology, myths, anecdotes, intuition and/or theory, and practices. Such practices have in the past been used to formulate policies which do not fully address societal concerns, and which fail the test of longevity (Pullin, Knight, Stone & Charman, 2004; Pullin & Salafsky, 2010; Sutherland, Pullin, Dolman & Knight, 2004). It has been argued that even well-intended policies which are not informed by evidence usually lead to costly mistakes. Some examples that have been offered by Banks (2014) are the regulatory frameworks that were meant to protect the native environments and historic sites in Australia, but which ended up being used by some people as incentives to undermine conservation efforts. While it is agreeable that policy is to a great extent made as an experiment to find solutions to an existing social, environmental, cultural or political problem, the chances of success can be enhanced if evidence was gathered and used in policy making. By nature, evidence is meant to lessen the residual uncertainties, which if not checked, would lead to failure of policies which are developed for specific purposes. Attaining evidence-based policy is fraught with challenges. Such challenges relate to the methodology, capacity of attaining evidence, time limitations, the ability to obtain good data and analyse it into quality findings, the credibility of evidence (i.e. in terms of transparency and independence of obtaining data), and the receptiveness of the policy environment (Banks, 2014). The foregoing is reflected in the political will that policy makers are afforded in terms of resources and structures to test different policy options. Evidently therefore, evidence-based policy making is a rigorous process that faces internal and external challenges, both of which have to be overcome if critical final results are to be obtained. This paper will discuss two challenges namely: obtaining scientific knowledge and misalignment of the drivers and consequences of policy. In relation to obtaining scientific knowledge, this paper will discuss the challenges related to communicating scientific knowledge for purposes of evidence-based policy making. Misalignment of drivers and consequences of policy will on the other hand be discussed in a manner that shows that oftentimes, policy makers do not have the right motivation, and even when they do, they often fail to consider the consequences of the policies they make. The discussion of the aforementioned two challenges will be illustrated using two policies, one which relates to the conservation of koala habitats in Australia, and another policy that relates to disaster management in Indonesia. Problems of communicating scientific knowledge for policy action Evidence-based research requires the use of data, which is sometimes acquired through scientific research (Fairhead & Leach, 2003). Interestingly though, most policy makers do not have a scientific background and as such, are not knowledgeable in interpreting or correctly using scientific data in policy making. Scientific researchers must therefore be willing and ready to communicate scientific findings to policy makers if results and changes in policy making are to be attained (Kudim-Agyemang, 2014).Yet, communicating the results as required is not always an easy and straightforward undertaking. Inaccurate presentation of facts and evidence is one of the problems related to communicating scientific knowledge to policy makers. According to Kudim-Agyemang (2014), scientists need to learn how to package evidence in a concise and precise manner because policy makers do not usually have the time, knowledge and/or inclination to interpret complex scientific findings. Scientific researchers must also be willing to explain why evidence acquired about a policy issue is relevant, favourable or advantageous. Moreover, they must describe why an issue that has been scientifically investigated is urgent. As Kudim-Agyemang (2014) indicates, the mere provision of “science information is not enough communication” to policy makers; rather, the scientific researchers must establish links between the evidence gathered and the effect that a policy issue has on the affected communities and/or environments. Moser and Dilling (2011) argue that when scientific experts talk to lay audiences (who include policy makers), it is usually through one-way communication. This means that the scientific researchers and the policy makers do not create room for dialogue, and consequently, no shared understanding of the problem and/or possible solution is developed. In other words, the scientific evidence must be relevant to the issue at hand in order for policy makers to consider it for inclusion in the policy framework. Using ‘Law 24, Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 24 of 2007 Concerning Disaster Management’ (Law No. 24, 2007 of Indonesia) as an exemplar, it is understandable that science has the evidence needed for disaster management and climate change adaptation. Yet, science is not the most fruitful exchange and communication ground for the two issues. Scientific researchers therefore need to rethink their communication strategy in order to reach policy makers and other audiences more effectively. As Moser and Dilling (2011) argue, “the audience itself must become the first concern” for scientific communicators (p. 166). Often, scientific researchers are too consumed by the message they want to communicate to the extent of forgetting that the policy makers they are trying to reach may not have the time, willingness or capabilities to interpret complex scientific messages. Communicators of scientific evidence must therefore be willing to understand their audiences, their values, interests, mental models, misconceptions, aspirations, and pre-existing knowledge regarding specific policy issues. In literature (Downing & Ballantyne, 2007; Leiserowitz et al., 2008), it is indicated that scientific communication could benefit from audience studies, which would provide insights on effective communication strategies to different audiences. Scientific researchers must remember that policy makers are often overwhelmed by the amount of information they gather or get from external sources regarding an issue under investigation (Kudom-Agyemang, 2014). In Law No. 24, 2007 of Indonesia for example, scientists played a critical role in advising Indonesian policy makers regarding the disaster cycle in the country. However, such advice was offered at a time when the country was in a hurry to develop and implement a disaster management policy, especially considering the 2004 tsunami. Scientists therefore had to package their evidence in a clear, concise and easy to decipher manner. Clarity and brevity in packaging the scientific message was especially necessary considering the multiple stakeholders involved in policy