social research on public policy

CSSP Home Page

On Thursday, May 2 for a webinar hosted by CSSP and Global Women’s Strike and Women of Color/GWS, bringing together grassroots campaigners, policy analysts, and caregivers to discuss policy options for compensating caregivers to ensure their essential labor is respected and rewarded. 

Register now

Supporting Caregivers

This report  focuses on initiatives that provide direct financial assistance to caregivers who provide informal care and would otherwise be unpaid for their caregiving labor—noting when policies to compensate caregivers are combined with other services or supports.

Culture is Healing

Community-based organizations across the country face numerous barriers and burdensome bureaucracy that makes it harder for them to operate and to serve children and their families. This brief lifts up the voices of those community providers, with the goal of highlighting and addressing the barriers that stand in the way of all families having the support they need.

Supporting Youth

This policy agenda reimagines how policy supports young people. A product of a collaboration between CARES Ambassadors and the CSSP, the agenda seeks to advance policy that supports young people in their families and communities, respects and affirms their whole identity, and sets us all up for success.

The Center for the Study of Social Policy works to achieve a racially, economically, and socially just society in which all children, youth, and families thrive. We translate ideas into action, promote public policies grounded in equity, and support strong and inclusive communities. We advocate with and for all children, youth, and families marginalized by public policies and institutional practices.

Learn more.

Our Approach

Systems change.

We draw on the latest research and work to make systems more responsive, accountable, and rooted in policies that ensure equity and inclusion for all children, youth, families, and communities.

Community Outreach

We believe in the power of communities to shape their futures. We work with communities across the country and with local systems to impact policy and systems change.

We work to influence public policy to create opportunity, advance equity, achieve impact, and scale results. We fight against inequitable policy proposals and promote policies that ensure equity and inclusion.

How We Catalyze Change

Featured Projects

Automatic Benefit for Children (ABC) Coalition

Advancing economic and racial justice through a guaranteed income for kids

Parent Leader Network

The EC-LINC Parent Leader Network (PLN) provides a space for parents in EC-LINC communities to collaborate with and support each other, represent the parent perspective, and advocate for parent voice and leadership in early childhood systems.

She Was But, I Am: Notice Me With Poetry

Using Our Shared Power to Advance Justice

Forward Ever: A Year in Review

Opportunities to Create Affirming and Supportive Communities for LGBTQ+ Young People

Parents are Struggling with High Prices this Year

Spotlight on MLPB’s DULCE Partners: A Discussion with Jalyn Alzate, DULCE Family Specialist

Direct File: How Parent and Family Engagement in Design Can Improve Access to Refundable Credits

CSSP Welcomes New Members to Board of Directors; Leticia Peguero Assumes Chair of Board of Directors

Women’s History Month 2024

The Need to Support Children Through Parent- and Caregiver-Focused Policies

See All Posts

Senior Associate

Expertise: Racial Equity & Justice, Youth

Elisa Minoff

Senior policy analyst.

Expertise: Addressing Poverty, Immigration, Racial Equity & Justice

Kaysie Getty

Senior program analyst.

Expertise: Child Welfare, Youth

Arthur Fidel Argomaniz

Expertise: Child Welfare, Young Children & Their Families

Esi Hutchful

Expertise: Addressing Poverty, Child Welfare, Racial Equity & Justice

Danielle Sherman

Expertise: Building Strong Communities, Racial Equity & Justice

Alex Coccia

Expertise: Addressing Poverty, Child Welfare, Young Children & Their Families

Annika List

Program & research assistant.

Expertise: Young Children & Their Families

Charlyn Harper Browne

Senior fellow.

Expertise: Child Welfare, Racial Equity & Justice, Young Children & Their Families

Rachel Paletta

Expertise: Child Welfare

Susan Hattersley

Director, people & culture.

See All Experts

• IPR Intranet

INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

Harnessing the power of artificial intelligence, studying the high school experience.

Faculty Spotlight: Olga Kamenchuk

A WISE(r) Way to Measure Water Insecurity

Documenting Access to Universal Pre-K in Chicago

Research Excellence. Policy Impact.

Rigorous, interdisciplinary social science research for the common good

Policymakers

We connect policymakers with nonpartisan research relevant to policy debates in city halls and state houses, as well as the halls of Congress and of international organizations.

Browse our trending research or contact us if you need help finding an expert or research on a specific topic.

• Policy Briefs: Download two-page analyses of research on current policy topics.
• Trending Policy Topics: Discover research related to policy headlines.
• Faculty Experts: Learn more about IPR researchers and their expertise.

IPR faculty researchers are leaders in their respective fields and stand ready to share their expertise. If you are interested in interviewing an IPR faculty member or covering their research, use the resources below or contact us . We're here to help you get the story.

• Faculty Experts: Connect with IPR researchers who can speak to policy issues.
• Trending Policy Topics: Dive into research on policy topics in the headlines.
• News Stories: Read the latest IPR research news.
• Media Resources: Find out how we can assist reporters.

• Events: Join us for events that tackle social issues and research methods.
• Faculty Experts: Learn more about IPR faculty and their policy-relevant research.
• Research Topics: Find out how IPR research addresses key social issues.

• Student Resources: Learn more about opportunities for students and postdocs.
• Events: Join us for events that debate policy and methodological topics.
• Faculty Experts: Find out more about IPR faculty and their policy-relevant research.
• Research Topics: Dive into IPR research that addresses key social issues.

Explore Policy Research

Connecting our rigorous research on vital policy issues with policymakers, journalists, researchers, students, and the world

About the Institute

We are a diverse research community of scholars, students, and staff, representing over 20 fields including economics, education, health, sociology, and anthropology.

Areas We Study

Our interdisciplinary research is focused on eight core areas ranging from poverty, race, and inequality to methodology and social disparities and health.

Our Publications

Our faculty researchers publish their findings in top peer-reviewed journals and produce working papers, reports, books, and policy briefs.

Join the Policy Discussion

Get involved in policy research discussions by following @IPRatNU on social media or attending one of our events.

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Policy
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Policy and Society
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• < Previous

How Should We Theorise Public Policy? Problem Solving and Problematicity

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Nick Turnbull, How Should We Theorise Public Policy? Problem Solving and Problematicity, Policy and Society , Volume 25, Issue 2, January 2006, Pages 3–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(06)70072-8

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The concept of policy problem informs the scholarly study of policymaking as well as policy practice. But the problem solving theory of policymaking has many conceptual shortcomings. The problem solving concept is flawed because it defines complex problems univocally, obscuring differences of opinion; focuses on problem solving at the expense of problem setting; and represents the policy process scientifically to disguise and/or suppress the contingent nature of political reasoning. The propositional basis of theories of the policy process excludes problematicity and produces a fragmented theory which misrepresents the political nature of policymaking. By building upon an epistemology of questioning we can address these shortcomings by revising and expanding the problem concept in policy theory. Such a conception implies that policy studies is not distinctive because it is applied and should therefore be integrated with political theory.

C.W.   Anderson . Political Philosophy, Practical Reason, and Policy Analysis. F.   Fischer , J.   Forester . Confronting Values in Policy Analysis: The Politics of Criteria . 1987 ; Sage : Newbury Park, CA   22 – 44 .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

T.J.   Anton . The Imagery of Policy Analysis: Stability, Determinism, and Reaction. P.M.   Gregg . Problems of Theory in Policy Analysis . 1976 ; Lexington Books : Lexington, MA   91 – 101 .

D.B.   Bobrow , J.S.   Dryzek . Policy Analysis by Design. 1987 ; Pittsburgh University Press : Pittsburgh, PA

P.   Bourdieu . Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. 1998 ; Polity Press : Cambridge, UK

D.   Braun , A.   Busch . Public Policy and Political Ideas . 1999 ; Edward Elgar : Cheltenham, UK

H.K.   Colebatch . Organizational Meanings of Program Evaluation . Policy Sciences . 28   1995 ; 149 – 164 .

H.K.   Colebatch . Policy. 2nd edition, 2002 ; Open University Press : Buckingham, UK

H.K.   Colebatch . Beyond the Policy Cycle: The Policy Process in Australia . 2006 ; Allen & Unwin : Crows Nest, NSW

P.   de Leon . The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going?. P.A.   Sabatier . Theories of the Policy Process . 1999 ; Westview Press : Boulder, CO   19 – 32 .

J.   Dewey . Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. 1938 ; Henry Holt : New York

J.   Dewey . How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. 2nd revised edition, 1971 ; Henry Regnery : Chicago, IL

J.S.   Dryzek . Policy Analysis as a Hermeneutic Activity . Policy Sciences . 14   1982 ; 309 – 329 .

F.   Eidlin . Ethical Problems of Imperfect Knowledge in the Policy Sciences. E.B.   Portis , M.B.   Levy . Handbook of Political Theory and Policy Science . 1988 ; Greenwood Press : Westport, CT   45 – 60 .

F.   Fischer . Politics, Values, and Public Policy: The Problem of Methodology. 1995 ; Westview Press : Boulder, CO

F.   Fischer . Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. 2003 ; Oxford University Press : Oxford

F.   Fischer , J.   Forester . The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. 1993 ; Duke University Press : Durham, NJ

J.   Forester . Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice: Toward a Critical Pragmatism. 1993 ; State University of New York Press : Albany, NY

J.   Forester . The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. 1999 ; Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, UK

H.   Gottweis . forthcoming. ‘Rhetoric in Policy Making: Between Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. F.   Fischer , G.J.   Miller , M.S.   Sidney . Handbook of Public Policy Analysis . 2006 ; Taylor & Francis : Boca Raton, FL   237 – 250 .

M.E.   Hawkesworth . Theoretical Issues in Policy Analysis. 1988 ; State University of New York Press : Albany, NY

M.   Howlett , M.   Ramesh . Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. 2nd edition, 2003 ; Oxford University Press : Don Mill, ON

H.C.   Jenkins-Smith . Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis. 1990 ; Brooks/Cole : Pacific Grove, CA

B.   Jennings . Interpretation and the Practice of Policy Analysis. F.   Fischer , J.   Forester . Confronting Values in Policy Analysis: The Politics of Criteria . 1987 ; Sage : Newbury Park, CA   128 – 152 .

J.W.   Kingdon . Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 1984 ; Little Brown : Boston, MA

H.D.   Lasswell . The Policy Orientation. D.   Lerner , H.D.   Lasswell . The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method . 1951 ; Stanford University Press : Stanford, CA   3 – 15 .

H.D.   Lasswell . A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. 1971 ; American Elsevier : New York

C.E.   Lindblom . The Science of “Muddling Through” . Public Administration Review . 19 ( 2 Critical Perspectives in Policy Analysis: Discourse, Deliberation and Narration): 1959 ; 79 – 88 .

C.E.   Lindblom . The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making Through Mutual Adjustment. 1965 ; Free Press : New York

C.E.   Lindblom . Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society. 1990 ; Yale University Press : New Haven, CT

C.E.   Lindblom , E.J.   Woodhouse . The Policy-Making Process. 3rd edition, 1993 ; Prentice Hall : Englewood Cliffs, NJ

G.   Majone . Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. 1989 ; Yale University Press : New Haven, CT

R.K.   Merton , D.   Lerner . Social Scientists and Research Policy. D.   Lerner , H.D.   Lasswell . The Policy Sciences . 1951 ; Stanford University Press : Stanford, CA   282 – 307 .

M.   Meyer . From Logic to Rhetoric. 1986 ; John Benjamins : Amsterdam

M.   Meyer , D.   Jamison with , A.   Hart . Of Problematology: Philosophy, Science and Language . 1995 ; University of Chicago Press : Chicago, IL

J.L.   Pressman , A.   Wildavsky . Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland. 1973 ; University of California Press : Berkeley, CA

M.   Rein , D.   Schön . Problem Setting in Policy Research. C.H.   Weiss . Using Social Research in Public Policy Making . 1977 ; Lexington Books : Lexington, MA   235 – 251 .

M.   Rein , S.   White . Policy Research: Belief and Doubt . Policy Analysis . 3   1977 ; 239 – 271 .

R.D.   Rose . Disciplined Research and Undisciplined Problems. C.H.   Weiss . Using Social Research in Public Policy Making . 1977 ; Lexington Books : Lexington, MA   23 – 35 .

P.A.   Sabatier . The Need for Better Theories. P.A.   Sabatier , H.   Jenkins-Smith . Theories of the Policy Process . 1999 ; Westview Press : Boulder, CO   2 – 17 .

D.   Schön . The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. 1996 ; Arena : Aldershot, UK

D.A.   Stone . Policy Paradox and Political Reason. 1988 ; Harper Collins : New York

C.   Tilly . To Explain Political Processes . American Journal of Sociology . 100 ( 6 ): 1995 ; 1594 – 1610 .

D.   Torgerson . Policy Analysis and Public Life: The Restoration of Phronesis?. J.   Farr , J.S.   Dryzek , S.T.   Leonard . Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions . 1995 ; Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, UK   225 – 252 .

N.   Turnbull . Rhetoric Questioning and Policy Theory . Melbourne Journal of Politics . 30   2005-06 ; 39 – 58 .

G.   Vickers . The Art of Judgment: A Study of Policy Making. 1965 ; Chapman & Hall : London

H.   Wagenaar , S.D.N.   Cook . Understanding Policy Practices: Action, Dialectic and Deliberation. M.   Hajer , H.   Wagenaar . Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society . 2003 ; Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, UK   139 – 171 .

D.   Yanow . How Does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions. 1996 ; Georgetown University Press : Washington D.C.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1839-3373
• Print ISSN 1449-4035
• Copyright © 2024 Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 19 February 2019

The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics

• Kathryn Oliver   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4326-5258 1 &
• Paul Cairney 2  

Palgrave Communications volume  5 , Article number:  21 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

85k Accesses

140 Citations

894 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Politics and international relations
• Science, technology and society

A Correction to this article was published on 17 March 2020

This article has been updated

Many academics have strong incentives to influence policymaking, but may not know where to start. We searched systematically for, and synthesised, the ‘how to’ advice in the academic peer-reviewed and grey literatures. We condense this advice into eight main recommendations: (1) Do high quality research; (2) make your research relevant and readable; (3) understand policy processes; (4) be accessible to policymakers: engage routinely, flexible, and humbly; (5) decide if you want to be an issue advocate or honest broker; (6) build relationships (and ground rules) with policymakers; (7) be ‘entrepreneurial’ or find someone who is; and (8) reflect continuously: should you engage, do you want to, and is it working? This advice seems like common sense. However, it masks major inconsistencies, regarding different beliefs about the nature of the problem to be solved when using this advice. Furthermore, if not accompanied by critical analysis and insights from the peer-reviewed literature, it could provide misleading guidance for people new to this field.

Similar content being viewed by others

Worldwide divergence of values

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

Interviews in the social sciences

Introduction.

