A Practical Guide for Researchers
In partnership with:
This website is a practical guide – rooted in theory, evidence and local knowledge – to help new researchers improve their political impact on the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales (the Senedd).
To have impact on the Senedd and Welsh Government, it is essential to understand the Welsh policy context. This requires a firm grasp of how these bodies work and which policy powers are devolved to them. The Welsh political context has unique features, such as its scale and proximity and terminology. There is a 5-year policymaking cycle in Wales, and this may affect when and how researchers can contribute.
It is vital to understand how policy is made and how research is used by Welsh decision makers. There are many different ‘paths to impact’ in the Welsh Government and Senedd mapped in our toolkit, and it is important to try multiple ‘routes.’ For the Senedd this means engaging with the Assembly Research Service, Cross-Party groups, calls for evidence, the Assembly Committees and their Clerks and Chairs, as well as Assembly Members, their researchers, party researchers, and Ministers’ Special Advisors. For the Welsh Government it means engaging with the Knowledge and Analytical Service, policy consultations, commissioned research, Ministers’ research teams or Special Advisors and civil servants. Try to participate in advisory committees and reference panels, or to amplify your voice through knowledge brokers and the media.
Communicating your research findings clearly to policymakers, their advisors, and civil servants is one of the keys to impact. Successful engagement with your audience means being proactive, building relationships and reputations over time, and taking opportunities to draw attention to your findings. Present your findings in a way that is clear, concise and easy for decision-makers to grasp quickly. Be both strategic and opportunistic about how you disseminate your research, whether that is done directly to identified decision-makers, through conferences or roundtables, or by simply making your research more easily accessible.
Policymakers are more likely to consider and use research that is timely and seen as useful to addressing challenges faced by them and their constituents. Identify your key findings and their policy implications clearly. Specifically highlight why they are useful and relevant to Welsh policy. Think about how to frame them in a way that may help them resonate with policymakers or which helps deliver bad news ‘well.’ Be aware of the Welsh policy cycle, and look for the right time to engage decision-makers. Consider whether your findings are more likely to be useful in the short-term or are aimed at having a longer-term or formative influence, raising issues or framing them in new ways.
Policymakers need to trust your findings to adopt their messages. Build a reputation for objective, high quality research. Demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of the political context you seek to influence.
No matter how good your research or your engagement plan, you may still not be able to have the impact you hope for on the timescale you seek. There are many barriers to achieving impact on policy, and it is important to be aware of these and recognise that while some of them might be overcome with effort, time or change in circumstance, others might be harder to obviate. Policymakers face competing pressures, and even the best communicated and highest quality evidence may not always be well received, or be enough to influence policy on its own. However, the strategies discussed above, and in the tool-kit on our website, will help you have the best chance for impact in the face of such challenges. These tools and tactics can help you overcome obstacles through good practice.
Understanding the policy context of the country you are working in is crucial to your ability to effect change. How is policy made? How is research used, by whom, when, and through what means? What features are unique to that particular national policymaking context? This section of the tool-kit looks at the Welsh Political context, and focuses on the elements that stood out through interviews and research as being particularly important to understand for those researchers operating in Wales.
The devolved administrations and legislatures of Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland have powers of legislation and decision making devolved from the UK. This affects the policy areas they control, for which you may wish to provide evidence.
In addition to its devolved government, the Welsh political context has other unique features:
There are many theories about when best to introduce evidence to policymakers. No matter which theory you subscribe to, it is important to understand the dynamics of policymaking in the context in which you are working.
In Wales, the Welsh Government publishes a 5-year ‘programme for government’ at the beginning of each new Assembly. Much of this programme comes from the manifesto of the governing party, and it sets out the priorities for legislation and policy over the period they will be in power. This means:
Understanding the policy environment – how policy is made, how research is used – is vital if your research is to have an impact on decision makers. This section provides a map of the many different ‘routes to impact’ in the Welsh Assembly and Government.
The KAS collates, analyses, and presents research evidence and data for Welsh policy makers and the engaged public. It promotes professional standards and the use of evidence in government; and provides analytical capacity for each government directorate. Welsh Government social researchers advise colleagues in policy teams across a number of directorates from health to education. They offer daily practical support by providing evidence syntheses or commissioning research. They also act as knowledge brokers between academia and government, and encourage more effective use of evidence within the Welsh government.