making. According to UNDP Indonesia (2009), the civil society, United Nations representatives, the Red Cross and observers from government and private sectors were all involved in the legal reform process that culminated in the framing and enactment of Law No. 24, 2007 of Indonesia. Such a scenario gives credence to Moser and Dilling’s (2011) argument that the more relevant scientific findings are packaged and communicated to policy makers in a clearer and concise manner, the higher the chance they stand for inclusion in policies. The timing of scientific communication to policy makers has also been indicated as critical (Kudom-Agyemang, 2014). By inference based on the actions taken by multiple stakeholders in the framing process of Law No. 24, 2007 of Indonesia as documented by UNDP Indonesia (2009), one gets the impression that scientists did not get much time to indicate and communicate their evidence. This may be as a result of the fact that the law was hastily put together and that perhaps the scientific researchers who were included in the policy making process did not have much time to communicate their evidence to other policy makers. One of the issues raised in recent times, and which may have benefited from better communication of scientific evidence is raised by Djalante and Thomalla (2012). The two authors argue that disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation should be integrated. The authors point out that “the anticipated increase in the frequency, intensity and severity of climate-related disasters... calls for better integration of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CAA)” (Djalante & Thomalla, 2012, p.167). Such integration according to the authors would increase resilience and reduce the vulnerability of Indonesia to natural disasters. Overall, the problem of communicating scientific knowledge in policy making can be addressed if those charged with the responsibility of communicating evidence understand the basics of effective communication. As Moser and Dilling (2011) argue, the messages should be clear, concise, relevant, authoritative and timely, and should inspire trust among policy makers. Evidence that is not correctly communicated or interpreted is nothing more than noise and is therefore considered irrelevant to the policy issue at hand. Misalignment of the drivers and consequences of policy The misalignment of drivers (i.e. the reason for developing policy) and the consequences of policy is also a major problem in the evidence-based policy making process. Oftentimes, policy makers forget to consider or are ignorant about the consequences of the policies they develop. Science is replete with examples of failed policies where policy makers failed to consider the consequences of policies. Baker (2014) offers one such example by indicating that some conservation policies in Australia created loopholes where specific stakeholders benefited more from the conservation efforts. Scientists’ role as indicated by Norse and Tschirley (2000) is to assess policy needs and advise policy makers to ensure that the consequences of developing policies are well thought out. Using the ‘State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection’ as an exemplar, a disconnect between the drivers and consequences of policy can be seen. For example, Joliffe (2011) indicates that the policy created the impression that koala habitats have been fully protected through the necessary planning regulations. However, the reality on the ground is that the ‘connectivity corridors’, which are a part of the necessary koala habitats are not sufficiently addressed in the policy. Specifically, the connectivity corridors for koalas have been interrupted by human development and scientific evidence indicates that some koala habitats are overpopulated; yet, without connectivity corridors, koalas cannot naturally migrate to other habitat areas. Consequently, human-induced translocation has been considered, but this too according to scientists, is risky because it exposes koala populations to genetic and disease risks. Obviously, such scientific evidence had not been considered by the policy makers of the ‘State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection’. Joliffe (2011) indicates that due to the blocking of the connectivity corridors between different koala habitats, genetic diversity in specific areas had significantly decreased. One of the consequences of such a phenomenon included testicular abnormalities, which compromised the genetic viability of koala populations across the larger Australia (Joliffe, 2011). Explaining why the koala habitat protection policy has had sub-optimal results (just like other conservation efforts before and after it), Clark, Mazur, Cork, Dovers and Harding (2000) indicate that the framers of the policy failed to seek scientific evidence on the migration as well as the consequences of ‘locking’ koalas in isolated habitats. Clark et al. (2000) therefore indicate that the policy created the impression that planning a subdivision or retaining vegetation that supports koala habitats was best practice in development. Arguably, the koala habitat protection policy used as an example here must have had some aspects of evidence-based policy making. Specifically, there must have been evidence that development plans and projects were leading to a reduction in koala habitats. However, as Adams and Sandbrook (2013) indicate, policy makers must be able to balance different forms of evidence. The authors distinguish between evidence-based and evidence-informed policy making by arguing that the latter is more futuristic and inclined to consider the consequences of specific policy drivers. One of the suggested ways through which the misalignment of drivers and consequences problems in evidence-based policy making can be minimised is by researchers acknowledging that scientific evidence has its uncertainties too (Stirling, 2010). Such admission would create room for policy makers to make sophisticated judgements based on prevailing uncertainties and existing options. In the case of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 for example, the policy makers would have considered the ‘what if’ scenario of koalas needing migratory routes in order to avoid inbreeding among animals living in the same ‘enclosed’ habitats. As Shaxon (2005) indicates, evidence is necessary in policy making, but it also needs to be quality evidence that weighs the pros and cons of its own usage in policies. Williams and Sandbrook (2013) stress the same point further by indicating that “the evidence base is dynamic, and good policy results from the good use of evidence as well as from the quality of the evidence itself” (p. 333). Often, it is the prerogative of policy makers and those in possession of scientific evidence to analyse the consequences