Many academics have strong incentives to influence policymaking, as extrinsic motivation to show the ‘impact’ of their work to funding bodies, or intrinsic motivation to make a difference to policy. However, they may not know where to start (Evans and Cvitanovic, 2018 ). Although many academics have personal experience, or have attended impact training, there is a limited empirical evidence base to inform academics wishing to create impact. Although there is a significant amount of commentary about the processes and contexts affecting evidence use in policy and practice (Head, 2010 ; Whitty, 2015 ), the relative importance of different factors on achieving ‘impact’ has not been established (Haynes et al., 2011 ; Douglas, 2012 ; Wilkinson, 2017 ). Nor have common understandings of the concepts of ‘use’ or ‘impact’ themselves been developed. As pointed out by one of our reviewers, even empirical and conceptual papers often routinely fail to define or unpack these terms—with some exceptions (Weiss, 1979 ; Nutley et al., 2007 ; Parkhurst, 2017 ). Perhaps because of this theoretical paucity, there are few empirical evaluations of strategies to increase the uptake of evidence in policy and practice (Boaz et al., 2011 ), and those that exist tend not to offer advice for the individual academic. How then, should academics engage with policy?

There are substantial numbers of blogs, editorials, commentaries, which provide tips and suggestions for academics on how best to increase their impact, how to engage most effectively, or similar topics. We condense this advice into 8 main tips, to: produce high quality research, make it relevant, understand the policy processes in which you engage, be accessible to policymakers, decide if you want to offer policy advice, build networks, be ‘entrepreneurial’, and reflect on your activities.

Taken at face value, much of this advice is common sense, perhaps because it is inevitably bland and generic. When we interrogate it in more detail, we identify major inconsistencies in advice regarding: (a) what counts as good evidence, (b) how best to communicate it, (c) what policy engagement is for, (d) if engagement is to frame problems or simply measure them according to an existing frame, (e) how far to go to be useful and influential, (f) if you need and can produce ground rules or trust (g) what entrepreneurial means, and (h) how much choice researchers should have to engage in policymaking or not.

These inconsistencies reflect different beliefs about the nature of the problem to be solved when using this advice, which derive from unresolved debates about the nature and role of science and policy. We focus on three dilemmas that arise from engagement—for example, should you ‘co-produce’ research and policy and give policy recommendations?—and reflect on wider systemic issues, such as the causes of unequal rewards and punishments for engagement. Perhaps the biggest dilemma reflects the fact that engagement is a career choice, not an event: how far should you go to encourage the use of evidence in policy if you began your career as a researcher? These debates are rehearsed more fully and regularly in the peer-reviewed literature (Hammersley, 2013 ; de Leeuw et al., 2008 ; Fafard, 2015 ; Smith and Stewart, 2015 ; Smith and Stewart, 2017 ; Oliver and Faul, 2018 ), which have spawned narrative reviews of policy theory and systematic reviews of the literature on the ‘barriers and facilitators’ to the use of evidence in policy. For example, we know from policy studies that policymakers seek ways to act decisively, not produce more evidence until it speaks for itself; and, there is no simple way to link the supply of evidence to its demand in a policymaking system (see Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ). We draw on this literature to highlight inconsistencies and weaknesses in the advice offered to academics.

We assess how useful the ‘how to’ advice is for academics, to what extent the advice reflects the reality of policymaking and evidence use (based on our knowledge of the empirical and theoretical literatures, described more fully in Cairney and Oliver, 2018 ) and explore the implications of any mismatch between the two. We map and interrogate the ‘how to’ advice, by comparing it with the empirical and theoretical literature on creating impact, and on the policymaking context more broadly. We use these literatures to highlight key choices and tensions in engaging with policymakers, and signpost more useful, informed advice for academics on when, how, and if to engage with policymakers.

Methods: a systematic review of the ‘how to’ literature

Systematic review is a method to synthesise diverse evidence types on a clear defined problem (Petticrew and Roberts, 2008 ). Although most commonly associated with statistical methods to aggregate effect sizes (more accurately called meta-analyses), systematic reviews can be conducted on any body of written evidence, including grey or unpublished literature (Tyndall, 2008 ). All systematic reviews take steps to be transparent about the decisions made, the methods used to identify relevant evidence, and how this was synthesised to be transparent, replicable and exhaustive (resources allowing) (Gough et al., 2012 ). Primarily they involve clearly defined searches, inclusion and exclusion processes, and a quality assessment/synthesis process.

We searched three major electronic databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) and selected websites (e.g., ODI, Research Fortnight, Wonkhe) and journals (including Evidence and Policy, Policy and Politics, Research Policy), using a combination of terms. Terms such as evidence and impact were tested to search for articles explaining how to better ‘use’ evidence, or how to create policy ‘impact’. After testing, the search was conducted by combining the following terms, tailored to each database: ((evidence or science or scientist or researchers or impact), (help or advi* or tip* or "how to" or relevan*)) policy* OR practic* OR government* OR parliament*). We checked studies on full text where available and added them to a database for data-extraction. We conducted searches between June 30th and August 3rd 2018. We identified studies for data extraction when they covered these areas: Tips for researchers, tips for policymakers, types of useful research / characteristics of useful research, and other factors.

We included academic, policy and grey publications which offered advice to academics or policymakers on how to engage better with each other. We did not include: studies which explored the factors leading to evidence use, general commentaries on the roles of academics, or empirical analyses of the various initiatives, interventions, structures and roles of academics and researchers in policy (unless they offered primary data and tips on how to improve); book reviews; or, news reports. However, we use some of these publications to reflect more broadly on the historical changes to the academic-policy relationship.

We included 86 academic and non-academic publications in this review (see Table 1 for an overview). Although we found reports dating back to the 1950s on how governments and presidents (predominantly UK/US) do or do not use scientific advisors (Marshall, 1980 ; Bondi, 1982 ; Mayer, 1982 ; Lepkowski, 1984 ; Koshland Jr. et al., 1988 ; Sy, 1989 ; Krige, 1990 ; Srinivasan, 2000 ) and committees (Sapolsky, 1968 ; Wolfle, 1968 ; Editorial, 1972 ; Walsh, 1973 ; Nichols, 1988 ; Young and Jones, 1994 ; Lawler, 1997 ; Masood, 1999 ; Morgan et al., 2001 ; Oakley et al., 2003 ; Allen et al. 2012 ). The earliest publication included was from 1971 (Aurum, 1971 ). Thirty-four were published in the last two years, reflecting ever increasing interest in how academics can increase their impact on policy. Although some academic publications are included, we mainly found blogs, letters, and editorials, often in high-impact publications such as Cell, Science, Nature and the Lancet. Many were opinion pieces by people moving between policy officials and academic roles, or blogs by and for early career researchers on how to establish impactful careers.

The advice is very consistent over the last 80 years; and between disciplines as diverse as gerontology, ecology, and economics. As noted in an earlier systematic review, previous studies have identified hundreds of factors which act as barriers to the uptake of evidence in policy (Oliver et al., 2014 ), albeit unsupported by empirical evidence. Many of the advisory pieces address these barriers, assuming rather than demonstrating that their simple advice will help ease the flow of evidence into policy. The pieces also often cite each other, even to the extent of using the exact phrasing. Therefore, the combination of previous academic reviews with our survey of ‘how to’ advice reinforces our sense of ‘saturation’, in which we have identified all of the most relevant advice (available in written form). In our synthesis, using thematic analysis, we condense these tips into 8 main themes. Then, we analyse these tips critically, with reference to wider discussions in the peer-reviewed literature.

Eight key tips on ‘how to influence policy’

Do high quality research.

Researchers are advised to conduct high-quality, robust research (Boyd, 2013 ; Whitty, 2015 ; Docquier, 2017 ; Eisenstein, 2017 ) and provide it in a way that is timely, policy relevant, and easy to understand, but not at the expense of accuracy (Havens, 1992 ; Norse, 2005 ; Simera et al., 2010 ; Bilotta et al., 2015 ; Kerr et al., 2015 ; Olander et al. 2017 ; POST, 2017 ). Specific research methods, metrics and/or models should be used (Aguinis et al. 2010 ), with systematic reviews/evidence synthesis considered particularly useful for policymakers (Lavis et al., 2003 ; Sutherland, 2013 ; Caird et al., 2015 ; Andermann et al., 2016 ; Donnelly et al., 2018 ; Topp et al., 2018 ), and often also randomised controlled trials, properly piloted and evaluated (Walley et al., 2018 ). Truly interdisciplinary research is required to identify new perspectives (Chapman et al., 2015 ; Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017 ) and explore the “practical significance” of research for policy and practice (Aguinis et al. 2010 ). Academics must communicate scientific uncertainty and the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of research (Norse, 2005 ; Aguinis et al., 2010 ; Tyler, 2013 ; Game et al., 2015 ; Sutherland and Burgman, 2015 ), and be trained to “estimate probabilities of events, quantities or model parameters” (Sutherland and Burgman, 2015 ). Be ‘policy-relevant’ (NCCPE, 2018 ; Maddox, 1996 ; Green et al., 2009 ; Farmer, 2010 ; Kerr et al., 2015 ; Colglazier, 2016 ; Tesar et al., 2016 ; Echt, 2017b ; Fleming and Pyenson, 2017 ; Olander et al., 2017 ; POST, 2017 ) (although this is rarely defined). Two exceptions include the advice for research programmes to be embedded within national and regional governmental programmes (Walley et al., 2018 ) and for researchers to provide policymakers with models estimating the harms and benefits of different policy options (Basbøll, 2018 ) (Topp et al., 2018 ).

Communicate well: make your research relevant and readable

Academics should engage in more effective dissemination, (NCCPE, 2018 ; Maddox, 1996 ; Green et al., 2009 ; Farmer, 2010 ; Kerr et al., 2015 ; Colglazier, 2016 ; Tesar et al., 2016 ; Echt, 2017b ; Fleming and Pyenson, 2017 ; Olander et al. 2017 ; POST, 2017 ), make data public, (Malakoff, 2017 ), and provide clear summaries and syntheses of problems and solutions (Maybin, 2016 ). Use a range of outputs (social media, blogs, policy briefs), to make sure that policy actors can contact you with follow up questions (POST, 2017 ) (Parry-Davies and Newell, 2014 ), and to write for generalist, but not ignorant readers (Hillman, 2016 ). Avoid jargon but don’t over-simplify (Farmer, 2010 ; Goodwin, 2013 ); make simple and definitive statements (Brumley, 2014 ), and communicate complexity (Fischoff, 2015 ; Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017 ) (Whitty, 2015 ).

Some blogs advise academics to use established storytelling techniques to persuade policymakers of a course of action or better communicate scientific ideas. Produce good stories based on emotional appeals or humour to expand and engage your audience (Evans, 2013 ; Fischoff, 2015 ; Docquier, 2017 ; Petes and Meyer, 2018 ). Jones and Crow develop a point-by-point guide to creating a narrative through scene-setting, casting characters, establishing a plot, and equating the moral with a ‘solution to the policy problem’ (Jones and Crow, 2017 ; Jones and Crow, 2018 ).

Understand policy processes, policymaking context, and key actors

Academics are advised to get to know how policy works, and in particular to accept that the normative technocratic ideal of ‘evidence-based’ policymaking does not reflect the political nature of decision-making (Tyler, 2013 ; Echt, 2017a ). Policy decisions are ultimately taken by politicians on behalf of constituents, and technological proposals are only ever going to be part of a solution (Eisenstein, 2017 ). Some feel that science should hold a privileged position in policy (Gluckman, 2014 ; Reed and Evely, 2016 ) but many recognise that research is unlikely to translate directly into an off-the-shelf ready-to-wear policy proposal (Tyler, 2013 ; Gluckman, 2014 ; Prehn, 2018 ), and that policy rarely changes overnight (Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017 ). Being pragmatic and managing one’s expectations about the likely impact of research on policy—which bears little resemblance to the ‘policy cycle’—is advised (Sutherland and Burgman, 2015 ; Tyler, 2013 ).

Second, learn the basics, such as the difference between the role of government and parliament, and between other types of policymakers (Tyler, 2013 ). Note that your policy audience is likely to change on a yearly basis if not more frequently (Hillman, 2016 ); that they have busy and constrained lives (Lloyd, 2016 ; Docquier, 2017 ; Prehn, 2018 ) and their own career concerns and pathways (Lloyd, 2016 ; Docquier, 2017 ; Prehn, 2018 ). Do not guess what might work; take the time to listen and learn from policy colleagues (Datta, 2018 ).

Third, learn to recognise broader policymaking dynamics, paying particular attention to changing policy priorities (Fischoff, 2015 ; Cairney, 2017 ). Academics are good at placing their work in the context of the academic literature, but also need to situate it in the “political landscape” (Himmrich, 2016 ). To do so means taking the time to learn what, when, where and who to influence (NCCPE, 2018 ; Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017 ; Tilley et al., 2017 ) and getting to know audiences (Jones and Crow, 2018 ); learning about, and maximising use of established ways to engage, such as in advisory committees and expert panels (Gluckman, 2014 ; Pain, 2014 ; Malakoff, 2017 ; Hayes and Wilson, 2018 ) (Pain, 2014 ). Persistance and patience is advised—sticking at it, and changing strategy if it is not working (Graffy, 1999 ; Tilley et al., 2017 ).

Be ‘accessible’ to policymakers: engage routinely, flexibly, and humbly

Prehn uses the phrase ‘professional friends’, which encapsulates vague but popular concepts such as ‘build trust’ and ‘develop good relationships’ (Farmer, 2010 ; Kerr et al., 2015 ; Prehn, 2018 ). Building and maintaining long-term relationships takes effort, time and commitment (Goodwin, 2013 ; Maybin, 2016 ), can be easily damaged. It can take time to become established as a “trusted voice” (Goodwin, 2013 ) and may require a commitment to remaining non-partisan (Morgan et al. 2001 ). Therefore, build routine engagement on authentic relationships, developing a genuine rapport by listening and responding (Goodwin, 2013 ; Jo Clift Consulting, 2016 ; Petes and Meyer, 2018 ). Some suggest developing leadership and communication skills, but with reference to listening and learning (Petes and Meyer, 2018 ; Topp et al., 2018 ); Adopting a respectful, helpful, and humble demeanour, recognising that while academics are authorities on the evidence, we may not be the appropriate people to describe or design policy options (Nichols, 1972 ; Knottnerus and Tugwell, 2017 ) (although many disagree (Morgan et al., 2001 ; Morandi, 2009 )). Behave courteously by acting professionally (asking for feedback; responding promptly; following up meetings and conversations swiftly) (NCCPE, 2018 ; Goodwin, 2013 ; Jo Clift Consulting, 2016 ). Several commentators also reference the idea of ‘two cultures’ of policy and research (Shergold, 2011 ), which have their own language, practices and values (Goodwin, 2013 ). Learning to speak this language would enable researchers to better understand all that is said and unsaid in interactions (Jo Clift Consulting, 2016 ).