The Chief Social Science and Research Officer focuses on professionalism and what the division is delivering as a whole, rather than on individual projects. He is also actively involved in public engagement, for example speaking at doctoral training centres in Wales about careers and placements in government.
To engage with the KAS, you can:
2. Respond to Government calls for evidence or formal written policy consultations.
3. Tender for and engage in commissioned research
4. Answer Direct demand from Ministers’ research teams, SpAds, or civil servants:
Knowing how to communicate your research findings in a meaningful way for policymakers, their advisors, and civil servants is one of the keys to impact. This means understanding how to best engage with your audience, present your findings, and disseminate your research to them.
Below we have distilled some tips and guidelines from both the literature and the practical advice that shone through from our interviews of Welsh policymakers, their advisors and research teams, civil servants, and seasoned academics.
Policymakers are more likely to read and use research that resonates with them, is timely, and is seen as useful to addressing the challenges before them and their constituents.
A researcher’s credibility will affect whether policymakers trust their findings and / or adopt their messages. It is important to build a reputation for independent high quality research, while also demonstrating your knowledge and understanding of the political context you are seeking to influence.
A positive perception of your independence and that of your findings increases the likelihood of impact on policymakers. Whether governments, universities, or a third party has paid for a piece of research to be undertaken, trust in that research depends on the belief that its results are not influenced by outside considerations.
Trust is relational. You will need patience, persistence, and a long-term engagement plan. It will take time and effort to build a relationship of trust with policy and other decision makers.
Some, in a close political community like Wales, argue that reputation matters more, and can be more quickly damaged, than at the UK-wide scale.
Be as open as possible about funding, methods, motivations, and aims in your work. The findings of commissioned research can still be seen as ‘independent’, but full transparency often helps to imbue your findings with the trust needed for impact.
Your credibility as an evidence provider in Wales depends greatly on your ability to understand the local context:
No matter how good your research or engagement plan, you may still not be able to have the impact you hope for on the time scale you seek. It’s important to be aware of the many barriers to achieving impact on policy, and also recognise that some of them might be overcome with time or change in circumstance, while others might be harder to obviate.
If knowing how to engage and communicate your findings well, how to make engagement count by highlighting your research’s utility effectively, and how to best enhance your credibility are vital to impact – then not doing these things well can (not surprisingly) have a negative effect.
For example, poorly communicated research findings can hinder the impact of even the most insightful evidence on policy – just as can poorly timed engagement campaigns or damaged reputations.
The implications of your research might face strong political opposition, may not mesh with a decision maker’s current thinking, or may even be deemed inappropriate in the context of current values held by certain decision makers.
Paul Cairney points out that ‘even if the “evidence” exists, it doesn’t tell you what to do’ – a simple fact that can frustrate policymakers and researchers alike. The overall body of evidence on a particular issue may not be clear cut, or there may not simple be enough evidence yet to support a particular action.
Even if the policy implications of your research findings are clear, straightforward, and backed up by a large body of supporting evidence with a consensus of opinion, decision makers still may not take notice of your work as you expect. Even if they do, your research may not ultimately influence policy in the way you might hope.
Political demand for evidence in your area of research may be low. Consistent and persistent engagement can help overcome this. In areas where demand is high for research evidence, it can be difficult to make your findings stand out. Moreover, as Cairney notes, ‘research studies often focus on the narrow measurable aspects of interventions, while policymakers consider complex problems in an often highly charged political atmosphere.’
Academic researchers usually operate on long time frames to conduct, produce, and disseminate their research, which can take years. Politicians and civil servants, however, often work on short time-frames to digest research knowledge and make policy decisions, which can take just a few days or less.
We started this project with a simple question: How do social scientists achieve research impact in the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government?
In this project we:
This project took a multi-faceted approach, looking at the environment for evidence-based policy making in Wales and seeking to ensure that the ‘tool-kit’ created to help young researchers achieve impact in Wales was grounded in the wider academic literature on the relationship between evidence and policy, and rooted in practical advice from Welsh policymakers, experienced researchers, and knowledge brokers.