of its inclusion in policy. Similarly, it is the responsibility of the same policy makers to understand the drivers of a specific policy and pre-empt its consequences (Collins & Evans, 2007). Only by so doing can policy makers ensure that their efforts and policy creations serve the intended purposes in the end. Du Toit (2012) further argues that the hallmark of good evidence in policy making is in significance and consequence. If evidence is irrelevant and/or inconsequential, it does not have any positive contribution to policy making. Policy makers should also dedicate time and effort towards identifying priorities that are essential to a policy issue in question (Wolfgang, 2014). Every decision must have a value/importance in order to avoid misaligning the choices made and the consequences that will emerge in future. The timing of a policy decision is also another area which brings about misalignment of drivers and consequences. For instance, Wolfgang (2014) indicates that it is important for policy makers to dedicate enough time to gather information and evidence. Ideally, decisions should only be made if enough evidence/information has been gathered. However, as indicated by Wolfgang (2014), decisions can be made sooner if the time spent in gathering information is seen to be delaying clear benefits. For example, if gathering evidence on the consequences of designating several areas as koala habitats was taking time, a decision had to be taken to regulate infrastructure and real estate development in order to stem human encroachment into koala habitats. Interpreted, the foregoing is a case of deciding which of the two options available to policy makers (i.e. delaying the decision-making and risking further human encroachment and acting ‘now’ and risk missing out on some scientific findings, which would be relevant to decision makers) is a lesser evil (Ignatieff, 2004). Ignatieff (2004) further argues that by anticipating consequences and being proactive when deciding on high-value policy issues, policy makers can narrow the probability of misalignment of drivers and consequences in policy making. Thinking errors and biases have also been cited as another source of misalignment between drivers and consequences in policy (Wolfgang, 2014). To resolve this, Wolfgang (2014) advises that policy makers should consider the needs of a policy issue and the desired outcomes. The viability of solution alternatives should then be gauged on how well they can meet the needs and desires of different stakeholders who benefit from a policy. Kajalo, Rajala and Westerlund (2007) also argue that policy makers err by thinking that changing decisions is a reflection of weaknesses on their part. Sometimes, good drivers inspire seemingly good policies which do not guarantee outcomes (Wolfgang, 2014). When such is the case, policy makers should be open to new information which can, depending on the reliability, credibility and usefulness of the new evidence, be used in changing policies. Conclusion This paper has addressed two problems associated with evidence-based policy making. The two problems are identified as misaligned drivers and consequences in policy and problems related with miscommunication of scientific evidence in policy making. Using two examples, the paper has illustrated just how the two problems are manifest in real-life policy issues. However, and as seen in different arguments in the paper, the problems are not without solutions. If policy makers can dedicate enough time and effort to identify the needs, desires, priorities and consequences of their decisions, then it seems that the misalignment between drivers and consequences of policy can be narrowed. Additionally, if scientific evidence is packaged in a concise, clear, credible, and timely manner, the miscommunication gap between scientific researchers and policy makers, many of whom have no desire or ability to decipher complex scientific information, can be greatly reduced. References Adams, W., & Sandbrook, C. (2013). Conservation, evidence and policy. Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 47(3), 329-335. Banks, G. (2014). Challenges of evidence-based policy-making. Australian Public Service Commission. Retrieved from http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/evidence-based-policy Clark, T., Mazur, N., Cork. S., Dovers, S., & Harding, R. (2000). Koala conservation policy process: Appraisal and recommendations. Conservation Biology, 14(3), 681-690. Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Djalante, R., & Thomalla, F. (2012). Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 3(2), 166-180. Du Toit, A. (2012). Making sense of evidence: Notes on the discursive politics of research and pro-poor policy making. PLAAS Working Paper 21. PLAAS, UWC: Bellville. Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (2003). Science, society and power: Environmental knowledge and policy in West Africa and the Caribbean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ignatieff, M. (2004). The lesser evil: Political ethics in an age of terror. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Joliffe, K. (2011). Eurobodalla Koalas. Is Blinky Bill on the brink in the Eurobodalla – and does it matter? Coast Watchers Eurobodalla’s Environment Group Discussion Paper, 1-27. Kajalo, S., Rajala, R., &Westerlund, M. (2007). Approaches to strategic alignment of business information systems. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 9(2), 155-166. Kudom-Agyemang, A. (2012). Strategic value of science communication & packaging science knowledge for policy impact. Science Communication, Accra, 1-20. Moser, S.C., & Dilling, L. (2011). Communicating climate change: Closing the science-action gap. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard & D. Schlosberg (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 161-174). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norse, D., & Tschirley, J.B. (2000). Links between science and policy making. Science, Ecosystems and Environment, 82, 15-26. Pullin, A., & Salafsky, N. (2010). Save the whales? Save the rainforest? Save the data! Conservation Biology, 24, 915-917. Pullin, A., Knight, T., Stone, D., & Charman, K. (2004). Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation, 119, 245-252. Shaxon, L. (2005). Is your evidence robust enough? Questions for policy makers and practitioners. Evidence and Policy, 1, 101-11. Stirling, A. (2010). Keep it complex. Nature, 468, 1029-1031. Sutherland, W., Pullin, A., Dolman, P., & Knight, T. (2004). The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 305-308. UNDP Indonesia. (2009). Lessons learned: Disaster management legal reform – the Indonesian Experience. White Paper, 1-20. Wolfgang, J. (2014). Improve outcomes in decision making. Decision & Innovation 21(3), 1-10. Read More