Decide if you want to be an ‘issue advocate’ or ‘honest broker’

Reflecting on accessibility should prompt researchers to consider how to draw the line between providing information or recommendations. One possibility is for researchers to simply disseminate their research honestly, clearly, and in a timely fashion, acting as an ‘honest broker’ of the evidence base (Pielke, 2007 ). In this mode, other actors may pick up and use evidence to influence policy in a number of ways—shaping the debate, framing issues, problematizing the construction of solutions and issues, explaining the options (Nichols, 1972 ; Knottnerus and Tugwell, 2017 )—while researchers seek to remain ‘neutral’. Another option is to recommend specific policy options or describe the implications for policy based on their research (Morgan et al., 2001 ; Morandi, 2009 ), perhaps by storytelling to indicate a preferred course of action (Evans, 2013 ; Fischoff, 2015 ; Docquier, 2017 ; Petes and Meyer, 2018 ). However, the boundary between these two options is very difficult to negotiate or identify in practice, particularly since policymakers often value candid judgements and opinions from people they trust, rather than new research (Maybin, 2016 ).

Build relationships (and ground rules) with policymakers

Getting to know policymakers better and building longer term networks (Chapman et al., 2015 ; Evans and Cvitanovic, 2018 ) could give researchers better access to opportunities to shape policy agendas (Colglazier, 2016 ; Lucey et al., 2017 ; Tilley et al., 2017 ), give themselves more credibility within the policy arena (Prehn, 2018 ), help researchers to identify the correct policy actors or champions to work with (Echt, 2017a ), and provide better insight into policy problems (Chapman et al., 2015 ; Colglazier, 2016 ; Lucey et al., 2017 ; Tilley et al., 2017 ). Working with policymakers as early as possible in the process helps develop shared interpretations of the policy problem (Echt, 2017b ; Tyler, 2017 ) and agreement on the purpose of research (Shergold, 2011 ). Co-designing, or otherwise doing research-for-policy together is widely held to be morally, ethically, and practically one of the best ways to achieve the elusive goal of getting evidence into policy (Sebba, 2011 ; Green, 2016 ; Eisenstein, 2017 ). Engaging publics more generally is also promoted (Chapman et al., 2015 ). Relationship-building activities require major investment and skills, and often go unrecognised (Prehn, 2018 ), but may offer the most likely route to get evidence into policy (Sebba, 2011 ; Green, 2016 ; Eisenstein, 2017 ). Initially, researchers can use blogs and social media (Brumley, 2014 ; POST, 2017 ) to increase their visibility to the policy community, combined with networking and direct approaches to policy actors (Tyler, 2013 ).

One of the few pieces built on a case study of impact argued that academics should build coalitions of allies, but also engage political opponents, and learn how to fight for their ideas (Coffait, 2017 ). However, collaboration can also lead to conflict and reputational damage (De Kerckhove et al., 2015 ). Therefore, when possible, academics should produce ground rules acceptable to academics and policymakers. They should be honest and thoughtful about how, when, and why to engage; and recognise the labour and resources required for successful engagement (Boaz et al., 2018 ). Successful engagement may require all parties to agree about processes , including ethics, consent, and confidentiality, and outputs , including data, intellectual property (De Kerckhove et al., 2015 ; Game et al., 2015 ; Hutchings and Stenseth, 2016 ). The organic development of these networks and contacts takes time and effort, and should be recognised as assets, particularly when offered new contacts by colleagues (Evans and Cvitanovic, 2018 ; Boaz et al., 2018 )

Be ‘entrepreneurial’ or find someone who is

Much of the ‘how to’ advice projects an image of a daring, persuasive scientist, comfortable in policy environments and always available when needed (Datta, 2018 ), by using mentors to build networks, or through ‘cold calling’ (Evans and Cvitanovic, 2018 ). Some ideas and values need to be fought for if they are to achieve dominance (Coffait, 2017 ; Docquier, 2017 ), and multiple strategies may be required, from leveraging trust in academics to advocating more generally for evidence based policy (Garrett, 2018 ). Academics are advised to develop “media-savvy” skills (Sebba, 2011 ), learn how to “sell the sizzle”(Farmer, 2010 ), become able to “convince people who think differently that shared action is possible,” (Fischoff, 2015 ), but also be pragmatic, by identifying real, tangible impacts and delivering them (Reed and Evely, 2016 ). Such a range of requirements may imply that being constantly available, and becoming part of the scenery, makes it more likely for a researcher to be the person to hand in an hour of need (Goodwin, 2013 ). Or, it could prompt a researcher to recognise their relative inability to be persuasive, and to hire a ‘knowledge broker’ to act on their behalf (Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017 ; Quarmby, 2018 ).

Reflect continuously: should you engage, do you want to, and is it working?

Academics may be a good fit in the policy arena if they ‘want to be in real world’, ‘enjoy finding solutions to complex problems’ (Echt, 2017a ; Petes and Meyer, 2018 ), or are driven ‘by a passion greater than simply adding another item to your CV’ (Burgess, 2005 ). They should be genuinely motivated to take part in policy engagement, seeing it as a valuable exercise in its own right, as opposed to something instrumental to merely improve the stated impact of research (Goodwin, 2013 ). For example, scientists can “engage more productively in boundary work, which is defined as the ways in which scientists construct, negotiate, and defend the boundary between science and policy” (Rose, 2015 ). They can converse with policymakers about how science and scientific careers are affected by science policy, as a means of promoting more useful support within government (Pain, 2014 ). Or, they can use teaching to get students involved at an early stage in their careers, to train a new generation of impact-ready entrepreneurs (Hayes and Wilson, 2018 ). Such a profound requirement of one’s time should prompt constant reflection and refinement of practice. It is hard to know what our impact may be or how to sustain it (Reed and Evely, 2016 ). Therefore, academics who wish to engage must learn and reflect on the consequences of their actions (Datta, 2018 ; Topp et al., 2018 ).

The wider literature on the wider policymaking context

Our observation of this advice is that it is rather vague, very broad, and each theme contains a diversity of opinions. We also argue that much of this advice is based on misunderstandings about policy processes, and the roles of researchers and policymakers. We summarise these misunderstandings below (see Table 2 for an overview), by drawing a wider range of sources such as policy studies literature (Cairney, 2016 ) and a systematic review of factors influencing evidence use in policy (Oliver et al., 2014 ), to identify the wider context in which to understand and use these tips. We also contextualise these discussions in the broader evidence and policy/practice literature.

Firstly, there is no consensus over what counts as good evidence for policy (Oliver and de Vocht, 2015 ), and therefore how best to communicate good evidence . While we can probably agree what constitutes high quality research within each field, the criteria we use to assess it in many disciplines (such as generalisability and methodological rigour) have far lower salience for policymakers (Hammersley, 2013 ; Locock and Boaz, 2004 ). They do not adhere to the scientific idea of a ‘knowledge deficit’ in which our main collective aim is to reduce policymaker uncertainty by producing more of the best scientific evidence (Crow and Jones, 2018 ). Rather, evidence garners credibility, legitimacy and usefulness through its connections to individuals, networks and topical issues (Cash et al., 2003 ; Boaz et al., 2015 ; Oliver and Faul, 2018 ).

One way in which to understand the practical outcome of this distinction is to consider the profound consequences arising from the ways in which policymakers address their ‘bounded rationality’ (Simon, 1976 ; Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ). Individuals seek cognitive shortcuts to avoid decision-making ‘paralysis’—when faced with an overwhelming amount of possibly-relevant information—and allow them to process information efficiently enough to make choices (Gigerenzer and Selten, 2001 ). They combine ‘rational’ shortcuts, including trust in expertise and scientific sources, and ‘irrational’ shortcuts, to use their beliefs, emotions, habits, and familiarity with issues to identify policy problems and solutions (see Haidt, 2001 ; Kahneman, 2011 ; Lewis, 2013 ; Baumgartner, 2017 ; Jones and Thomas, 2017 ; Sloman and Fernbach, 2017 ). Therefore, we need to understand how they use such shortcuts to interpret their world, pay attention to issues, define issues as policy problems, and become more or less receptive to proposed solutions. In this scenario, effective policy actors—including advocates of research evidence—frame evidence to address the many ways to interpret policy problems (Cairney, 2016 ; Wellstead et al. 2018 ) and compete to draw attention to one ‘image’ of a problem and one feasible solution at the expense of the competition (Kingdon and Thurber, 1984 ; Majone, 1989 ; Baumgartner and Jones, 1993 ; Zahariadis, 2007 ). This debate determines the demand for evidence.

Secondly, there is little empirical guidance on how to gain the wide range of skills that researchers and policymakers need, to act collectively to address policymaking complexity, including to: produce evidence syntheses, manage expert communities, ‘co-produce’ research and policy with a wide range of stakeholders, and be prepared to offer policy recommendations as well as scientific advice (Topp et al., 2018 ). The list of skills includes the need to understand the policy processes in which you engage, such as by understanding the constituent parts of policymaking environments (John, 2003 , p. 488; (Cairney and Heikkila, 2014 ), p. 364–366) and their implications for the use of evidence:

Many actors make and influence policy in many ‘venues’ across many levels and types of government. Therefore, it is difficult to know where the ‘action’ is.

Each venue has its own ‘institutions’, or rules and norms maintained by many policymaking organisations. These rules can be formal and well understood, or informal, unwritten, and difficult to grasp (Ostrom, 2007a , 2007b ). Therefore, it takes time to learn the rules before being able to use them effectively.

These ‘rules of the game’ extend to policy networks, or the relationships between policymakers and influencers, many of which develop in ‘subsystems’ and contain relatively small groups of specialists. One can be a privileged insider in one venue but excluded from another, and the outcome may relate minimally to evidence.

Networks often reproduce dominant ‘ideas’ regarding the nature of the policy problem, the language we use to describe it, and the political feasibility of potential solutions (Kingdon and Thurber, 1984 ). Therefore, framing can make the difference between being listened to or ignored.

Policy conditions and events can reinforce or destabilise institutions. Evidence presented during crises or ‘focusing events’ (Birkland, 1997 ) can prompt lurches of attention from one issue to another, but this outcome is rare, and policy can remain unchanged for decades.

A one-size fits-all model is unlikely to help researchers navigate this environment where different audiences and institutions have different cultures, preferences and networks. Gaining knowledge of the complex policy context can be extremely challenging, yet the implications are profoundly important. In that context, theory-informed studies recommend investing your time over the long term, to build up alliances, trust in the messenger, knowledge of the system, and exploit ‘windows of opportunity’ for policy change (Cairney, 2016 , p.124). However, they also suggest that this investment of time may pay off only after years or decades—or not at all (Cairney and Oliver, 2018 ).

This context could have a profound impact on the way in which we interpret the eight tips. For example, it may:

tip the balance from scientific to policy-relevant measures of evidence quality;

shift the ways in which we communicate evidence from a focus on clarity to an emphasis on framing;

suggest that we need to engage with policymakers to such an extent that the division between honest broker and issue advocate become blurry;

prompt us to focus less on the ‘entrepreneurial’ skills of individual researchers and more on the nature of their environment; and

inform reflection on our role, since successful engagement may feel more like a career choice than an event.

Throughout this process, we need to decide what policy engagement is for —whether it is to frame problems or simply measure them according to an existing frame—and how far researchers should go to be useful and influential . While immersing oneself fully in policy processes may be the best way to achieve credibility and impact for researchers, there are significant consequences of becoming a political actor (Jasanoff and Polsby, 1991 ; Pielke, 2007 ; Haynes et al., 2011 ; Douglas, 2015 ). The most common consequences include criticism within one’s peer-group (Hutchings and Stenseth, 2016 ), being seen as an academic ‘lightweight’ (Maynard, 2015 ), and being used to add legitimacy to a policy position (Himmrich, 2016 ; Reed and Evely, 2016 ; Crouzat et al., 2018 ). More serious consequences include a loss of status completely—David Nutt famously lost his advisory role after publicly criticising UK government drug policy—and the loss of one’s safety if adopting an activist mindset (Zevallos, 2017 ). If academics need to go ‘all in’ to secure meaningful impact, we need to reflect on the extent to which they have the resources and support to do so.

Three major dilemmas in policy engagement

These misunderstandings matter, because well-meaning people are giving recommendations that are not based on empirical evidence, and may lead to significant risks, such as reputational damage and wasted resources. Further, their audience may reinforce this problem by holding onto deficit models of science and policy, and equating policy impact with a simple linear policy cycle. When unsuccessful, despite taking the ‘how to’ advice to heart, researchers may blame politics and policymakers rather than reflecting on their own role in a process they do not understand fully.

Although it is possible to synthesise the ‘how to’ advice into eight main themes, many categories contain a wide range of beliefs or recommendations within a very broad description of qualities like’ accessibility’ and ‘engagement’. We interrogate key examples to identify the wide range of (potentially contradictory) advice about the actual and desirable role of researchers in politics: whether to engage, how to engage, and the purpose of engagement.

Should academics try to influence policy?

A key area of disagreement was over the normative question of whether academics should advocate for policy positions, try to persuade policymakers of particular courses of action (e.g., Tilley et al., 2017 ), offer policy implications from their research (Goodwin, 2013 ), or be careful not to promote particular methods and policy approaches (Gluckman, 2014 ; Hutchings and Stenseth, 2016 ; Prehn, 2018 ). Aspects of the debate include:

The public duty to engage versus the need to protect science . Several pieces argued that publicly-paid academics should regard policy impact as a professional duty (Shergold, 2011 ; Tyler, 2017 ). If so, they should try: to influence policy by framing evidence into dominant policy narratives or to address issues that policymakers care about (Rose, 2015 ; Hillman, 2016 ; King, 2016 ), and engage in politics directly or when needed (Farmer, 2010 ; Petes and Meyer, 2018 ). Others felt that it risked an academic’s main asset – their independence of advice (Whitty, 2015 ; Alberts et al., 2018 ; Dodsworth and Cheeseman, 2018 )—and that this political role should be left to the specialists, such as scientific advisors (Hutchings and Stenseth, 2016 ). Others emphasise the potential costs to self-censorship (De Kerckhove et al., 2015 ), and the tension between being elite versus inclusive and accessible (Collins, 2011 ).

The potential for conflict and reputational damage . Some identify the tension between being able to provide rational advice to shape political discourse and the potential for conflict (De Kerckhove et al., 2015 ). Others rejected it as a false dichotomy, arguing that advocacy is a “continuous process of establishing relationships and creating a community of experts both in and outside of government who can give informed input on policies” (Himmrich, 2016 ).

The need to represent academics and academia : Some recommend discussing topics beyond your narrow expertise—almost as a representative for your field or profession (Petes and Meyer, 2018 )—while others caution against it, since speaking about one’s own expertise is the best way to maintain credibility (Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017 ).

Such debates imply a choice to engage and do not routinely consider the unequal effects built on imbalances of power (Cairney and Oliver, 2018 ). Many researchers are required to show impact and it is not strictly a choice to engage. Further, there are significant career costs to engagement, which are relatively difficult to incur by more junior or untenured researchers, while women and people of colour may be more subject to personal abuse or exploitation. The risk of burnout, or the opportunity cost of doing impact rather than conducting the main activities of teaching and research jobs is too high for many (Graffy, 1999 ; Fischoff, 2015 ). Being constantly available, engaging with no clear guarantee of impact or success, with no payment for time or even travel is not possible for many researchers, even if that is the most likely way to achieve impact. This means that the diversity of voices available to policy is limited (Oliver and Faul, 2018 ). Much of the ‘how to’ advice is tailored to individuals without taking into account these systemic issues. They are mostly drawn from the experiences of people who consider themselves successful at influencing policy. The advice is likely to be useful mostly to a relatively similar group of people who are confident, comfortable in policy environments, and have both access and credibility within policy spaces. Thus, the current advice and structures may help reproduce and reinforce existing power dynamics and an underrepresentation of women, BAME, and people who otherwise do not fit the very narrow mould (Cairney and Oliver, 2018 )—even extending to the exclusion of academics from certain institutions or circles (Smith and Stewart, 2017 ).