To do this, we undertook:
What does the academic and the grey literature tell us about the relationship between research evidence and policy that might provide insight into how academic researchers can improve their likelihood of having an impact on policy generally?
In many countries, evidence-based approaches to policy and policymaking are seen as politically desirable, promising the possibility of combining higher levels of efficiency with improved societal outcomes (see e.g., Davies, Nutley & Smith 2000; Nutley 2010). Debates around evidence-based policy (EBP) initially emerged from the health and medical sciences sectors, with advocates later pushing for evidence-based approaches in a wider array of policy areas like policing and education (see Puttick 2012). In response, the Welsh and UK governments have made clear commitments to support and improve evidence-based approaches to policymaking in recent years (HM Government, 2012; Welsh Government 2015). The creation of the UK-wide What Works Network, made up of several What Works Centres (WWC) covering issues from local economic growth to wellbeing, is intended to ‘help to ensure that thorough, high quality, independently assessed evidence shapes decision-making at every level’ of government (HM Government 2017). In October 2017, a new WWC will also be launched in Wales, the Wales Centre for Public Policy, designed ‘to ensure that governments and public services have access to the best available evidence to help them tackle the major policy challenges of our day.’
Decision-makers face a number of competing pressures when formulating policy (Cairney 2016; Weiss 1982). EBP can thus be hard to achieve, and often this is at least partially due to the difficulties in successfully connecting research evidence to the policymaking process. There is a growing literature on the interaction between research evidence and policy, knowledge brokers, knowledge utilisation and knowledge transfer, which is aimed largely at both fostering EBP and helping researchers and decision makers surmount the challenges of bringing the two together.
Much of the existing literature focuses on the problems of effectively marrying the supply of research evidence to the demand from policymakers. First among these is the notable contrast between the academic and policy worlds. Caplan long ago argued that these ‘two communities’ are separated by unique cultures ‘with different and often conflicting values, …rewards systems, and …languages’ that often hinder effective and fruitful interaction (1979, 459). Though in reality these two groups are quite heterogeneous and complex (Ginsburg and Gorostiaga 2001), understanding general differences between the academic and policy communities does help identify some of the enduring challenges to improving communication and linkages between them, which many argue will improve knowledge utilisation if fostered (see e.g., Caplan 1979; Lavis et al. 2008; van der Arend 2015).
The second challenge often raised in the literature, is that research evidence may be used in different ways by decision-makers. This has implications for the likelihood that any one piece of research will have an impact on policy. For example, Weiss argued that research might be used politically, tactically, interactively, to drive further knowledge, or for the purposes of specific problem-solving, general enlightenment, or intellectual curiosity (Weiss 1979, 426-30). In a simpler vein, Nutley, Walter & Davies argue that research might be used instrumentally, strategically, or conceptually (2007). The effect of this is that researchers cannot control how their evidence is used by policy makers, but should be aware of the possibilities, dangers, and opportunities presented by different modes of research utilisation.
A third challenge is that policymaking is not a simple linear process, and neither is the transmission of evidence into policy. Some theorists choose to describe policymaking as a ‘cycle,’ a view that can be popular in the practice because of its simplicity. The UK government, for example, often treats policymaking as a cycle that rotates through the stages of policy rationale, objectives, appraisal, monitoring, evaluation, and feedback (the ROAMEF cycle). Other theorists, however, argue that the policymaking process is far more complex, comprising a wider ‘system’ of agents and agency that need to be understood as a whole if research uptake and impact are to be improved (see e.g., Best & Holmes 2010). The crux of the matter is that how we understand this process may affect where we believe research might usefully be put before policy makers or other agents within the decision-making process.
Finally, no matter how the process is conceptualised, it is important to recognize that despite all best practice in terms of knowledge transfer and research utilisation, there are factors that will beyond the control of the individual researcher or the individual policy-maker. Cairney, for example, notes that the environment in which policymakers are making decisions is complex, demand does not necessarily match supply and vice versa, and that – often to the frustration of policymakers – evidence does not always tell policymakers what exactly they should do on a specific issue (Cairney 2016).
