The recent launch of the Academy’s report highlighting a variety of recommendations which would strengthen the UK Government’s use of evidence in policymaking and delivery is an important moment for our disciplines. But in developing that report, we were acutely aware that there is no monopoly of good practice, and that the UK Government could learn much from other countries around the world.
The report mentions in its appendices a sister project, carried out in the spring and summer of 2024, where we sought to collate learnings from across the world about how the social sciences can, and do, inform government policy. The findings from this project were based on a series of interviews with participants from nine countries exploring how different governments draw on evidence – particularly from the social sciences – to inform the development and implementation of public policy. This project sought to understand what lessons the UK might learn from experiences elsewhere around the globe, and in particular the infrastructures, processes and mindsets that facilitate this.
In total, 24 interviews took place with participants from:
- Australia
- Canada
- The European Commission
- Germany
- Ireland
- New Zealand
- Norway
- Scotland
- United States
Participants were drawn from both inside and outside of government – some were based within their nation’s formal governmental infrastructure, whilst others were based within academia or industry but had significant experience of working with government agencies. As far as possible, we sought to achieve a balance of perspectives for each nation between those who had worked inside government and those who had been external to it.
Some of the most interesting takeaways from the interviews were:
- Moments like the Covid-19 pandemic focus government mindsets on how they’re using evidence, and whether they have enough sources for evidence in order to make fully-informed policy.
- Policymaking processes across most governments are opaque, even to those who want to engage with them. Only in a few instances (the European Commission, Norway, New Zealand) were there clear diagrams or organigrams setting out how public policy is made and how to contribute to that process. Whilst the European Commission clearly has a different status from the other nations and governments we spoke with, it did boast the clearest and most transparent process for linking research with policy. Its twin Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) and Scientific Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA) process draws well on expertise from across different disciplines, and was felt to be effective in providing the best possible advice to decision-makers.
- Elsewhere, Scotland’s experiences of developing their own bespoke structures and processes in the 25+ years since the Scottish Parliament’s establishment is an important counterpoint to the lack of equivalents elsewhere. The two specific roles within Scottish Government of a Chief Social Researcher and a Chief Social Policy Advisor were felt (both by respondents within Scotland and by some respondents in other nations) to have brought about significant and clear benefits to policy. Interestingly though, this was felt to have been the case more because they had changed mindsets and culture rather than because of the positions themselves.
- There is an important and interesting distinction whereby continental Europe and French-speaking Canada had very inclusive conceptualisations of “science” which included the social sciences (and indeed the humanities). This was in stark contrast to much of the anglosphere where “science” was seen as meaning exclusively “STEM”, and there was a hierarchy of knowledge beneath those subjects, to the exclusion or detriment of other social science disciplines. As a result, individuals from STEM backgrounds tended to heavily dominate scientific advisory positions within governments in those nations, often leading to a narrow focus on a small number of academic disciplines.
- The Norwegian civil service was distinct from many others in that it does not include a large cadre of scientific / special advisers within government. Instead, the Norwegian Government draws on expertise from research institutes, universities and other institutions by each department / ministry having a research portfolio within it. Meanwhile, decision-making on policy within government is often left to the discretion of bureaucrats. Indeed, the very term “bureaucrat”, which within a modern UK context has pejorative connotations, was used by our Norway-based respondents in a much more positive way to describe smooth, effective governance by dedicated and apolitical civil servants. This small linguistic difference spoke volumes about the different political cultures which exist between the two nations.
- The US interviews preceded the election of Donald Trump for his second term. At the time we were having conversations, there was optimism about the Blueprint for the Use of Social and Behavioral Science to Advance Evidence-Based Policymaking report. It was seen as a milestone moment for the effective use of social and behavioural science to advance evidence-based policymaking. A follow-up set of discussions now would likely yield a very different set of responses.
Watch the video below to find out more about the key findings of this part of the project.
Whilst the Academy’s attention will now turn towards the UK report and seeking to ensure it prompts a conversation about infrastructures and processes here, we would also welcome dialogue with our counterpart academies from elsewhere in the world on the international project to see what further insights can be gleaned over the coming months and years. Anyone interested in exploring these can e-mail policy@acss.org.uk.