Skip to main navigationSkip to main content
The University of Southampton
Public Policy|Southampton

Evidence to Policy

It's the trust, stupid.

Julie Cantalou

For evidence to inform policy, trust is sine qua non. But the relationship between decision makers and researchers is often characterised by lack of trust, or even mistrust. This blog posts looks at the causes behind the erosion of trust between the scientific and policy communities and mechanisms to restore it.

Working at the interface of science and policy, I often read about successful mechanisms to inform policy and best practices on how to engage with policymakers. While these may be key to strengthen networks and knowledge exchange between academia and the world of policy, I feel that they often overlook an essential ingredient. Bridging the gap between scientists and policymakers is fundamentally related to trust. Without mutual trust there cannot be mutual learning and evidence is unlikely to inform policy significantly.

Several trends have increasingly eroded the trust between academics and policymakers, especially elected politicians, over the years. While the British institutions dispose of strong mechanisms to support evidence-based policymaking[1], these trends may significantly hamper their success.

The trust between science and policy communities is fading

The most significant trend is the erosion of citizens’ trust in politicians and political institutions. Across the OECD only 40% of citizens trust their government. Furthermore, trust in government is deteriorating rapidly in many OECD countries.

Trust in institutions

This phenomenon is problematic, as trust in institutions is important for the success of many government policies, programmes and regulations that depend on cooperation and compliance of citizens. Lack of trust compromises the willingness of citizens and business to respond to public policies and contribute to a sustainable economic recovery.

This lack of trust also affects scientists in two ways. Firstly, scientists may be more reluctant to work with decision makers out of fear that the lack of trust in the political system could contaminate academia. Working with untrusted politicians on controversial policies could negatively affect the perception of scientists by the public and undermine citizens’ trust in science more broadly. Secondly, flawed implementation of policies, has had negative impacts on citizen’s trust in science in the past. This has contributed to the scientific community being more vigilant.

Against this background, another trend is becoming more common: reciprocal discrediting of the work of either policymakers or scientists. British and American politics provide good examples of how decision makers discredit scientific research and academia (we all remember Michael Gove’s comment). This behaviour has more serious consequences than we think. I cannot tell you how many colleagues have told me ‘I would love to work with the government on this issue, but not with this government’. An attitude that, for obvious reasons, is particularly strong among European researchers working in the UK. At the same time, scientists also display strong prejudice against decision makers with regard to their supposed lack of expertise. Scientists rarely offer policymakers the benefit of the doubt and are quick in condemning decisions that go against their opinion as being driven by self-interest.

The third trend that I have observed relates to presenting scientific evidence as an absolute truth. Politicians are quick in picking evidence that supports their plans, opinions or manifesto commitments, instead of weighing different sources and research for what it offers. Co-opting scientific findings may give politicians stronger arguments in favour of their preferred policy option, but it often means that dissenting research findings get dismissed. Simultaneously, scientists are encouraged to promote their research more heavily. The assessment of research impact through the Research Excellence Framework (REF) creates strong incentives to overstate the relative importance of one academic’s research over other sources of evidence.

How to rebuild trust?

Luckily, the scientific community is still enjoying high levels of public trust. Last year Ipsos MORI released new polling data showing that 79% of the public trust scientists, placing them among the most trusted professionals in Britain, only behind doctors, teachers and judges. Over in the United States, data on public confidence in institutions from the General Social Survey (GSS) demonstrates that confidence in the scientific community has remained relatively stable since 1973. 95% of surveyed individuals agree that scientists are ‘helping to solve challenging problems,’ and 88% agreed that scientists are ‘dedicated people who work for the good of humanity’”.

However, the important issue here is trust between scientists and policymakers, which I believe to be essential for evidence to inform policy. Unfortunately, I was not been able to find any data on the levels of trust between academics and policymakers (hint to all social scientists out there – if you know of any relevant research on this topic let me know, if not, might be an interesting topic to study), but current trends lead me to think it could be better. There is of course no magic recipe to build trust permanently, but here are a few ideas.

What policymakers can do:

Policymakers, both elected politicians and civil servants have to be open towards different sources of evidence and avoid just picking the research that confirms their preferred policy option. This requires policymakers to be more honest about the reasons behind certain policy choices.

Many parts of Government have structures and mechanisms to solicit and incorporate scientific advice – e.g. Chief Scientific Advisors, Science Advisory Committees. Senior policymakers should make better use of structures which are already in place.

What scientific researchers can do:

By refusing to work with politicians and civil servants, scientists achieve the opposite of what is needed, as this would ultimately reinforce political movements and politicians that refuse to include evidence in the policy mix. Scientists and citizens have to stand up for science, as they are doing in the UK and the US. But more importantly scientists and politicians who reject populism should work together more. And why not, scientists can engage in politics by becoming member of a party or standing in elections as is increasingly happening in the US as a counter-reaction to Trump being elected[2].

It is also important for scientists to separate their findings (e.g. warming is occurring at a certain rate) from assertions about what to do about them (e.g. adopt certain policy proposals, such as carbon pricing). There is a need to clearly distinguish the science from the policies derived from it. Policies are always based on a mix of considerations, such as public opinion, scientific evidence, financial constraints, etc.

What policy engagement units like Public Policy|Southampton can do:

The main aim of any policy engagement activity should be to build trust. This is best achieved through mechanisms that increase interaction and mutual learning. Any activity that exposes scientists and policymakers to their mutual work and the constraints that each of them are under, will lead to increased understanding and facilitate knowledge exchange. Policy engagement units fulfil an important bridge-making function: pairing schemes, placements, fellowships, mentoring and more classic training modules are all useful tools to build knowledge and understanding on both sides, and most importantly to build direct relationships between scientists and policymakers. These direct interactions are able to build a strong basis for mutual trust.

Ultimately, if you want to develop effective relationships, you must build trust. To build trust, you must listen. When you want to establish a relationship, do not do all the talking. Introduce yourself, ask questions about the other person and listen. Learn about the other person. When the person realizes you are listening to them, they will listen to you.

 

 

 

Julie Cantalou

Public Policy|Southampton

@JulieCantalou

 


[1] http://www.oecd.org/gov/gov-at-a-glance-2017-uk.pdf and OECD (2015), “Scientific Advice for Policy Making: The Role and Responsibility of Expert Bodies and Individual Scientists”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 21, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js33l1jcpwb-en
[2] http://www.314action.org/

EtP

Evidence to Policy

Read more blogs from researchers at the university of Southampton navigating the journey between evidence and policy

WWWW

With whom we work

Learn more about the research projects Public Policy|Southampton are currently working with

Privacy Settings