Annette Boaz and Kathryn Oliver

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Supporting policy through research funding: how UK funders can use Areas of Research Interest to bridge evidence gaps‘.

Using research to inform policy sounds straightforward, but in practice, it remains one of the biggest challenges in public policy. Despite decades of effort, there is still a persistent gap between what we know from research and what gets used in decision-making. Our recent study explores one under‑examined part of this puzzle: the role of research funders.

In the UK, ‘Areas of Research Interest’ (ARIs) have emerged as an important tool to help bridge this gap. ARIs are sets of questions produced by government departments that outline their priority evidence needs. They are designed to signal where new research and existing knowledge could support policy development.

Our research set out to understand how ARIs might be of use to research funders. Drawing on 30 interviews with funders, policymakers, academics and knowledge mobilisers, we found that ARIs are doing something important: they create a shared space for dialogue.

Continue reading →

Mette Sønderskov, Ingjerd Thon Hagaseth and Arvind Singhal

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Enabling interactive knowledge mobilisation through the positive deviance (PD) approach for youth inclusion in Norway’.

About fifty years ago, the epidemiologist Archibald Cochrane recounted a conversation with a crematorium worker that feels hauntingly relevant today. When asked what fascinated him most about his profession, the man replied, ‘The way in which so much goes in, and so little comes out’.

In the world of evidence-informed policy, we are currently standing at the doors of a similar furnace. We invest staggering amounts of intellectual and financial capital into research, yet the practical yield remains frustratingly slim. We produce mountains of data, but very little of it translates into the lived experience of the communities it is meant to serve. The ‘knowledge-to-action’ gap isn’t just a crack in the pavement; it’s a canyon.

The traditional solution to this problem has been a ‘transfer model’. Experts generate knowledge in a controlled environment and then ‘export’ it to policymakers. When the evidence  fails to take root in policy and practice, the diagnosis is almost always a lack of effective dissemination or a need for ‘stricter’ implementation. But this linear logic ignores a fundamental truth: knowledge is not a package to be delivered; it is a relationship to be cultivated.

Continue reading →