The Knowledge for Development and Diplomacy (K4DD) Programme led by Institute of Development Studies (IDS) provides the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) with over 200 rapid evidence syntheses a year, covering topics like climate, health, education and conflict. It is a demand-driven service, responding to ministerial and civil service evidence needs.
An unprecedented shift in policy priorities over the past year is transforming the K4DD programme. This blog discusses the nature of this transformation, its implications, and its possibilities.
Seismic priority realignment
Demand-driven evidence services have always experienced the ebb and flow of topics and geographies as policy agendas fluctuate and crises occur. However, never has there been such a seismic realignment of areas of interest in the social sciences for development.
Although K4DD was established in 2023 to cover both development and diplomacy, to reflect FCDO’s mandate, the current shift in demand goes far beyond this. Influenced by shrinking official development assistance (ODA) aid budgets, and new geopolitical priorities, this realignment is being felt right across the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) – the international forum of aid providers.
Almost one in three FCDO requests for rapid evidence reviews no longer qualify for ODA funding. They relate to a diverse mix of research questions on international security, organised crime, science diplomacy, UK trade policy and science and technology. Meanwhile, the focus of many of the more conventional international development inquiries, focused on low-income countries, is shifting away from DAC priorities like sustainable development, the advancement of equalities among countries and poverty eradication. We are receiving an increasing number of requests on industrial strategy, growth, trade and migration, not all of which, depending on their focus, meet ODA requirements.
Evidence usefulness versus academic rigour
These new, fast-emerging policy priorities require thought about how best to meet users’ evidence needs. Conventional literature searches and synthesis methodologies do not always provide an adequate, relevant or timely response. The urgency of queries often requires alternative, more flexible methods.
This relates to the long-standing debate around the trade-offs between the usefulness of evidence for policy and conventional standards in academic rigour. It requires meaningful engagement with government officials to understand what they think constitutes relevant and useful evidence and why. It is important to challenge them to take a critical approach, but we must also be open to having our own preconceptions of what research rigour looks like under these circumstances challenged.
Scientific research can be epistemically robust without offering solutions to policy challenges, whereas for policy makers, robust evidence produces ideas that can shape policy and programmes in real time. Simply stating what the gaps in evidence are or suggesting that one waits for a stronger evidence base to emerge, is not always adequate. The Covid-19 pandemic reminded us that sometimes evidence just must be good enough.
For example, in areas like science diplomacy, research questions are emerging for which there is little published academic, or even grey, literature. So, it might be necessary to draw on the views of industry experts, or on non-traditional sources like mainstream media reports, or even social media.
Getting the research questions right
To get this balance right, we must work with our policy partners to help them refine their research questions. If initial searches suggest there is little literature on a topic, or that it is too narrowly or broadly articulated, we can work with them to co-produce a better question that addresses the core problem within the limitations of the available data. This process can also reveal any presuppositions shaping the initial inquiry. As policy agendas shift, this ideation stage of evidence synthesis, has become increasingly important.
We also have clients who are relatively new to research synthesis services, having formerly relied mostly on expert advice or experiential knowledge. Building collaborations with them can help grow their understanding of the benefits of rapid evidence synthesis. It can also support researchers’ appreciation of clients’ motivations and needs. In K4DD we have found that such collaborations pay great dividends in promoting a culture of evidence informed policy and practice.
Shaping the research agenda
This pragmatic approach must run in parallel with deliberate efforts to shape the research agenda. Working in close partnership with government agencies on the provision of embedded knowledge services offers unique opportunities for this.
For example, as OECD DAC members align themselves around agendas focused on security, AI technologies, global health, immigration, humanitarian crises and climate change, we can help to ensure that the lived experiences of marginalised communities are considered.
As global policy agendas continue to evolve rapidly, demand driven evidence services designed to inform policy decisions will play a crucial role in ensuring policy institutions are asking the right questions. This will require methodological flexibility, the use of non-traditional types of evidence, and respectful research policy partnerships that support critical thinking.
The original version of this blog post was published on the IDS website.