How should academics influence policy?

A second dilemma is: how should academics try to influence policy? By merely stating the facts well, telling stories to influence our audience more, or working with our audience to help produce policy directly? Three main approaches were identified in the reviews. Firstly, to use specific tools such as evidence syntheses, or social media, to improve engagement (Thomson, 2013 ; Caird et al., 2015 ). This approach fits with the ‘deficit’ model of the evidence-policy relationships, whereby researchers merely provide content for others to work with. As extensively discussed elsewhere, this method, while safe, has not been shown to be effective at achieving policy change; and underpinning much of the advice in this strain are some serious misunderstandings about the practicalities, psychology and real world nature of policy change and information flow (Sturgis and Allum, 2004 ; Fernández, 2016 ; Simis et al., 2016 ).

Secondly, to use emotional appeals and storytelling to craft attractive narratives with the explicit aim of shaping policy options (Jones and Crow, 2017 ; Crow and Jones, 2018 ). Leaving aside the normative question of the independence of scientific research, or researchers’ responsibilities to represent data fully and honestly (Pielke, 2007 ), this strategy makes practical demands on the researcher. It requires having the personal charisma to engage diverse audiences and seem persuasive yet even-handed. Some of the advice suggests that academics try to seem pragmatic and equable about the outcome of any such approach, although not always clear whether this was to help the researcher seem more worldly-wise and sensible, or simply as a self-protective mechanism (King, 2016 ). Either way, deciding how to seem omnipotent yet credible; humble but authoritative; straightforward yet not over-simplifying—all while still appearing authentic—is probably beyond the scope of most of our acting abilities.

Thirdly, to collaborate (Oliver et al., 2014 ). Co-production is widely hailed as the most likely way to promote the use of research evidence in policy, as it would enable researchers to respond to policy agendas, and enable more agile multidisciplinary teams to coalesce around topical policy problems. There are also trade-offs to this way of working (Flinders et al., 2016 ). Researchers have to cede control over the research agenda and interpretations. This can give rise to accusations of bias, partisanship, or at least partiality for one political view over another. There are significant reputational risks involved in collaboration, within the academic community and outside it. Pragmatically, there are practical and logistical concerns about how and when to maintain control of intellectual property and access to data. More broadly, it may cloud one’s judgement about the research in hand, hindering one’s ability to think or speak critically without damaging working relationships.

What is the purpose of academics engagement in policymaking?

Authors do not always tell us the purpose of engagement before they tell us how to do it. Some warn against ‘tokenistic’ engagement, and there is plenty of advice for academics wanting to build ‘genuine’ rapport with policymakers to make their research more useful. Yet, it is not always clear if researchers should try and seem authentically interested in policymakers as a means of achieving impact or actually to listen, learn, and cede some control over the research process. The former can be damaging to the profession. As Goodwin points out, it’s not just policymakers who may feel short-changed by transactional relationships: “by treating policy engagement as an inconvenient and time-consuming ‘bolt on' you may close doors that could be left open for academics who genuinely care about this collaborative process” (Goodwin, 2013 ). The latter option is more radical. It involves a fundamentally different way of doing public engagement: one with no clear aim in mind other than to listen and learn, with the potential to transform research practices and outputs (Parry-Davies and Newell, 2014 ).

Although the literature helps us frame such dilemmas, it does not choose for us how to solve them. There are no clear answers on how scientists should act in relation to policymaking or the public (Mazanderani and Latour, 2018 ), but we can at least identify and clarify the dilemmas we face, and seek ways to navigate them. Therefore, it is imperative to move quickly from basic ‘how to’ advice towards a deeper understanding of the profound choices that shape careers and lives.

Conclusions

Academics are routinely urged to create impact from their research; to change policy, practice, and even population outcomes. There are, however, few empirical evaluations of strategies to enable academics to create impact. This lack of empirical evidence has not prevented people from offering advice based on their personal experience, rather than concrete evaluations of strategies to increase impact. Much of the advice demonstrates a limited understanding or description of policy processes and the wider social aspects of ‘doing’ science and research. The interactions between knowledge production and use may be so complex that abstract ‘how to’ advice is limited in use. The ‘how to’ advice has a potentially immense range, from very practical issues (how long should an executive summary be?) to very profound (should I risk my safety to secure policy change?), but few authors situate themselves in that wider context in which they provide advice.

There are some more thoughtful approaches which recognise more complex aspects of the task of influencing policy: the emotional, practical and cognitive labour of engaging; that it often goes unrewarded by employers; that impact is never certain, so engagement may remain unrewarded; and, that our current advice, structures and incentives have important implications for how we think about the roles and responsibilities of scientists when engaging with publics. Some of the ‘how to’ literature also considers the wider context of research production and use, noting that the risks and responsibilities are borne by individuals and, for example, one individual cannot possibly to get to know the whole policy machinery or predict the consequences of their engagement on policy or themselves. For example, universities, funders and academics are advised to develop incentives, structures to make ‘impact’ happen more easily (Kerr et al., 2015 ; Colglazier, 2016 ); and remove any actual or perceived penalisation of ‘doing’ public engagement (Maynard, 2015 ). Some suggest universities should move into the knowledge brokerage space, acting more like think-tanks (Shergold, 2011 ) by creating and championing policy-relevant evidence (Tyler, 2017 ), and providing “embedded gateways” which offer access to credible and high-quality research (Green, 2016 ). Similarly, governments have their own science advisory system which, they are advised, should be both independent, and inclusive and accountable (Morgan et al., 2001 ; Malakoff, 2017 ). Government and Parliament need to be mindful about the diversity of the experts and voices on which they draw. For example, historians and ethicists could help policymakers question their assumptions and explore historical patterns of policies and policy narratives in particular areas (Evans, 2013 ; Haddon et al., 2015 ) but economics and law have more currency with policymakers (Tyler, 2013 ).

However, we were often struck by the limited range of advice offered to academics, many of whom are at the beginning of their careers. This gap may leave each generation of scientists to fight the same battles, and learn the same lessons over again. In the absence of evidence about the effectiveness of these approaches, all one can do is suggest a cautious, learning approach to coproduction and engagement, while recognising that there is unlikely to be a one-size-fits all model which would lead to simple, actionable advice. Further, we do not detect a coherent vision for wider academy-policymaker relations. Since the impact agenda (in the UK, at least) is unlikely to recede any time soon, our best response as a profession is to interrogate it, shape and frame it, and to help us all to find ways to navigate the complex practical, political, moral and ethical challenges associated with being researchers today. The ‘how to’ literature can help, but only if authors are cognisant of their wider role in society and complex policymaking systems.

For some commentators, engagement is a safe choice tacked onto academic work. Yet, for many others, it is a more profound choice to engage for policy change while accepting that the punishments (such as personal threats or abuse) versus rewards (such as impact and career development opportunities) are shared highly unevenly across socioeconomic groups. Policy engagement is a career choice in which we seek opportunities for impact that may never arise, not an event in which an intense period of engagement produces results proportionate to effort.

Overall, we argue that the existing advice offered to academics on how to create impact is not based on empirical evidence, or on good understandings of key literatures on policymaking or evidence use. This leads to significant misunderstandings, and advice which can have potentially costly repercussions for research, researchers and policy. These limitations matter, as they lead to advice which fails to address core dilemmas for academics—whether to engage, how to engage, and why—which have profound implications for how scientists and universities should respond to the call for increased impact. Most of these tips focus on the individuals, whereas engagement between research and policy is driven by systemic factors.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Change history

17 march 2020.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Aguinis H, Werner S, Lanza Abbott J, Angert C, Joon Hyung P, Kohlhausen D (2010) Customer-centric science: reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organ Res Methods 13(3):515–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109333339

Article   Google Scholar  

Alberts B, Gold BD, Lee Martin L, Maxon ME, Martin LL, Maxon ME (2018) How to bring science and technology expertise to state governments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(9):19521955. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800543115

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Allen DD, Lauffenburger J, Law AV, Pete Vanderveen R, Lang WG (2012) Report of the 2011-2012 standing committee on advocacy: the relevance of excellent research: strategies for impacting public policy. Am J Pharmaceut Educ 76(6). https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe766S6

Andermann A, Pang T, Newton JN, Davis A, Panisset U (2016) Evidence for health II: overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice. Health Res Policy Syst 14(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0086-3 . BioMed Central

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Aurum (1971) Letter from London: science policy and the question of relevancy. Bull At Sci Routledge 27(6):25–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1971.11455376

Basbøll T (2018) We need our scientists to build models that frame our policies, not to tell stories that shape them, LSE Impact Blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/07/30/we-need-our-scientists-to-build-models-that-frame-our-policies-not-to-tell-stories-that-shape-them/ . Accessed 1 Aug 2018

Baumgartner FR (2017) Endogenous disjoint change. Cogn Syst Res 44:69–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.04.001

Baumgartner FR, Jones BD (1993) Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press: Chicago

Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd IL (2015) How to increase the potential policy impact of environmental science research. Environ Sci Eur 27(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-015-0041-x

Birkland TA (1997) After disaster: agenda, public policy, and focusing events. American governance and public policy. Georgetown University Press, 178. http://press.georgetown.edu/book/georgetown/after-disaster . Accessed 17 July 2018

Boaz A, Baeza J, Fraser A (2011) Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature. BMC Res Notes https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-212 .

Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, O’Shea A, Kok M (2018) How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst 16(1):60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6 . BioMed Central

Boaz A, Locock L, Ward V (2015) Whose evidence is it anyway? Evidence and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426515X14313738355534

Bondi H (1982) Science adviser to government. Interdiscip Sci Rev 7(1):9–13. https://doi.org/10.1179/030801882789801269

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Boyd I (2013) Research: a standard for policy-relevant science. Nature 501(7466):159–160. https://doi.org/10.1038/501159a

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brumley C (2014) Academia and storytelling are compatible–how to reduce the risks and gain control of your research narrative. LSE Impact Blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/27/academic-storytelling-risk-reduction/ . Accessed 1 Aug 2018

Burgess J (2005) Follow the argument where it leads: Some personal reflections on “policy-relevant” research. Trans Inst Br Geogr 30(3):273–281. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474720500209X

Caird J, Sutcliffe K, Kwan I, Dickson K, Thomas J (2015) Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach? Evid Policy 11(1):81–97. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426514X13988609036850

Cairney P (2016) The politics of evidence-based policy making, The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. 1–137. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4

Google Scholar  

Cairney P, Heikkila T (2014) A comparison of theories of the policy process. Theor Policy Process. p. 301–324

Cairney P, Kwiatkowski R (2017) How to communicate effectively with policymakers: Combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Communications 3(1):37. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8

Cairney P, Oliver K (2018) How should academics engage in policymaking to achieve impact? Polit Stud Rev https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918807714

Cairney P (2017) Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs|Paul Cairney: Politics and Public Policy, https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/three-habits-of-successful-policy-entrepreneurs/ . Accessed 9 July 2018

Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8086–8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chapman JM, Algera D, Dick M, Hawkins EE, Lawrence MJ, Lennox RJ, Rous AM, Souliere CM, Stemberger HLJ, Struthers DP, Vu M, Ward TD, Zolderdo AJ, Cooke SJ (2015) Being relevant: practical guidance for early career researchers interested in solving conservation problems. Glob Ecol Conserv 4:334–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.07.013

Coffait L (2017) Academics as policy entrepreneurs? Prepare to fight for your ideas (if you want to win), Wonkhe. https://wonkhe.com/blogs/academics-as-policy-entrepreneurs-prepare-to-fight-for-your-ideas-if-you-want-to-win/ . Accessed 9 July 2018

Colglazier B (2016) Encourage governments to heed scientific advice. Nature 537(7622):587. https://doi.org/10.1038/537587a

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Collins P (2011) Quality control in scientific policy advice: the experience of the Royal Society. Polit Scient Adv https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777141.018

Crouzat E, Arpin I, Brunet L, Colloff MJ, Turkelboom F, Lavorel S (2018) Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy. Ambio 47(1):97–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0939-1

Crow D, Jones M (2018) Narratives as tools for influencing policy change. Policy Polit 46(2):217–234. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15230061022899

Datta A (2018, July 11) Complexity and paradox: lessons from Indonesia. On Think Tanks https://onthinktanks.org/articles/complexity-and-paradox-lessons-from-indonesia/ . Accessed 1 Aug 2018

Docquier D (2017) Communicating your research to policy makers and journalists–Author Services. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/communicating-science-to-policymakers-and-journalists/ . Accessed 9 July 2018

Dodsworth S, Cheeseman N (2018) Five lessons for researchers who want to collaborate with governments and development organisations but avoid the common pitfalls. LSE Impact Blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/02/05/five-lessons-for-researchers-who-want-to-collaborate-with-governments-and-development-organisations-but-avoid-the-common-pitfalls/ . Accessed 9 July 2018

Donnelly CA, Boyd I, Campbell P, Craig C, Vallance P, Walport M, Whitty CJM, Woods E, Wormald C (2018) Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature 558(7710):361–364. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05414-4

Douglas H (2012) Weighing complex evidence in a democratic society. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 22(2):139–162. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2012.0009

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Douglas H (2015) Politics and science: untangling values, ideologies, and reasons. Ann Am Acad Political Social Sci 658(1):296–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214557237

Echt L (2017a) “Context matters”: a framework to help connect knowledge with policy in government institutions, LSE Impact blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/12/19/context-matters-a-framework-to-help-connect-knowledge-with-policy-in-government-institutions/ Accessed 10 July 2018

Echt L (2017b) How can we make our research to be policy relevant? | Politics and Ideas: A Think Net, Politics and Ideas. http://www.politicsandideas.org/?p=3602 . Accessed 10 July 2018

Editorial (1972) Science research council advises the government. Nature 239(5370):243–243. https://doi.org/10.1038/239243a0 . Nature Publishing Group

Eisenstein M (2017) The needs of the many. Nature 551. https://doi.org/10.1038/456296a .

Evans J (2013, Feburary 19) How arts and humanities can influence public policy. HuffPost . https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jules-evans/arts-humanities-influence-public-policy_b_2709614.html . Accessed 9 July 2018

Evans MC, Cvitanovic C (2018) An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Commun 4(1):88. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0144-2

Fafard P (2015) Beyond the usual suspects: using political science to enhance public health policy making. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1129:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204608 .

