The first post in this series asks: Why don’t policymakers listen to your evidence? It is based on talks that I have been giving since 2016, mostly to tap into a common story told by people in my audience (and the ‘science community’ more generally) about a new era in politics: policymakers do not pay sufficient respect to expertise or attention to good quality evidence.
It’s not my story, but I think it’s important to respect my audience members enough to (a) try to engage with their question, before (b) inviting them to think differently about how to ask it, and (c) provide different types of solutions according to the changing nature of the question.
Instead of a really long post for (b) and (c), I’ve made it a bit like Ceefax in which you can choose which question to ask or answer:
- Why don’t policymakers listen to your evidence? (go to page 154)
- What can you do when policymakers ignore your evidence? Tips from the ‘how to’ literature from the science community (go to page 650)
- What can you do when policymakers ignore your evidence? Encourage ‘knowledge management for policy’ (go to page 568)
- How else can we describe and seek to fill the evidence-policy gap? (go to page 400)
- How far should you go to privilege evidence? 1. Evidence and governance principles (go to page 101)
- How far should you go to privilege evidence? 2. Policy theories, scenarios, and ethical dilemmas (go to page 526)
- How far should you go to privilege evidence? 3. Use psychological insights to manipulate policymakers (go to page 300 then scroll down to point 3)
I also do slides, such as:
This is me presenting those slides in Cambridge while being very Scottish, enjoying a too-heavy cold, and sucking a lozenge. Please note that I tend to smile a lot and make many sarcastic jokes while presenting, partly to apologise indirectly for all the self-publicity.