What insights can we find from the broader literature, that the individual researcher or organisation might use to improve the uptake of their personal research?
A recent survey of the theory tells us that for knowledge brokers, research uptake may be affected by how research is communicated, by the utility level of that research to policymakers, and by the researcher’s credibility with their intended audience (Lenihan 2015). Lenihan’s review shows that good communication of research may depend on how effectively it is disseminated, presented, and explained to policymakers (see e.g., Best & Holmes 2010; Cabinet Office 1999; Cherney & Head 2011; Herk 2010; Knott & Wildavsky 1980; Nutley et al. 2007; 2009; Sebba 2013); that utility of research is often linked to its timing, resonance, transferability, timing, and the degree to which stakeholders were involved in its production (see e.g., Campbell et al. 2007; Cartwright 2007; Caswill & Lyall 2013; Innvær et al. 2002; Kothari et al. 2009; Lavis 2006; Lavis et al. 2008; Legrand 2012; Nutley 2010; Nutley et al. 2007; ODI 2009; van der Arend 2015); and that a researcher’s credibility often hinges on whether they are seen as independence, trustworthy, transparent, and rigorous (see e.g., Campbell 2007; Campbell et al. 2007; Herk 2010; Innvær et al. 2002; ODI 2009; Lavis et al. 2008; van der Arend 2015). In other words, improving impact it is about knowing how to engage, making your engagement count, and being credible – themes that are picked up in the tool-kit here.
A recent systematic review of the academic evidence on ‘what works’ in improving research uptake provides some further support for these arguments, but also critically highlights that that there is a need for more research on the relationship between evidence and policy. ‘The Science of Using Science’ report involved two reviews. The first was ‘a systematic review of reviews of the [evidence-informed decision-making] EIDM literature,’ which looked at previous reviews of specific behavioural interventions that might increase research utilisation, and which rated these on their trustworthiness and methodological standards according to a strict hierarchy of evidence (Langer, Tripney, and Gough 2016, 1). This review provided reliable evidence that interventions which increase the ability of decision-makers to more easily ‘access … research evidence, for example through communication strategies and evidence repositories,’ as well as interventions that help decision makers to ‘access and make sense of evidence,’ will help the research uptake (Langer, Tripney, and Gough 2016, 1, emphasis added). Significantly, it also found reliable evidence that simple ‘passive’ dissemination strategies will not increase research use on their own. Wider, deeper and more frequent engagement of researchers with policy-makers or other decisions-makers is often crucial.
The second review in ‘The Science of Using Science report was ‘a scoping review of the research reported in reviews in the broader social science literature’ (Langer, Tripney, and Gough 2016, 1). Notable among those interventions for which there appeared to be good evidence was the importance of ‘effectively fram[ing] and formulating communicated messages.’ This means that it is important to engage in a way that involves ‘tailoring’ and ‘framing’ messages, ‘targeting’ the dissemination of your research, and ensuring it is translated in a way policymakers can understand (Langer, Tripney, and Gough 2016, 2-3; Hey & Davison 2016).
Overall the report provides some clear ideas about what works in increasing research utilisation, including interventions that ‘increase visibility’ of research through effective communication, championing evidence-use more widely, and helping develop the skills of policy makers to use evidence (Hey & Davison 2016). It also discusses what ‘might work’, including ‘facilitating interactions between decision-makers and researchers’, and ‘building mutual understanding and agreement on policy relevant questions and the kind of evidence needed to answer them’ (Langer, Tripney, and Gough 2016, 24, 32, 41). Significantly, the report concludes that more evidence is needed about how to improve research use by policymakers.
Where does this leave us?
The literature rarely provides researchers with a practical understanding of how to better engage policymakers, or of the pathways through which they might ‘communicate’ their evidence in the first place. Strategies for improving research uptake are often proffered as if those specific avenues to accessing policymakers were obvious to most researchers, when often they are not. This is one of the reasons why we have created this website – to act as a practical routes to impact resource for researchers seeking to influence Welsh policy.