Farmer R (2010) How to influence government policy with your research: tips from practicing political scientists in government. Political Sci Polit 43(4):717–719. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096510001368

Fernández RJ (2016) How to be a more effective environmental scientist in management and policy contexts. Environ Sci & Policy 64:171–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2016.07.006

Fischoff M (2015) How can academics engage effectively in public and political discourse? At a 2015 conference, experts described how and why academics should reach out. Network for Business Sustainability

Fleming AH, Pyenson ND (2017) How to produce translational research to guide arctic policy. BioScience 67(6):490–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix002

Flinders M, Wood M, Cunningham M (2016) The politics of co-production: risks, limits and pollution. Evid Policy 12(2):261–279. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14412037949967

Game ET, Schwartz MW, Knight AT (2015) Policy relevant conservation science. Conserv Lett 8(5):309–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12207

Garrett T (2018) Moving an Evidence-based Policy Agenda Forward: Leadership Tips from the Field. NASN Sch Nurse 33(3):158–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942602X18766481

Gigerenzer G, Selten R (2001) The adaptive toolbox. In: G. Gigerenzer, R. Selten (eds) Bounded rationality The adaptive toolbox. MIT Press: Cambridge, pp. 37–50

Gluckman P (2014) The art of science advice to the government. Nature 507:163–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/507163a

Goodwin M (2013) How academics can engage with policy: 10 tips for a better Conversation, The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/mar/25/academics-policy-engagement-ten-tips

Gough D, Oliver S and Thomas J (2012) Introducing systematic reviews. In: An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28

Graffy EA (1999) Enhancing policy-relevance without burning up or burning out: a strategy for scientists, in Science into policy: water in the public realm. The Association, pp. 293–298. http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=AdvancedSearch&qid=3&SID=D3Y7AMjSYyfgCmiXBUw&page=21&doc=208 . Accessed 9 Jul 2018

Green D (2016) How academics and NGOs can work together to influence policy: insights from the InterAction report, LSE Impact blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/09/23/how-academics-and-ngos-can-work-together-to-influence-policy-insights-from-the-interaction-report/ . Accessed 10 July 2018

Green LW, Glasgow RE, Atkins D, Stange K (2009) Making evidence from research more relevant, useful, and actionable in policy, program planning, and practice. slips “Twixt Cup and Lip”. Am J Prev Med 37(6 SUPPL. 1):S187–S191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.08.017

Haddon C, Devanny J, Forsdick PC, Thompson PA (2015) What is the value of history in policymaking? https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/what-value-history-policymaking . Accessed 10 July 2018

Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev 108(4):814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hammersley M (2013) The myth of research-based policy and practice

Havens B (1992) Making research relevant to policy. Gerontologist 32(2):273. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/32.2.273

Hayes S, Wilson C (2018) Being ‘resourceful’ in academic engagement with parliament | Wonkhe | Comment, Wonkhe. https://wonkhe.com/blogs/being-resourceful-in-academic-engagement-with-parliament/ . Accessed 12 July 2018

Haynes AS, Derrick GE, Chapman S, Redman S, Hall WD, Gillespie J, Sturk H (2011) From “our world” to the “real world”: Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers. Social Sci Med 72(7):1047–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.004

Head BW (2010) Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges. Policy Soc 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001

Hillman N (2016) The 10 commandments for influencing policymakers | THE Comment, Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/the-10-commandments-for-influencing-policymakers . Accessed 9 July 2018

Himmrich J (2016) How should academics interact with policy makers? Lessons on building a long-term advocacy strategy. LSE Impact Blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/06/20/how-should-academics-interact-with-policy-makers-lessons-on-building-a-longterm-advocacy-strategy/ . Accessed 10 July 2018

Hutchings JA, Stenseth NC (2016) Communication of science advice to government. Trends Ecol Evol 31(1):7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.10.008

Jasanoff S, Polsby NW (1991) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Contemp Sociol 20(5):727. https://doi.org/10.2307/2072218

Jo Clift Consulting (2016) Are you trying to get your voice heard in Government?–Jo Clift’s Personal Website. http://jocliftconsulting.strikingly.com/blog/are-you-trying-to-get-your-voice-heard-in-government . Accessed 10 July 2018

John P (2003) Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions, and punctuations: using evolutionary theory to explain policy change? Policy Stud J 31(4):481–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0072.00039

Jones BD, Thomas HF (2017) The cognitive underpinnings of policy process studies: Introduction to a special issue of Cognitive Systems Research. Cogn Syst Res 45:48–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.04.003

Jones M, Crow D (2018) Mastering the art of the narrative: using stories to shape public policy–Google Search, LSE Impact blog. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=astering+the+art+of+the+narrative%3A+using+stories+to+shape+public+policy&rlz=1C1GGRV_en-GBGB808GB808&oq=astering+the+art+of+the+narrative%3A+using+stories+to+shape+public+policy&aqs=chrome..69i57.17213j0j4&sourceid=chrom Accessed 6 Aug 2018

Jones Michael D, Anderson Crow D (2017) How can we use the “science of stories” to produce persuasive scientific stories. Palgrave Commun 3(1):53. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0047-7

Kahneman DC, Patrick E (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Allen Lane. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781912453207

De Kerckhove DT, Rennie MD, Cormier R (2015) Censoring government scientists and the role of consensus in science advice: a structured process for scientific advice in governments and peer-review in academia should shape science communication strategies. EMBO Rep 16(3):263–266. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201439680

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kerr EA, Riba M, Udow-Phillips M (2015) Helping health service researchers and policy makers speak the same language. Health Serv Res 50(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12198

King A (2016) Science, politics and policymaking. EMBO Rep 17(11):1510–1512. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201643381

Kingdon J Thurber J (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. https://schar.gmu.edu/sites/default/files/current-students/Courses/Fall_2017/PUAD/Regan-PUAD-540-002-Fall-17.pdf . Accessed 31 Jan 2018

Knottnerus JA, Tugwell P (2017) Methodology of the “craft” of scientific advice for policy and practice. J Clin Epidemiol 82:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.005

Koshland Jr. DE, Koshland Jr. DE, Koshland DE, Abelson PH (1988) Science advice to the president. Science 242(4885):1489. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.242.4885.1489

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Krige J (1990) Scientists as Policy-makers - British Physicists Advice to Their Government on Membership of CERN (1951-1952). Science History Publications, U.S.A. http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&-search_mode=AdvancedSearch&qid=3&SID=D3Y7AMjSYyfgCmiXBUw&page=11&doc=105 Accessed 9 July 2018

Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J (2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 81(2):221–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052

Lawler A (1997) Academy seeks government help to fight openness law. Science 473. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.473

de Leeuw E, McNess A, Crisp B, Stagnitti K (2008) Theoretical reflections on the nexus between research, policy and practice. Critical Public Health https://doi.org/10.1080/09581590801949924

Lepkowski W (1984) Heritage-foundation science policy advice for reagan. Chem Eng News 62(51):20–21. https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v062n051.p020

Lewis PG (2013) Policy thinking, fast and slow: a social intuitionist perspective on public policy processes. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2300479 . Accessed 17 July 2018

Lloyd J (2016) Should academics be expected to change policy? Six reasons why it is unrealistic for research to drive policy change, LSE Impact Blod. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/05/25/should-academics-be-expected-to-change-policy-six-reasons-why-it-is-unrealistic/ . Accessed 9 July 2018

Locock L, Boaz A (2004) Research, policy and practice–worlds apart? Social Policy Soc https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746404002003

Lucey JM, Palmer G, Yeong KL, Edwards DP, Senior MJM, Scriven SA, Reynolds G, Hill JK (2017) Reframing the evidence base for policy-relevance to increase impact: a case study on forest fragmentation in the oil palm sector. J Appl Ecol 54(3):731–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12845

Maddox G (1996) Policy-relevant health services research: who needs it? J Health Serv Res Policy 1(3):167–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/135581969600100309

Majone G (1989) Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. Yale University Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300052596/evidence-argument-and-persuasion-policy-process . Accessed 17 July 2018

Malakoff D (2017) A battle over the “best science. Science. Am Assoc Advan Sci 1108–1109. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.355.6330.1108

Marshall E (1980) Advising reagan on science policy. Science 210(4472):880–881. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.210.4472.880

Marshall N, Cvitanovic C (2017) Ten top tips for social scientists seeking to influence policy, LSE Impact Blog

Masood E (1999) UK panel formed to rebuild trust in government science advice. Nature 397(6719):458. https://doi.org/10.1038/17161

Maybin J (2016) How proximity and trust are key factors in getting research to feed into policymaking, LSE Impact Blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/09/12/how-proximity-and-trust-are-key-factors-in-getting-research-to-feed-into-policymaking/ . Accessed 1 Aug 2018

Mayer J (1982) Science advisers to the government. Science 215(4535):921. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.215.4535.921

Maynard, A. (2015) Is public engagement really career limiting? Times Higher Education

Mazanderani F and Latour B (2018) The Whole World is Becoming Science Studies: Fadhila Mazanderani Talks with Bruno Latour. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 4(0): 284. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2018.237

Morandi L (2009) Essential nexus. how to use research to inform and evaluate public policy. Am J Prev Med 36(2 SUPPL.):S53–S54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.10.005

Morgan MG, Houghton A, Gibbons JH (2001) Science and government: Improving science and technology advice for congress. Science . 1999–2000. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1065128

NCCPE (2018) How can you engage with policy makers? https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/do-engagement/understanding-audiences/policy-makers . Accessed 10 July 2018

Nichols RW (1972) Some practical problems of scientist-advisers. Minerva 10(4):603–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01695907

Nichols RW (1988) Science and technology advice to government. To not know is no sin; To not ask is. Technol Soc 10(3):285–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-791X(88)90011-5

Norse D (2005) The nitrogen cycle, scientific uncertainty and policy relevant science. Sci China Ser C, Life Sci / Chin Acad Sci 48(Suppl 2):807–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03187120

Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO (2007) Using evidence: how research can inform public services. Policy Press. https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/U/bo13441009.html . Accessed 21 Jan 2019

Oakley A, Strange V, Toroyan T, Wiggins M, Roberts I, Stephenson J (2003) Using random allocation to evaluate social interventions: three recent U.K. examples. Ann Am Acad Political Social Sci 589(1):170–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203254765

Olander L, Polasky S, Kagan JS, Johnston RJ, Wainger L, Saah D, Maguire L, Boyd J, Yoskowitz D (2017) So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice. Ecosyst Serv 26:170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.003

Oliver KA, de Vocht F (2015) Defining “evidence” in public health: a survey of policymakers’ uses and preferences. Eur J Public Health. ckv082. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv082

Oliver K, Faul MV (2018) Networks and network analysis in evidence, policy and practice. Evidence and Policy 14(3): 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426418X15314037224597

Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res 14(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-2

Ostrom E (2007a) Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. Theor Policy Process . 21–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Ostrom E (2007b) Sustainable social-ecological systems: an impossibility. Presented at the 2007 Annual Meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Science and Technology for Sustainable Well-Being ” . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.997834

Pain E (2014) How scientists can influence policy. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1400042

Parkhurst J (2017) The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Routledge Studies in Governance and Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315675008

Book   Google Scholar  

Parry-Davies E, Newell P (2014, July, 21) 10 ways to make public engagement work for you | Higher Education Network | The Guardian. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/jul/21/10-ways-make-public-engagement-work-for-you . Accessed 10 July 2018

Petes LE, Meyer MD (2018) An ecologist’s guide to careers in science policy advising. Front Ecol Environ 16(1):53–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1761

Petticrew M, Roberts H (2008) Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide, systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Sociol Health Illness. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887

Pielke RA (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Honest Broker https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110

POST (2017) Getting your research into parliament-Author Services. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/getting-your-research-into-parliament/ . Accessed 9 July 2018

Prehn T (2018, May 24) Thomas Prehn’s innovation diary: What I learned at MindLab. Apolitical

Quarmby S (2018) Evidence-informed policymaking: does knowledge brokering work? LSE Impact Blog. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/evidence-informed-policymaking-knowledge-brokers/

Reed, M. and Evely, A. (2016) How can your research have more impact? Five key principles and practical tips for effective knowledge exchange. LSE Impact blog. pp. 1–5. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/07/07/how-can-your-research-have-more-impact-5-key-principles-tips/ . Accessed 10 July 2018

Rose DC (2015) The case for policy-relevant conservation science. Conserv Biol 29(3):748–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12444

Sapolsky HM (1968) Science advice for state and local government. Science 160(3825):280–284. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.160.3825.280

Sebba J (2011) Getting research into policy: the role of think tanks and other mediators. LSE Impact blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2011/03/07/getting-research-into-policy-the-role-of-think-tanks-and-other-mediators/. Accessed 10 July 2018

Shergold P (Interviewee) (2011, November 8) Let’s close the gap between academics and policy makers: Peter Shergold on changing the system. The Conversation

Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2010) Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-24 .

Simis MJ, Madden H, Cacciatore MA, Yeo SK (2016) The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Underst Sci 25(4):400–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749

Simon H (1976) Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization, PsycNET. 3rd edn. New York: Free Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-21554-000 Accessed 5 Feb 2019

Sloman S, Fernbach P (2017) The knowledge illusion: why we never think alone

Smith KE, Stewart E (2015) “Black magic” and “gold dust”: the epistemic and political uses of evidence tools in public health policy making. Evid Policy 11(3):415–437. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14381786400158

Smith KE, Stewart E (2017) We need to talk about impact: why social policy academics need to engage with the UK’s research impact agenda. J Social Policy 46(01):109–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279416000283

Srinivasan TN (2000) The Washington consensus a decade later: Ideology and the art and science of policy advice. World Bank Res Obs 15(2):265–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.265

Sturgis P, Allum N (2004) Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci 13(1):55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690

Sutherland WJ (2013) Review by quality not quantity for better policy. Nature 503(7475):167. https://doi.org/10.1038/503167a

Sutherland WJ, Burgman MA (2015) Policy advice: se experts wisely, Nature 317–318. https://doi.org/10.1038/526317a .

Sy KJ (1989) As scientists and citizens: profiles and perspectives of academic advisers to state government. Sci Commun 10(4):280–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708901000403

Tesar C, Dubois MA, Shestakov A (2016) Toward strategic, coherent, policy-relevant arctic science. Science 353(6306):1368–1370. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8198

Thomson H (2013) Improving utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy: the three Rs (relevance, rigor, and readability [and resources]). Am J Public Health 103(8):e17–e23. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301400

Tilley H, Shaxson L, Rea J, Ball L, Young J (2017) 10 things to know about how to influence policy with research. London. https://www.odi.org/publications/10671-10-things-know-about-how-influence-policy-research . Accessed 9 July 2018

Topp L, Mair D, Smillie L, Cairney P (2018) Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre Introduction: why we need knowledge management for policy. Palgrave Commun 4(1):87. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0143-3

Tyler C (2013, December) Top 20 things scientists need to know about policy-making. The Guarduna , pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen

Tyler C (2017) Wanted: academics wise to the needs of government. Nature 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-017-07744-1 .

