Integrating evidence and public engagement in policy work: an empirical examination of three UK policy organisations

Abstract

Alongside efforts to improve evidence use in policy, grassroots demands and governance-driven democratisation are informing an ever-increasing range of public engagement processes in UK policy. This article explores how these simultaneous efforts intersect within three policy organisations working at different levels of UK policy: local (Sheffield City Council), regional (Greater Manchester Combined Authority) and national (devolved) (Scottish Government). Employing documentary analysis and 51 interviews with individuals working in these organisations, we argue that there are organisational similarities in approaches to evidence and engagement, including: conceiving of both ‘data’ (statistics tracked by internal analysts) and ‘evidence’ (external analysis) in primarily quantified terms; and a tendency to limit the authority of publics to advising and consulting on predefined issues. Yet, we also find growing interest in more in-depth understandings of publics (for example, via ‘lived experiences’) but uncertainty about how to use these qualitative insights in settings that have institutionalised quantitative approaches to evidence. We identify four distinct responses: (1) prioritising public engagement; (2) strategically using public engagement and evidence to support policy proposals; (3) prioritising quantified evidence and data; and (4) attempting to integrate these distinct knowledge types. Surprisingly (given the organisational importance afforded to metrics), we categorised most interviewees in Cluster 4. Finally, we explore how interviewees described trying to do this kind of integration work, before reflecting on the promise and limitations of the various mechanisms that interviewees identified.

Do policy actors have different views of what constitutes evidence in policymaking?

“…As a starting point, the concept of culture of evidence can be understood as a combination of (1) rules and customs that determine how knowledge is used in a given system or context, (2) criteria for creating and labelling knowledge in a given system or context (Hill O'Connor et al, 2023), (3) attitudes and behaviours towards evidence and knowledge in a given system and context, and (4) definitions of concepts such as evidence, knowledge, data, information, or expertise and how these may differ across systems and contexts (SKAPE, 2022).…”

“…This started under the Labour-Liberal Democrat government (1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007) and has been developed under the Scottish National Party (SNP). This approach involves significant engagement with citizens/stakeholders in the policy-making process (Hill O'Connor et al, 2023) so that services are designed with, and for, people and communities -not delivered 'top-down' for administrative convenience (Christie Commission, 2011). In Scotland, policy advice and evidence functions are more resourced within each government department.…”

Ecologising Invited and Uninvited Patient Participation in Russia

“…Patient participation has grown widely in recent decades [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Patients successfully contribute to healthcare provision [ 5 ], organisation [ 6 ] and governance [ 7 ]. Despite the expansion of patient participation, the credentialed expertise of medical professionals and the everyday experiences of patients are often seen as ‘intrinsically distinct’ [ 8 , p. 2315].…”