Moreover, while some theorists and grey literature do provide strategies for individual researchers to undertake to improve their impact on policymaking, there is not much ‘evidence’ for which of these might work, and under what circumstance. Partly this is about measurement, partly it is about environmental and political factors beyond the researcher’s control, and partly it is because which strategies work will often be highly context-dependent, discipline or subject-matter dependent and researcher dependent. That is why when creating this guide, we investigated some of the strategies suggested by the academic literature in the context of Wales through in-depth interviews of those on both the supply and demand sides of the EBP equation, and have created a tool-kit that should enable the enterprising researcher to consider strategies that might work best for their individual situation.
What can we learn from REF 2014 case studies?
There were 33 political impact cases studies submitted from across the UK that mentioned either the Welsh Government (13) or the Welsh Assembly. Largely, these case studies focus on demonstrating impact ‘outcomes’, rather than pathways or routes to impact. However, several stood out as more clearly trying to outline why their research was able to influence policymakers, and what strategies helped achieve impact. There are links to these at the bottom of this page. Below, we highlight some more frequent themes that emerged from these 33 political impact case studies, within our tool-kit framework.
Those cases where researchers appear to have had the most impact on policy in Wales appeared to:
A number of the REF cases that appeared to make on impact on Welsh policy also appeared to demonstrate the utility of their research and increase its resonance with policymakers by:
Finally, the most convincing cases for impact demonstrated that the researchers involved were themselves:
Below we highlight 5 of those REF 2014 cases from the social sciences (Main Panel C) that demonstrate political impact in Wales. The first two show notable clarity in explaining how impact was achieved.
The Campaign for Social Science wishes to thank:
Dr Ashley Thomas Lenihan
Sharon Witherspoon MBE FAcSS
Dr Claire Donovan
Academy of Social Sciences. (2014). Social science evidence and the policy process: International insights. Professional Briefings, 4.5. Retrieved from http://www.acss.org.uk/professional-briefings-4-international-policy/
Best, A., & Holmes, B. (2010). Systems thinking, knowledge and action: Towards better models and methods. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 6, 145–159. doi:10.1332/ 174426410X502284
Breckon, J. & Dodson, J. (2016). Using evidence: What Works? A discussion paper. London: Alliance for Useful Evidence. Retrieved from: http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/Alliance-Policy-Using-evidence-v4.pdf.
Bristow, D., Carter, L., & Martin, S. (2015). Using evidence to improve policy and practice: The UK What Works Centres. Contemporary Social Science, 10(2), 126–137. doi:10.1080/21582041.2015.1061688
Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4
Campbell, S. (2007). The structure of analytical support within government. London: HM Treasury, Government Social Research Unit.
Campbell, S., Benita, S., Davies, P., & Penn, G. (2007). Analysis for policy: Evidence-based policy in practice, London: HM Treasury, Government Social Research Unit.
Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 459–470. doi:10.1177/000276427902200308
Cartwright, N. (2013). Knowing what we are talking about: Why evidence doesn’t always travel. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 9, 97–112. doi:10.1332/174426413X662581
Cherney, A., & Head, B. (2011). Supporting the knowledge-to-action process: A systems-thinking approach. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 7, 471–488. doi:10.1332/174426411X603461
Court, J., & Young, J. (2006). Bridging research and policy: Insights from 50 case studies. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 2, 439–462. doi:10.1332/174426406778881764
Crane, J. (Ed.). (1998). Social programs that work. New York, NY: Russel Sage.
Davies, H. T. O., Nutley, S. M., & Smith, P. C. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Ginsburg, M., & Gorostiaga, J. (2001). Relationships between theorists/researchers and policy makers/practitioners: Rethinking the two-cultures thesis and the possibility of dialogue. Comparative Education Review, 45, 173–196. doi:10.1086/44766
Herk, M. (2010). Increasing the impact of benefit-cost analysis on social policy: Next steps forward. Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. Retrieved from http://coalition4evidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/CB-paper-final-June-2010.pdf
Hey, N., & Davison, E. What are the best ways of getting research used by decision-makers? Retrieved from: https://whatworkswellbeing.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/phe-conf-e-poster-final.pdf.
HM Government. (2012). The civil service reform plan. Retrieved from: www.civilservice.gov.uk/reform.
HM Government. (2017). Guidance: What works network. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/what-works-network#the-what-works-network.