Tyndall J (2008) How low can you go?: toward a hierarchy of grey literature, Flinders Academic Commons. http://www.alia2008.com . Accessed 21 Jan 2019

Walley J, Khan MA, Witter S, Haque R, Newell J, Wei X (2018) Embedded health service development and research: why and how to do it (a ten-stage guide). Health Res Policy Syst 16(1):67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0344-7

Walsh J (1973) Science policy: committee wants adviser to use active voice. Science 181(4098):421–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.181.4098.421

Weiss CH (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev 39(5):426. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109916

Wellstead A, Cairney P, Oliver K (2018) Reducing ambiguity to close the science-policy gap. Policy Des Pract 1(2):115–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1458397

Whitty CJM (2015) What makes an academic paper useful for health policy? BMC Med 13(1):301. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0544-8

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wilkinson C (2017) Evidencing impact: a case study of UK academic perspectives on evidencing research impact. Stud Higher Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1339028

Wolfle D (1968) Science advice for state governments. Science 160(3828):607–607. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.160.3828.607

Young A, Jones D (1994) The role of the public and federal advisory committees in providing advice to the government on science issues of papers, in American Chemical Society. Meeting. American Chemical Society. American Chemical Society. http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=AdvancedSearch&qid=3&SID=D3Y7AMjSYyfgCmiXBUw&page=17&doc=162 Accessed 9 July 2018

Zahariadis N (2007) The multiple streams framework. Theor Policy Process https://doi.org/10.1081/E-EPAP2-120041405

Zevallos Z (2017) Protecting activist academics against public harassment. The Other Sociologist

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the audiences of recent talks given by both authors, which helped to develop the ideas presented.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1H 9SR, UK

Kathryn Oliver

University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

Paul Cairney

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn Oliver .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Oliver, K., Cairney, P. The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Commun 5 , 21 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0232-y

Download citation

Received : 08 August 2018

Accepted : 28 January 2019

Published : 19 February 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0232-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Producing knowledge together: a participatory approach to synthesising research across a large-scale collaboration in aboriginal and torres strait islander health.

• Kathleen P. Conte
• Alison Laycock
• Ross Bailie

Health Research Policy and Systems (2024)

Assumptions and contradictions shape public engagement on climate change

• Michael Murunga
• Catriona Macleod
• Gretta Pecl

Nature Climate Change (2024)

National digital strategies and innovative eHealth policies concerning older adults’ dignity: a document analysis in three Scandinavian countries

• Moonika Raja
• Ingjerd G. Kymre
• Lisbeth Uhrenfeldt

BMC Health Services Research (2023)

Output-orientated policy engagement: a model for advancing the use of epidemiological evidence in health policy

• Emily Banks
• Abby Haynes
• Jason Agostino

Health Research Policy and Systems (2023)

Connections between health research systems and decision-making spaces: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic in the province of Québec, Canada

• Pernelle Smits
• Caroline Cambourieu
• Mathieu Ouimet

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Methods for Policy Research Taking Socially Responsible Action

• Ann Majchrzak - University of Southern California, USA
• M. Lynne Markus - Bentley University, USA
• Description

This book about responsible and evidence-based decision making is written for those interested in improving the decisions that affect people’s lives. It describes how to define policy research questions so that evidence can be applied to them, how to find and synthesize existing evidence, how to generate new evidence if needed, how to make acceptable recommendations that can solve policy problems without negative side effects, and how to describe evidence and recommendations in a manner that changes minds.

Policies are not just the decisions made by a country’s rulers or elected officials; policies are also set by corporate executives, managers of department stores, and project leaders in non-profit organizations pursuing environmental protection. The authors’ suggestion are based on the fundamental belief that evidence-based decision making is superior to decisions based purely on opinion, intuition, and emotion. Because much has happened since 1984 when the first edition was published, this is a substantially different book with a new co-author, new and updated examples, new chapters, and new frameworks for understanding.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

Loved the first edition as a graduate student when it came out in the mid-80s; so happy that a new edition was developed so that I can share it with my graduate students.

still under review for consideration.

NEW TO THIS EDITION:

• Each chapter’s phase in the policy research voyage (depicted by artwork with a nautical theme) includes clearly defined activities, deliverables, criteria for successful performance, and workflow diagrams.
• Policy Change Wheel and STORM Context Conditions frameworks make it easier for readers to remember what needs to be done.
• New chapters on synthesizing available evidence (Chapter 3) and reflecting on policy research experiences (Chapter 7) broaden the book’s coverage.
• Updated examples drawn from a variety of contexts, including international and business policy, as well as domestic issues, illustrate applications of evidence-based decision making in the real world.
• Chapter 1, Making a Difference with Policy Research , now reflects an action-orientation toward not just doing policy research, but also toward fostering change and doing policy research responsibly.

KEY FEATURES:

• A how-to orientation encourages readers to consider the evidence systematically and responsibly before making a decision and to communicate evidence and recommendations in a way that facilitates real change.
• Real world examples throughout the text show readers the everyday applications of policy decision making.
• Exercises at the end of each chapter give students an opportunity to apply what they’ve learned.

This is a substantially revised edition of Methods for Policy Research, originally published in 1984. This book reframes policy research as responsible and evidence-based decision making. It describes how to define policy research questions so that evidence can be applied to them, how to find and synthesize existing evidence, how to generate new evidence if needed, how to make acceptable recommendations that can solve policy problems without harmful side effects, how to describe evidence and recommendations in a manner that changes minds. This book is meant to help individuals who want to improve the policy decisions that affect people's lives.

Responsible and evidence-based decision making is needed not just in government and social service agencies. It is also needed in businesses and in nongovernmental organizations such as charities, foundations, and non-profits. In this book, we state our values clearly: We believe that evidence-based decision making is superior to decisions based purely on opinion, intuition, and emotion. We also believe that responsible decision-making requires taking into account the possibility of harmful consequences from policy change, no matter how well intentioned those changes may be.

Each chapter now has clearly defined activities and deliverables, supported by workflow diagrams, along with tracking indicators that policy researchers can use to assess how well they are performing the activities. New frameworks are presented such as the M2 test (meaningfulness and manageability), the Policy Change Wheel, and STORM (Social, Technical, Organizational, Regulatory, and Market) context conditions to make it easier for readers to remember what needs to be done. All examples are updated, they are drawn from a variety of contexts, including international and business policy, as well as domestic policy and social service.

Each chapter was substantially revised to make the activities and outcomes of policy research clear. We've introduced new content, including an entirely new chapter on synthesizing existing evidence. We've exposed the reader to useful websites, to new ways of involving stakeholders in the Case for Change, and to ways of ensuring that recommendations derived from evidence-gathering are meaningful and manageable. A nautical theme, a conversational style, and humor are used throughout to make the reading enjoyable. (Look out for puns!)

Sample Materials & Chapters

For instructors, select a purchasing option.

This title is also available on SAGE Research Methods , the ultimate digital methods library. If your library doesn’t have access, ask your librarian to start a trial .

• Social Policy

• Gender, Race & Identity

The past shapes the present when it comes to Southern roots, race, and marriage trends

Professor Deirdre Bloome and coauthor Garrett Pace from the University of Nevada found that Black and white people whose grandparents grew up in the southern U.S. are more likely to marry than people with geographic lineages elsewhere in the U.S.

Research study: People who don’t trust vaccines often get COVID-19 information from Facebook as well as conservative media

Daniel Schneider on how the pandemic reshaped the socioeconomic landscape of America

Does religion have a place in addressing public challenges?

Biopharma venture capital and the inflation reduction act.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 is the most significant reform to US prescription drug pricing in two decades and the first expected to result in a net reduction in Medicare drug costs.

• Globalization
• Business & Regulation
• Decision Making & Negotiation

Beyond a niche approach: Could social business become the norm?

[T]here is an imperative to examine how alternative forms of organizing--ones that diverge from the dominant corporate model focused solely on profit maximization--can help confront this multidimensio

• Education, Training & Labor

The Mismeasurement of Work Time: Implications for Wage Discrimination and Inequality

Comparing measures of work time in the recall CPS-ASEC data with contemporaneous measures reveals many logical inconsistencies and probable errors.

• Poverty, Inequality & Opportunity

Small Marketplace Premiums Pose Financial And Administrative Burdens: Evidence From Massachusetts, 2016–17

Health insurance premiums are primarily understood to pose financial barriers to coverage.

Watch & Listen

• Human Rights

Immigration Policy, Refugees, and Guantanamo

Social Constraints and Poverty with Eliana La Ferrara

The psychology of disagreement with Julia Minson

Jacqueline Bhabha’s “Can We Solve the Migration Crisis?”

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox. 

• Current Students
• Latest News
• Social Media Directory
• Search NYU Abu Dhabi

• Undergraduate
• Faculty Profiles
• Community Programs
• Academic Strategy
• Executive Education
• Strategic Philanthropy Initiative

• Research Institute Centers
• Faculty Labs and Projects
• Facilities and Support
• Postdoctoral Research

• Living in Abu Dhabi
• Undergraduate Experience
• Graduate Student Community
• Athletics and Fitness
• Student Stories
• Public Programs
• NYUAD at a Glance
• Inclusion, Diversity, Belonging, and Equity
• Leadership and Administration
• 19 Washington Square North
• Community Engagement
• Social Responsibility
• Work With Our Students
• Sustainability and Stewardship
• Contact and Location
• Past Events
• Emergency Alerts

Social Research and Public Policy Major

Designing, implementing, and evaluating policies depend on social science theory and research. Social Research and Public Policy (SRPP) offers rigorous training in both, with courses in Economics, Political Science, Sociology, International Development, and Anthropology, as well as courses in quantitative and qualitative research methods, which will enable students to critically evaluate research findings, produce original research, and become key decision makers in their areas of interest. The flexible and multidisciplinary nature of Social Research and Public Policy is attractive to students who are concerned with the major social problems of our times such as international migration, unequal economic development, poverty and inequality, racism and sexism, environmental change, ethnic conflict, violence, as well as health inequality and population dynamics.

Social Research and Public Policy Minor

Social science at nyuad.

Social Policy and Social Research MSc

London, Bloomsbury

The Social Policy and Social Research MSc combines a theoretical understanding of contemporary social problems, policy intervention, and policymaking processes across different sectors and countries, with advanced research methods training. The relationship between research and policy is a key programme theme. This degree has ESRC 1+3 training recognition, meaning it stands alone as an MSc but can also prepare students for doctoral research.

UK tuition fees (2024/25)

Overseas tuition fees (2024/25), programme starts, applications accepted.

Applications open

• Entry requirements

A minimum of an upper second-class Bachelors' degree from a UK university or an overseas qualification of an equivalent standard in a social science subject, such as sociology, psychology, social policy, economics, or history. If you do not meet these requirements, other considerations, such as relevant work experience, may be taken into account.

The English language level for this programme is: Level 4

UCL Pre-Master's and Pre-sessional English courses are for international students who are aiming to study for a postgraduate degree at UCL. The courses will develop your academic English and academic skills required to succeed at postgraduate level.

Further information can be found on our English language requirements page.

This programme is suitable for international students on a Student visa – study must be full-time, face-to-face, starting October.

Equivalent qualifications

Country-specific information, including details of when UCL representatives are visiting your part of the world, can be obtained from the International Students website .

International applicants can find out the equivalent qualification for their country by selecting from the list below. Please note that the equivalency will correspond to the broad UK degree classification stated on this page (e.g. upper second-class). Where a specific overall percentage is required in the UK qualification, the international equivalency will be higher than that stated below. Please contact Graduate Admissions should you require further advice.

About this degree

The degree equips students with the conceptual tools and empirical evidence necessary for investigating social policy and policy-making, including critical assessment of the role of research evidence in policy development and implementation. Graduates will be able to apply their knowledge and understanding and analytical and methodological skills in conducting social research in different policy contexts.

Who this course is for

The MSc in Social Policy and Social Research is aimed at recent graduates and mid-career professionals from around the world who are interested in social policy or policy-orientated research. It is suited to those who want to start a career in social policy analysis, advocacy or research within the public sector or a socially-orientated NGO, and those already working in policy environments who want to improve their skills and career prospects. It is also useful preparation for study for a PhD.

What this course will give you

The programme offers a unique opportunity to study social policy and the ways in which research, along with other forms of evidence and knowledge, connects with and impacts on policy-making and professional practice. Training is also provided in social research methods relevant to people working in policy or academic contexts. It is structured to allow students to customise their degree according to their preferred area of study and future career plans. The programme is located in the UCL Social Research Institute , a research-intensive department with an outstanding international reputation. It is taught by an interdisciplinary team, all with specialist expertise across a wide range of policy areas. Our central London location and network of partners and alumni gives us access to nationally and internationally prominent guest speakers who give insight into policy as it is formed.

The foundation of your career

Graduates from this MSc programme have gained sought-after skills that allowed them to pursue professional careers in academia or policy research, policy analysis, policy development and implementation, programme management, and policy advocacy within the public, private, and non-profit sectors.

Studying at IOE has been a great investment, mostly because of the opportunity it provides for students to work closely with researchers, policy-makers and practitioners. Learning from these experts, and hearing first-hand about their various influential research projects, makes studying a postgraduate degree at the IOE hugely rewarding and inspiring. Lydia Bailey Social Policy and Social Research MSc Q&A with Lydia Bailey

Employability

As a graduate of this programme you will be equipped to work in a broad range of roles, such as social policy researcher, advisor to government, or as NGO personnel. You will also have the methodological background to move into doctoral research.

Teaching and learning

Students will attend lectures and interactive seminars for each module they take. Lectures and seminars both last one hour, and students will be expected to work and prepare for classes autonomously. Seminar sessions are where students discuss and apply their learning from their lectures and other activities. In research methods courses, lectures are often mirrored by a practical workshop seminar in a computer lab where students will put the analytical techniques introduced that week to use.    Some modules run as a campus-based course and a fully online (distance learning) course, with both versions of the module running in parallel. For distance-learning students, lectures, activities and exchanges between students and tutors will take place within Moodle and integrated platforms, such as Zoom. In place of the face-to-face group seminars held on campus, students taking modules at a distance will participate in various e-learning activities, facilitated by the Module Tutor leading this group. 

Assessment is through coursework (e.g. written essay or research proposal), unseen examination (some optional modules), and a 12,000-word dissertation.

Each 15-credit taught module involves up to 150 hours of study. This time is made up of scheduled classes and teaching (20 contact hours) as well as guided independent study (e.g., reading and preparing for lectures, carrying out e-learning and group activities, and preparing the summative assessment). The 60-credit dissertation module requires a notional learning time of about 600 hours.

Students take four compulsory taught modules (60 credits), four optional modules (60 credits) and a dissertation (60 credits).

The first term of the programme introduces you to the definition and study of policy processes, social problems, and policy intervention. You also select two research methods modules from the available options.

The second term provides you with the opportunity to explore international comparisons of social policy, and the use of research to support policy processes. You also take two advanced research methods modules and begin work on your final research project, the dissertation.

In the summer term, you work full-time on your dissertation, with a submission date in late August/early September.

Over the two years, students take four compulsory taught modules (60 credits), four optional modules (60 credits) and a dissertation (60 credits).

