Knowledge, Policy and Power: Six Dimensions of the Knowledge -Development Policy Interface

This document from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) explores the knowledge-development policy interface. It aims to stimulate debates and the development of tailored tools for actors involved in knowledge translation processes in the following six areas:

1. Types of knowledge.
   
2. Political context.
   
3. Sectoral dynamics.
   
4. Actors.
   
5. Innovative frameworks.
   
6. Knowledge translation.
   

Using case studies from its Evidence-based Policy in Development Network (ebpdn) partners, the document seeks to answer the following:

1. "What role do different types of knowledge (like research-based, participatory and project knowledge) play in evidence-informed policy processes?
   
2. How do the characteristics of the knowledge-policy interface differ across policy contexts, from developmental states to fragile states?
   
3. To what extent do knowledge-policy-power dynamics differ across policy sectors, from highly technical policy areas such as trade policy to more inclusive debates on primary education?
   
4. What role do different actors (civil servants, legislators, think tanks, academics, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations (CSOs), donors) play in evidence-informed policy processes?
   
5. What can new theoretical frameworks add to debates on knowledge, power and policy - from complexity theory to innovation systems?
   
6. What do we know about knowledge translation processes, and can we identify good practice that could be adopted more broadly?"

The document presents a synthesis of recent research and insights underscoring the fact that the knowledge-policy interface is too complex to encapsulate in any single framework. It describes the limitations of the RAPID research-to-policy framework (see page 3 for a diagram of the framework) and recommends use of additional tools and frameworks to deepen analysis. It suggests drawing on multiple sources: "Many types of knowledge have a role to play in improving policy and practice: scientific research, impact assessments, community voices, and moral principles and judgements," and multiple frameworks, particularly the Innovation Systems (IS) framework.

Research-based knowledge can inform policy making and must be independent of special interest involvement: "One way to combat this is through the promotion of critical research and advocacy, where organisations such as CSOs problematise and critique prevailing trends and discuss the values and ideology behind policy." Knowledge generated during the implementation of development projects and programmes can be another source of policy advice. "Generating such knowledge can focus on the process of implementation, monitor ongoing activities or be based on approaches such as impact evaluation (IE), which look at the effects of development intervention outside the immediate work of the programme." However, effective "feedback" can be hindered by being too context-specific, or by power structures which prevent critical evaluation from showing useful "failed project" information. Drawing on participatory knowledge can offer direct citizen involvement, experiential knowledge with a local perspective, redress to power imbalances, and enabling ability for citizens to hold governments responsible for their actions. Obstacles to incorporating voice into policy processes include power imbalances between the government or development agency and the citizens. These imbalances can negatively affect objectives by reproducing gender dynamics, racial, or spatial inequalities by failing to amplify voices of vulnerable groups. Varying sources of knowledge can be put into frameworks from which policy is derived.

Political context must be considered when advocating for the use of multiple knowledge sources, for example giving a participatory voice to CSOs. "Conditions are likely to be more favourable to the uptake of multiple knowledge sources in the policy process in democratic contexts, but there may also be unexpected opportunities for the influence of new knowledge in decision-making processes in authoritarian or fragile state contexts." For example, "more opportunities may exist for evidence-based policy dialogues at the sub-national level owing to a demand for new knowledge to help improve local livelihoods." Similarly, "a recent ODI study on science-policy linkages found that evidence-informed dialogues were easier at decentralised levels, as local actors had less access to research, so were more likely to use it if it were tailored to their needs." Crisis or post-crisis environments may also offer opportunities for the use of new knowledge sources in policy making.

Sectoral dynamics, for example, education or natural resource management or economics and trade policy, offer differing "climates" for policy dialogues. For example, the education sector may offer on open and participatory arena for advocacy while trade policy decisions may take place without public input. Economic interests and the demand for technical expertise, limiting the use of diverse knowledge sources, may impede public participation and contestation. "Within a given political context, it is likely that knowledge-policy dynamics will differ across policy sectors due to divergent actors, demands for new knowledge and capacities to use such knowledge. It is therefore important that policy-sector dynamics are more carefully explored (both within and across countries) in order to tailor influencing strategies accordingly."

Actors in knowledge contribution are not only CSOs and NGOs, international agencies, and civil servants, but also think tanks, legislators, political parties, intermediaries, the media, private sector actors, and networks. Each can increase its ability to inform by linking to and incorporating knowledge from the other actors, setting up a variety of channels for presenting knowledge as evidence.

In addition to the RAPID framework, the document examines the Complexity and IS frameworks. As stated here, more nuanced understanding of the role that values and beliefs play in the construction and application of knowledge is needed. "For example, the (currently dominant) logical framework approach for planning and strategy appears inadequate, as it presumes higher powers of foresight than are realistic when working in open, complex systems. Simplistic models of cause and effect inherent in many counterfactual approaches of impact evaluation (IE) also appear unsuitable for complex systems, which may involve the nonlinear interaction of a number of important forces to produce outcomes....Developing different approaches will require more than just the existence of alternative tools such as outcome mapping and participatory impact evaluation." The IS framework focuses on the processes and drivers behind innovation, including the use and uptake of new or existing knowledge. It looks at whole systems and emphasises the "demand" side of implementing or advocating for change.

Knowledge translation is considered through the IS approach, emphasising the need for interaction between knowledge producers and policymakers, particularly at the interface of new knowledge and development policy decision-making processes. "... [I]t is critical to consider carefully approaches to strengthen not only the quality of knowledge generation and knowledge uptake, but also the critical role that knowledge translation and intermediaries [networks, the media, NGOs, and communication teams within research institutes] play. Empirical research on intermediaries is urgently needed given the high level of demand for such a brokering role by analysts, policymakers and practitioners alike, as are efforts to assess and share lessons with regard to new approaches to capacity building..." particularly along North-South divides. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are cited as useful in bringing audiences into organisations and processes using such tools as RSS feeds, online social networking, posting of short research summaries on the internet, and continued updating of knowledge sources such as Wikipedia, based on its research findings.