Innvær, S., Vist, G., Trommald, M., & Oxman, A. (2002). Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: A systematic review. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 7, 239–244. doi:10.1258/ 135581902320432778
Knott, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, and Utilization, 1, 537–578. doi:10.1177/107554 708000100404
Kothari, A., MacLean, L., & Edwards, N. (2009). Increasing capacity for knowledge translation: Understanding how some researchers engage policy makers. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 5, 33–51. doi:10.1332/174426409X395402
Langer, L., Tripney, J., & Gough, D. (2016). The science of using science: Researching the use of research evidence in decision-making. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College of London. Retrieved from: http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/Science-of-Using-Science-Final-Report-2016.pdf.
Lavis, J., Oxman, A., Moynihan, R., & Paulsen, E. (2008). Evidence-informed health policy: Synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organisations that support the use of research evidence. Implementation Science, 3, 53. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-53
Legrand, T. (2012). Overseas and over here: Policy transfer and evidence-based policy-making. Policy Studies, 33, 329–348. doi:10.1080/01442872.2012.695945
Lenihan, A. (2013). Lessons from abroad: International approaches to promoting evidence-based social policy. London: Alliance for Useful Evidence. Retrieved from http://www.alliance4usefulevidence. org/assets/Alliance-paper_Lessons-from-Abroad.pdf
Nesta. (2016). Evidence Works 2016: A Global Forum for Government (Summary Report). Alliance for Useful Evidence, Nesta, Results for All, and Results for America. Retrieved from: http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/FINAL-EW2016-Summary-Report-12.15-1.pdf
Nutley, S. (2010). Making and demonstrating research impact in an era of austerity. Presentation to the Annual Conference of the Social Research Association. Retrieved from http://the-sra.org.uk/files- presentations/nutley-ac2010.pdf
Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol: The Policy Press.
ODI. (2009). Helping researchers become policy entrepreneurs: How to develop engagement strategies for evidence-based policy-making. Briefing Paper. London: Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/1730.pdf
Puttick, R. (2012). Why we need to create a NICE for social policy. London: Nesta. Retrieved from https:// www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/why_we_need_to_create_a_nice_for_social_policy.pdf
Rutter, J. (2012). Evidence and evaluation in policymaking: A problem of supply or demand. London: Institute for Government. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/evidence%20and%20evaluation%20in%20template_final_0.pdf
Sebba, J. (2013). An exploratory review of the role of research mediators in social science. Evidence & Policy: A Journal Of Research, Debate & Practice, 9, 391–408. doi:10.1332/174426413X662743.
Stewart, K., Dubow, T., Hofman, J., van Stolk, C. (2016). Social Change and Public Engagement with Policy and Evidence. Cambridge: RAND Europe. Retrieved from: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/RAND_RR1750.pdf
Thurston, R. (2016?). The role of evidence in policy making: a Welsh Government perspective. Knowledge and Analytical Services, Welsh Government, Government Social Research. Retrieved from https://hml.cardiff.ac.uk/assoc_files/14539640_1.pdf
van der Arend, J. (2014). Bridging the research/policy gap: Policy officials’ perspective on the barriers and facilitators to effective links between academic and policy worlds. Policy Studies, 35, 611–630. doi:10. 1080/01442872.2014.971731
Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426–431. doi:10.2307/3109916
Weiss, C. (1982). Policy Research in the Context of Diffuse Decision Making. The Journal of Higher Education, 53 (6), 619–39. doi:10.2307/1981522.
Welsh Government (2015). Knowledge & Analytical Services Evidence Plan 2015-2016. Retrieved from: http://gov.wales/docs/statistics/2015/150709-kas-evidence-plan-2015-16-en.pdf
The Campaign for Social Science wishes a special thanks to Dr Ashley Thomas Lenihan. It would also like to thank:
Professor George Boyne FAcSS
Professor Paul Chaney
Professor Rick Delbridge FAcSS
Dr Claire Donovan
Professor Mark Drakeford AM
Professor John Harrington
Dai Lloyd AM
Dr Peter Mackie
Professor Steve Martin
Professor Emma Renold
Professor Roger Scully FAcSS
Sharon Witherspoon MBE FAcSS