The first year of the programme introduces you to the definition and study of policy processes. In addition, you select a further three to five taught modules (compulsory and/or optional). The number of modules that you take in each academic year (and in each term) will depend on your commitments outside UCL (e.g. employment and family responsibilities).

In the second year, you will take the remaining modules (bringing the total number to eight). You also begin work on your final research project, the dissertation, with a submission date in late August/early September.

Where relevant, you will be required to take introductory research methods modules before moving on to the more advanced ones.

Students take four compulsory taught modules (60 credits), four optional modules (60 credits) and a dissertation (60 credits). The degree can be completed in two to five years.

The first year of the programme introduces you to the definition and study of policy processes. The remaining taught modules (compulsory and optional) can be taken at any time.

Work on the dissertation begins in the final year, with a submission date in late August/early September.

Compulsory modules

Optional modules.

Please note that the list of modules given here is indicative. This information is published a long time in advance of enrolment and module content and availability are subject to change. Modules that are in use for the current academic year are linked for further information. Where no link is present, further information is not yet available.

Students undertake modules to the value of 180 credits. Upon successful completion of 180 credits, you will be awarded an MSc in Social Policy and Social Research.

Accessibility

Details of the accessibility of UCL buildings can be obtained from AccessAble accessable.co.uk . Further information can also be obtained from the UCL Student Support and Wellbeing team .

Fees and funding

Fees for this course.

Pathways include: With Systematic Reviews (TMSSOCSPSR01) Programme also available on a modular (flexible) basis .

The tuition fees shown are for the year indicated above. Fees for subsequent years may increase or otherwise vary. Where the programme is offered on a flexible/modular basis, fees are charged pro-rata to the appropriate full-time Master's fee taken in an academic session. Further information on fee status, fee increases and the fee schedule can be viewed on the UCL Students website: ucl.ac.uk/students/fees .

Additional costs

All full-time students are required to pay a fee deposit of £1,000 for this programme. All part-time students are required to pay a fee deposit of £500.

The purchase of books many constitute an additional cost, but there is no requirement to purchase any book as part of the programme. If fieldwork is conducted for the dissertation, this is at your own expense and should be estimated according to the type and length of fieldwork proposed. Fieldwork is not compulsory to complete a dissertation. 

Students should take into account any travel, accommodation and expenses involved in their report or dissertation.

For more information on additional costs for prospective students please go to our estimated cost of essential expenditure at Accommodation and living costs .

Funding your studies

Applicants may be eligible to apply for funding from the Economic and Social Research Council via the UCL, Bloomsbury and East London Doctoral Training Partnership. The MSc provides master's-level postgraduate training which can constitute the first year of ESRC 1+3 postgraduate PhD studentships. Further information: https://ubel-dtp.ac.uk/esrc-studentships/pathways/social-policy/

For a comprehensive list of the funding opportunities available at UCL, including funding relevant to your nationality, please visit the Scholarships and Funding website .

IOE-Clarke Scholarships

Deadline: 3 May 2024 Value: Tuition fees, return flights and stipend (1 year) Criteria Based on both academic merit and financial need Eligibility: EU, Overseas

IOE-ISH Centenary Masters Scholarships

Deadline: 3 May 2024 Value: Tuition fees and accommodation (1 year) Criteria Based on both academic merit and financial need Eligibility: EU, Overseas

Students are advised to apply as early as possible due to competition for places. Those applying for scholarship funding (particularly overseas applicants) should take note of application deadlines.

There is an application processing fee for this programme of £90 for online applications and £115 for paper applications. Further information can be found at Application fees .

When we assess your application we would like to learn:

• Why you want to study Social Policy and Social Research at graduate level
• Why you want to study Social Policy and Social Research at UCL
• What particularly attracts you to the chosen programme
• How your academic and professional background meets the demands of this challenging programme
• Where you would like to go professionally with your degree

Together with essential academic requirements, the personal statement is your opportunity to illustrate whether your reasons for applying to this programme match what the programme will deliver.

Any late applications will only be considered after all those received by the closing date.

Please note that you may submit applications for a maximum of two graduate programmes (or one application for the Law LLM) in any application cycle.

Choose your programme

Please read the Application Guidance before proceeding with your application.

Year of entry: 2024-2025

Got questions get in touch.

Social Research Institute

[email protected]

UCL is regulated by the Office for Students .

Prospective Students Graduate

• Graduate degrees
• Taught degrees
• Taught Degrees
• Applying for Graduate Taught Study at UCL
• Research degrees
• Research Degrees
• Funded Research Opportunities
• Doctoral School
• Funded Doctoral Training Programmes
• Applying for Graduate Research Study at UCL
• Teacher training
• Teacher Training
• Early Years PGCE programmes
• Primary PGCE programmes
• Secondary PGCE programmes
• Further Education PGCE programme
• How to apply
• The IOE approach
• Teacher training in the heart of London
• Why choose UCL?
• Entrepreneurship
• Inspiring facilities and resources
• Careers and employability
• Your global alumni community
• Your wellbeing
• Postgraduate Students' Association
• Your life in London
• Accommodation
• Funding your Master's

Search form

Institute for public policy and social research college of social science.

• MPLP Michigan Political Leadership Program
• OSR Office For Survey Research
• SOSS State Of The State Survey

IPPSR Students Win Big at MSU Undergraduate Research and Arts Forum

Institute for Public Policy and Social Research (IPPSR) Student Fellows Emma Nicolaysen and Lola Brown took home 1st place honors at this year's Michigan State University Undergraduate Research and Arts Forum (UURAF). Click the picture for the full story

April 19, 2024

February 06, 2024

IPPSR EVALUATION OF 6 DRAFT PROPOSED MI HOUSE MAPS

IPPSR-affiliated Professor Jon Eguia has released his breakdown of the most recent maps being considered by Michigan's Independent Redistricting Commission...

January 25, 2024

IPPSR Hosts Best Selling Author Tim Alberta

On January 19, the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research hosted best-selling author and Michigan State alumnus Tim Alberta for a forum covering "...

January 10, 2024

IPPSR Research: Narratives Played Key Role in Critical Race Theory Fights

EAST LANSING, Mich., January 10, 2024 – Insitute for Public Policy and Social Research (IPPSR) at Michigan State University affiliated researchers Ariell...

State of the State Survey

SOSS takes the public pulse on Michigan’s economy and leadership each quarter. Researchers are invited to add questions.

Office for Survey Research

OSR has produced major research data for faculty, government agencies and major corporations by mail, phone and web.

Legislative Leadership Program

This short course in public policy offers select training to those newly elected to the Michigan Senate and House.

Public Policy Forums

IPPSR’s series of public policy forums combine evidence-based research, theory and best practice. They are open to the public. Reserve a seat.

Michigan Applied Public Policy Research Program

Grants are awarded for applied policy research. They encourage the exchange of ideas between faculty and policymakers.

Michigan Political Leadership Program

MPLP is one of the nation’s premiere leadership training programs, selecting 24 diverse men and women each year.

February 16, 2024

Where Does Michigan Redistricting Go Next?

March 28, 2024

The World is Hard to Change

Social science has its limits.

We live in a revolutionary time of social data expansion, methodological innovation and active...

January 17, 2024

Partisan Fairness and Minority Representation

In 2021, an Independent Citizen Redistricting Commission drew the district maps to be used in all elections to the Michigan legislature over the following...

December 21, 2023

Building a Holistic Political Case for Racial Equity through Unified Policy Transformation

Racial equity is a defining challenge in America, a deeply rooted issue that demands a unified, comprehensive approach from policymakers across ideological...

Social Research and Public Policy (BA)

Program description.

Designing and evaluating policy depends on social science theory and research. The program in Social Research and Public Policy offers rigorous training with courses in economics, political science, sociology, and anthropology, as well as courses in quantitative and qualitative research methods, which enable students to critically evaluate research findings and produce original research. Social Research and Public Policy is attractive to students who are concerned with the major social problems of our times such as international migration, unequal economic development, poverty, racism and sexism, inequality, ethnic conflict, as well as health inequality and population dynamics.

The program aims to inspire students’ critical theoretical imagination and helps them to make better sense of the world around themselves. SRPP majors will be regarded as excellent candidates for law school, and for graduate programs in the social sciences, in public policy, business school, public health, education, urban planning, and social work. Graduates work with NGO’s, in public service, urban planning, and community action.

Its breadth and its emphasis on critical thinking and hands-on empirical research, especially research linked to policy questions, distinguish the major in Social Research and Public Policy. Social Research and Public Policy majors will produce a piece of original research to meet the capstone requirement. Students may collect their own data, conduct simulations, or reanalyze available data to make a contribution to the research in the field of their choice. Students will work with a faculty mentor to develop and implement their research design. Students who wish to do fieldwork abroad should develop the project in the spring of junior year and obtain approval from the faculty mentor to collect data during the summer before senior year. NYUAD’s Institutional Review Board must approve all projects that involve human subjects before data collection begins. Seniors will attend a bi-weekly colloquium, which is moderated by a faculty member and serves as a forum for peer review and feedback on progress with the project.

The study away pathway for the Social Research and Public Policy major can be found on the NYUAD Student Portal at students.nyuad.nyu.edu/pathways . Students with questions should contact the Office of Global Education.

New York University's Office of Undergraduate Admissions supports the application process for all undergraduate programs at NYU.  For additional information about undergraduate admissions, including application requirements, see How to Apply . 

Program Requirements

Sample plan of study, learning outcomes.

Upon completion of the NYU Abu Dhabi Social Research and Public Policy degree, all graduates are expected to be able to demonstrate:

• Knowledge and application of analytical frameworks to understand the policy process in different societies, including the role of the state and other major stakeholders and organizations, as well as the role of social and political movements.
• A thorough understanding of analytical frameworks to understand social structure in societies around the globe, including an understanding of the causes and consequences of social and economic inequality, poverty, and social development.
• Critical thinking, writing, and analysis related to the social science literature; ability to comprehensively and critically analyze the literature in fields of inquiry important for public policy in writing and for oral presentations, with an emphasis on analytical clarity.
• Ability to apply the central concepts and methodologies employed in fields relevant to SRPP majors, including fields such as research on inequality and poverty, health, conflict, development, culture, and social interaction.
• Critical assessment of the normative arguments and empirical evidence that play a role in specific policy debates; ability to assess the quality of existing empirical evidence as well as the need for additional empirical work relation to the policy question.

NYU Policies

Nyu abu dhabi policies.

University-wide policies can be found on the New York University Policy pages .

A full list of relevant policies can be found on NYU Abu Dhabi's undergraduate academic policies page .

Print Options

Send Page to Printer

Print this page.

Download Page (PDF)

The PDF will include all information unique to this page.

Social Research and Public Policy: Some Cautionary Notes

• First Online: 01 January 2013

Cite this chapter

• Rajnarain 3  

948 Accesses

The relationship between social research and public policy is examined in this chapter. The dangers of generalization based on research and the need for small-scale trials for different populations are pointed out. The ethical responsibility of the researcher for the well-being of the humans is emphasized. The chapter discusses the nature of social research done in a context where a second-class status is accorded to applied research. The process through which social research is conducted is also outlined. It is argued that political, economical and interpersonal factors influence policy decisions. A typology of policy research based on its focus and nature is presented and its bearing on methodological issues is discussed.

Rajnarain (author deceased)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Baritz, L. (1960). The servants of power: a history of the use of social science in American Industry . Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Edwards, M. (2005). Social science research and public policy: narrowing the divide. Australian Journal of Public Administration., 64 , 68–74.

Article   Google Scholar  

Head, B. (2010). Evidence based policy: principles and requirements. http://espace.library.uq.edu.au .

Landry, R., Amara, N., & Laamary, M. (2001). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30 , 333–349.

Lin, N. (1976). Foundations of social research . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Google Scholar  

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

SRA (Social Research Association). (2003). Ethical guidelines. London: SRA. ( www.the-sra.org.uk/documents/pdfs/ethics03.pdf ).

Stone, D. (2002). Getting research into policy. Paper presented at Global Development National Conference, Rio de Janeiro, December 7–10. http://www.reut-institute.org .

Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation—methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology–Philosophy, Lucknow University, Lucknow, U.P, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Virology, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, India

R. C. Tripathi

Department of Psychology, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

Yoganand Sinha

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer India

About this chapter

Rajnarain (2014). Social Research and Public Policy: Some Cautionary Notes. In: Tripathi, R., Sinha, Y. (eds) Psychology, Development and Social Policy in India. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1003-0_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1003-0_2

Published : 06 August 2013

Publisher Name : Springer, New Delhi

Print ISBN : 978-81-322-1002-3

Online ISBN : 978-81-322-1003-0

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Social and Public Policy MA

Year of entry 2024, masters study and funding online event.

Join us online on Wednesday 5 June to receive expert advice on how to make your Masters a reality with funding. Book your place

Course overview

On this course you’ll explore issues, concepts, and debates in social and public policy research to gain an insight into policy-making and its social impacts.

You’ll take core modules that investigate social theories, issues and research methods relevant to social and public policy. You’ll also develop core skills in critical policy analysis and policy evaluation. There are also opportunities to study and debate current policy issues, such as work and welfare, migration, child and family policy, or the challenges of ageing populations, with a focus on real-life examples.

Supported by our well-known research centres and taught by expert tutors, you’ll tailor the programme to suit your own interests and career aspirations. With a range of optional modules to choose from, you could pursue further advanced research skills or study complementary social topics such as disability studies, gender studies, racism and ethnicity studies, or globalisation.

You’ll gain an insight into some of the most sensitive and complex social issues affecting governments worldwide.

Research insight

You’ll learn in a research-intensive, stimulating environment. As well as the Leeds Social Sciences Institute which fosters collaboration, you’ll benefit from the interdisciplinary expertise hosted by the Centre for Disability Studies , Centre for Ethnicity and Racism Studies , Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Studies , the Centre for Research on Families, Life Course and Generations , and The Bauman Institute . All of these centres run their own calendars of events such as workshops and seminars.

Course details

From the start of the programme, you’ll study core modules that introduce you to the social contexts and social problems that challenge policymakers and develop your understanding of social research. As the course develops, you’ll focus more specifically on the process of social policy formation, and the kinds of evidence on which new policies and programmes are founded, and how their effectiveness is evaluated.

You’ll gain a thorough understanding of research methods, the theoretical assumptions which underpin them and how these affect the way the findings are interpreted. You’ll also focus on specific examples such as welfare reform or employment activation policies.

You’ll choose from optional modules to specialise in topics that interest you. You could study, for example, contemporary social thought to contextualise your work or look at issues such as climate change, care, labour mobility, healthcare, disability, gender, migration, or ‘race’ and ethnicity. You could also choose to study data analysis and research methods in further depth.

At the end of the programme, you’ll submit your dissertation. This is an independent piece of research on a related topic of your choice which will allow you to demonstrate and apply the knowledge and skills you’ve acquired during the year.

Course structure

The list shown below represents typical modules/components studied and may change from time to time. Read more in our terms and conditions.

For more information and a full list of typical modules available on this course, please read Social and Public Policy MA in the course catalogue

Year 1 compulsory modules

Year 1 optional modules (selection of typical options shown below).