Problems of communicating scientific knowledge for policy action Evidence-based research requires the use of data, which is sometimes acquired through scientific research (Fairhead & Leach, 2003). Interestingly though, most policy makers do not have a scientific background and as such, are not knowledgeable in interpreting or correctly using scientific data in policy making. Scientific researchers must therefore be willing and ready to communicate scientific findings to policy makers if results and changes in policy making are to be attained (Kudim-Agyemang, 2014).

Yet, communicating the results as required is not always an easy and straightforward undertaking. Inaccurate presentation of facts and evidence is one of the problems related to communicating scientific knowledge to policy makers. According to Kudim-Agyemang (2014), scientists need to learn how to package evidence in a concise and precise manner because policy makers do not usually have the time, knowledge and/or inclination to interpret complex scientific findings. Scientific researchers must also be willing to explain why evidence acquired about a policy issue is relevant, favourable or advantageous.

Moreover, they must describe why an issue that has been scientifically investigated is urgent. As Kudim-Agyemang (2014) indicates, the mere provision of “science information is not enough communication” to policy makers; rather, the scientific researchers must establish links between the evidence gathered and the effect that a policy issue has on the affected communities and/or environments. Moser and Dilling (2011) argue that when scientific experts talk to lay audiences (who include policy makers), it is usually through one-way communication.

This means that the scientific researchers and the policy makers do not create room for dialogue, and consequently, no shared understanding of the problem and/or possible solution is developed. In other words, the scientific evidence must be relevant to the issue at hand in order for policy makers to consider it for inclusion in the policy framework. Using ‘Law 24, Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 24 of 2007 Concerning Disaster Management’ (Law No. 24, 2007 of Indonesia) as an exemplar, it is understandable that science has the evidence needed for disaster management and climate change adaptation.

Yet, science is not the most fruitful exchange and communication ground for the two issues. Scientific researchers therefore need to rethink their communication strategy in order to reach policy makers and other audiences more effectively. As Moser and Dilling (2011) argue, “the audience itself must become the first concern” for scientific communicators (p. 166). Often, scientific researchers are too consumed by the message they want to communicate to the extent of forgetting that the policy makers they are trying to reach may not have the time, willingness or capabilities to interpret complex scientific messages.

Communicators of scientific evidence must therefore be willing to understand their audiences, their values, interests, mental models, misconceptions, aspirations, and pre-existing knowledge regarding specific policy issues. In literature (Downing & Ballantyne, 2007; Leiserowitz et al., 2008), it is indicated that scientific communication could benefit from audience studies, which would provide insights on effective communication strategies to different audiences. Scientific researchers must remember that policy makers are often overwhelmed by the amount of information they gather or get from external sources regarding an issue under investigation (Kudom-Agyemang, 2014).

In Law No. 24, 2007 of Indonesia for example, scientists played a critical role in advising Indonesian policy makers regarding the disaster cycle in the country. However, such advice was offered at a time when the country was in a hurry to develop and implement a disaster management policy, especially considering the 2004 tsunami. Scientists therefore had to package their evidence in a clear, concise and easy to decipher manner.

Read More