You will choose 30 credits from the below:

Learning and teaching

At Leeds we use a range of teaching and learning methods to help you make the most of your studies including presentations, seminars, workshops, online learning, tutorials and lectures. Independent study is crucial to this degree – it allows you to prepare for taught sessions, develop your research interests and build a range of skills.

On this course you’ll be taught by our expert academics, from lecturers through to professors. You may also be taught by industry professionals with years of experience, as well as trained postgraduate researchers, connecting you to some of the brightest minds on campus.

Your core modules will be assessed using essays. Optional modules may use other forms of assessment that reflect the diversity of the topics you can study, including presentations, book and literature reviews, research proposals and reports among others.

Entry requirements

A bachelor degree with a 2:1 (hons) or equivalent in a social science, or related subject.

We accept a range of international equivalent qualifications.

Please note that meeting the entry requirements of this course doesn't guarantee an offer of a place.

English language requirements

IELTS 6.5 overall, with no less than 6.0 in any component. For other English qualifications, read English language equivalent qualifications .

Improve your English

International students who do not meet the English language requirements for this programme may be able to study our postgraduate pre-sessional English course, to help improve your English language level.

This pre-sessional course is designed with a progression route to your degree programme and you’ll learn academic English in the context of your subject area. To find out more, read  Language for Politics and Society (6 weeks)  and  Language for Social Sciences and Arts: Politics and Society (10 weeks) .

We also offer online pre-sessionals alongside our on-campus pre-sessionals.  Find out more about our six week online pre-sessional .

You can also study pre-sessionals for longer periods – read about our postgraduate pre-sessional English courses .

How to apply

International – Friday 28 June 2024

UK – Friday 16 August 2024

If you intend to apply for funding, you should submit an application for a place on your chosen course at least one month before any specific scholarship deadline.

The ‘Apply’ link at the top of this page takes you to information on applying for taught programmes and to the University's online application system.

If you're unsure about the application process, contact the admissions team for help.

Documents and information we will need include:

• original or certified copies of your transcripts
• original or certified copies of your degree certificate
• original or certified copy of your IELTS/TOEFL results (if English is not your first language)

Read about visas, immigration and other information in International students . We recommend that international students apply as early as possible to ensure that they have time to apply for their visa.

Admissions policy

University of Leeds Taught Admissions Policy 2024

This course is taught by

School of Sociology and Social Policy

Postgraduate Admissions Office

Email: [email protected] Telephone:

UK: £11,750 (Total)

International: £26,000 (Total)

Read more about paying fees and charges .

For fees information for international taught postgraduate students, read Masters fees .

Additional cost information

There may be additional costs related to your course or programme of study, or related to being a student at the University of Leeds. Read more on our living costs and budgeting page .

Scholarships and financial support

If you have the talent and drive, we want you to be able to study with us, whatever your financial circumstances. There may be help for students in the form of loans and non-repayable grants from the University and from the government.  Find out more at Masters funding overview .

The School of Sociology and Social Policy usually offers a number of scholarships each year. Find out more on the School's scholarships page .

Career opportunities

You’ll gain a wide range of knowledge and skills throughout this course, including sophisticated skills in research, communication and analysis that will be useful in a variety of careers.

Social and Public Policy graduates have gone on to a wide range of posts across the third sector, public services, government and business. These have included central and local government departments, community bodies, housing and health organisations, research consultancies and advocacy or campaigning.

Careers support

We encourage you to prepare for your career from day one. That’s one of the reasons Leeds graduates are so sought after by employers.

The Careers Centre and staff in your faculty provide a range of help and advice to help you plan your career and make well-informed decisions along the way, even after you graduate. Find out more about Careers support .

Related courses

Social research ma, society, culture and media ma, decolonial thought and social theory msc, inequalities and social science msc, rankings and awards, top 20 in the uk for sociology & social policy.

The Guardian University League Tables 2024

Top 100 in the world for Social Policy and Administration

QS World University Rankings 2023

Social Research and Public Policy

• Getting Started
• Background Research
• Social Sciences
• Public Policy
• Economic Policy

Finding Social Policy Statistics

Frequently used data sources, social security research - u.s., social security research - international, international statistical sources, subject librarian.

Datasets are collections of quantitative or other numeric data gathered during surveys, interviews or other means that can be analyzed using specialized software such as Stata, SPSS, or R. This section list both publicly available and subscription datasets relevant to social research and public policy studies. 

• Harvard Dataverse Dataverse is the world's largest open source research data repository of social science research datasets. It facilitates making data available to others, and allows you to replicate others' work more easily. Researchers, data authors, publishers, data distributors, and affiliated institutions all receive academic credit and web visibility.
• Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) This link opens in a new window ICPSR is a social science repository that includes curated data sets pertaining to many disciplines within the social sciences. ICPSR contains original codebooks and descriptions of methodology, offers multiple file format downloads, and links data to relevant scholarly research. Users can search at the variable level and trace datasets to their use in academic publications. The archive also includes data-driven learning guides for those teaching with data. More information less... Users need to login to access. Use the single sign-in with Google and when prompted, use NetID credentials.
• IPUMS IPUMS provides census and survey data from around the world integrated across time and space. IPUMS integration and documentation makes it easy to study change, conduct comparative research, merge information across data types, and analyze individuals within family and community contexts. Data and services available free of charge.
• The Quality of Government (QOG) Institute The QOG Institute at the University of Gothenburg studies good governance and corruption on a global scale. QoG provides a range of datasets available for free, and data visualization tools. QoG Standard Dataset contains the most qualitative variables from the Standard Dataset. The QoG Expert Survey is a dataset based on our survey of experts on public administration around the world, available in an individual dataset and an aggregated dataset covering 107 countries.The QoG OECD dataset covers countries who are members of the OECD. The EU Regional Data consists of 450 variables from Eurostat and other sources, covering three levels of European regions - country, major socio-economic regions and basic regions for the application of regional policies.

• Statistical Insight This link opens in a new window Statistical Insight provides indexing and abstracts for federal, state, and international statistical publications as well as selected business and professional publications containing statistics. Approximately 20% of the federal statistical publications are available in full text. This resource includes all content from the American Statistics Index (ASI), Statistical Reference Index (SRI), and Index to International Statistics (IIS), including Statistical Datasets. Dates of coverage: 1973 to present.
• Research, Statistics, & Policy Analysis The research and policy analysis information section of the U.S. Social Security website is the result of a collaborative effort among three ORDP offices—the Office of Research, Demonstration, and Employment Support, the Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, and the Office of Retirement Policy. All three offices work together to conduct research and policy analysis and disseminate the results of their research in a variety of publications that are available on this website.
• Social Security Programs Throughout the World U.S. government publication produced by the Social Security Administration which highlights the principal features of social security programs in more than 170 countries. Published in collaboration with the International Social Security Association (ISSA), one of four regional volumes is issued every six months.
• UNdata This link opens in a new window UNdata is the data download portal of the United Nations. Users can search by country, year, and indicator and create custom data extracts to download. UNData also includes an API that developers can use to query, display results externally, and download to local storage for further analysis. The data portal includes datasets from the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), World Health Organization (WHO), and more.
• << Previous: Economic Policy
• Next: News >>
• Last Updated: Apr 23, 2024 10:49 AM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/srpp

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Bringing an investigator’s eye to complex social challenges

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

Anna Russo likes puzzles. They require patience, organization, and a view of the big picture. She brings an investigator’s eye to big institutional and societal challenges whose solutions can have wide-ranging, long-term impacts.

Russo’s path to MIT began with questions. She didn’t have the whole picture yet. “I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life,” says Russo, who is completing her PhD in economics in 2024. “I was good at math and science and thought I wanted to be a doctor.”

While completing her undergraduate studies at Yale University, where she double majored in economics and applied math, Russo discovered a passion for problem-solving, where she could apply an analytical lens to answering the kinds of thorny questions whose solutions could improve policy. “Empirical research is fun and exciting,” Russo says.

After Yale, Russo considered what to do next. She worked as a full-time research assistant with MIT economist Amy Finkelstein . Russo’s work with Finkelstein led her toward identifying, studying, and developing answers to complex questions. 

“My research combines ideas from two fields of economic inquiry — public finance and industrial organization — and applies them to questions about the design of environmental and health care policy,” Russo says. “I like the way economists think analytically about social problems.”

Narrowing her focus

Studying with and being advised by renowned economists as both an undergraduate and a doctoral student helped Russo narrow her research focus, fitting more pieces into the puzzle. “What drew me to MIT was its investment in its graduate students,” Russo says.

Economic research meant digging into policy questions, identifying market failures, and proposing solutions. Doctoral study allowed Russo to assemble data to rigorously follow each line of inquiry.

“Doctoral study means you get to write about something you’re really interested in,” Russo notes. This led her to study policy responses to climate change adaptation and mitigation. 

“In my first year, I worked on a project exploring the notion that floodplain regulation design doesn’t do a good job of incentivizing the right level of development in flood-prone areas,” she says. “How can economists help governments convince people to act in society’s best interest?”

It’s important to understand institutional details, Russo adds, which can help investigators identify and implement solutions. 

“Feedback, advice, and support from faculty were crucial as I grew as a researcher at MIT,” she says. Beyond her two main MIT advisors, Finkelstein and economist Nikhil Agarwal — educators she describes as “phenomenal, dedicated advisors and mentors” — Russo interacted regularly with faculty across the department. 

Russo later discovered another challenge she hoped to solve: inefficiencies in conservation and carbon offset programs. She set her sights on the United States Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program because she believes it and programs like it can be improved. 

The CRP is a land conservation plan administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency. In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality.

“I think we can tweak the program’s design to improve cost-effectiveness,” Russo says. “There’s a trove of data available.” The data include information like auction participants’ bids in response to well-specified auction rules, which Russo links to satellite data measuring land use outcomes. Understanding how landowners bid in CRP auctions can help identify and improve the program’s function. 

“We may be able to improve targeting and achieve more cost-effective conservation by adjusting the CRP’s scoring system,” Russo argues. Opportunities may exist to scale the incremental changes under study for other conservation programs and carbon offset markets more generally.  

Economics, Russo believes, can help us conceptualize problems and recommend effective alternative solutions.

The next puzzle

Russo wants to find her next challenge while continuing her research. She plans to continue her work as a junior fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows, after which she’ll join the Harvard Department of Economics as an assistant professor. Russo also plans to continue helping other budding economists since she believes in the importance of supporting other students.   

Russo’s advisors are some of her biggest supporters. 

Finklestein emphasizes Russo’s curiosity, enthusiasm, and energy as key drivers in her success. “Her genuine curiosity and interest in getting to the bottom of a problem with the data — with an econometric analysis, with a modeling issue — is the best antidote for [the stress that can be associated with research],” Finklestein says. “It's a key ingredient in her ability to produce important and credible work.”

“She's also incredibly generous with her time and advice,” Finklestein continues, “whether it's helping an undergraduate research assistant with her senior thesis, or helping an advisor such as myself navigate a data access process she's previously been through.”

“Instead of an advisor-advisee relationship, working with her on a thesis felt more like a collaboration between equals,” Agarwal adds. “[She] has the maturity and smarts to produce pathbreaking research.

“Doctoral study is an opportunity for students to find their paths collaboratively,” Russo says. “If I can help someone else solve a small piece of their puzzle, that’s a huge positive. Research is a series of many, many small steps forward.” 

Identifying important causes for further investigation and study will always be important to Russo. “I also want to dig into some other market that’s not working well and figure out how to make it better,” she says. “Right now I’m really excited about understanding California wildfire mitigation.” 

Puzzles are made to be solved, after all.

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Video: "MIT SHASS Student Profiles: Economics PhD Student Anna Russo"
• Amy Finklestein
• Nikhil Agarwal
• Department of Economics

Related Topics

• Graduate, postdoctoral
• Climate change
• Agriculture
• Health care
• School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences

Related Articles

A new vision for US health care

Optimizing kidney donation and other markets without money

Measuring health care

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Exploring the history of data-driven arguments in public life

Read full story →

Three from MIT awarded 2024 Guggenheim Fellowships

A musical life: Carlos Prieto ’59 in conversation and concert

Two from MIT awarded 2024 Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans

MIT Emerging Talent opens pathways for underserved global learners

The MIT Edgerton Center’s third annual showcase dazzles onlookers

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

Scharrer and Shoub Receive 2024 Outstanding Research Award

The College of Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) is pleased to announce the recipients of this year's Outstanding Research Award: Erica Scharrer, professor of communication, and Kelsey Shoub, assistant professor of public policy and undergraduate program director. This award, which includes a $1,000 prize and a plaque, recognizes distinguished achievement in scholarship and research by tenure-line faculty within the College.  

Professor Erica Scharrer was nominated for the Outstanding Research Award for her impressive track record of excellence in research and scholarship over the past five years. In 2021, Professor Scharrer received the Distinguished Community-Engaged Research Award at UMass, which recognizes individuals for their outstanding contributions to community-engaged research with local, regional, national, or international impacts. The International Communication Association (ICA), the most prominent international association for communication scholars, named Professor Scharrer as a fellow in 2022. ICA also presented Professor Scharrer with the Senior Scholar Award from the Children, Adolescents, and Media division of ICA in 2023.  

In addition to Professor Scharrer's many accolades for her research, her most recent book, "Quantitative Research Methods in Communication: The Power of Numbers for Social Justice," advances principles and practices to conduct quantitative research from a critical theory-informed, social justice lens. In addition, she has co-authored two book chapters on research methods, one on social justice and quantitative methods and another on rethinking methods in media effects research. Beyond the valuable information Professor Scharrer has provided to her peers, she also has a track record of pursuing community engagement work, showing a solid commitment to informing experts and the public of important communication research.  

Professor Kelsey Shoub was nominated for her outstanding and prolific research record, which is especially impressive for someone who received their PhD in 2018. Her work has contributed significantly to academic and public understanding of race, gender, and policing and how language about policy shapes public understanding. "Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tells Us About Policing & Race," a 2018 book co-authored by Professor Shoub, utilized data from 20 million traffic stops in North Carolina to demonstrate how ubiquitous racial disparities are within police forces and how greater political representation within Black communities offers a way to address such disparities.  

In addition to co-authorship of such an important book, in 2021, Professor Shoub was awarded the Herbert Kaufman Best Paper Award from the American Political Science Association's Section on Public Administration for her article "Do Female Officers Police Differently? Evidence from Traffic Stops." She has also published thirteen peer-reviewed articles in excellent journals, including the American Journal of Political Science, American Political Science Review, Journal of Politics, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, and Journal of Public Policy , just to name a few. According to the Web of Science, she has been cited more than 200 times and already has an H-index of 5, which is quite an accomplishment for a researcher so early in their career.  

SBS is proud of the extraordinary research efforts put forth by Professors Scharrer and Shoub. The SBS Outstanding Research Award is presented annually to those who either self-nominate or are nominated by their peers. Please visit the SBS website for the complete award requirements and a list of all past winners.  

Global footer

• ©2024 University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Site policies
• Non-discrimination notice
• Accessibility
• Terms of use