Policy research is usually commissioned by a client who is involved or interested in influencing the debate around an upcoming policy decision. The “classic” client is a decisionmaker who commissions a researcher or research group to conduct a study and find solutions to a policy problem that needs to be addressed. Most think tanks aspire to engage in this classic client-advisor relationship. The following table lists the typical examples of the players commonly involved in such a client-researcher relationship and also shows the types of researchers that different clients can commission.
Table 1.
Range of typical clients and policy researchers
| CLIENTS | RESEARCHERS |
|---|---|
|
Typical government clients
|
In government
|
Typical clients from outside government
|
Outside of government
|
In the transition countries, it has been typical of governments to hire prominent local academics to do this type of research. However, recently there is a shift away from the “usual suspects” to commissioning the types of actors more commonly involved in the production of policy research/analysis.1 This is a slow process and some actors have been a lot more active in the production and commissioning of policy research, most notably, international organizations. More broadly, the continuing lack of such research in most countries and governments in the region underscores how little they value the role of policy research in effective decisionmaking. Building further demand for policy research is a major challenge in the establishment of a culture of evidence-based decision making.2
Demand for policy research in transition countries is still low.
Clients commission researchers/analysts to help them develop a position to either lead or influence an upcoming or ongoing policymaking process. This implies far more than simply coming up with an answer to the target policy challenge and usually includes explanations, evidence, rationale, and arguments to support all aspects of a policy position. This is summed up simply: “among the knowledge that they need is not just ‘know how’ (practical experience of what works) but also ‘know what’ (the state of the world), ‘know why’ (causes and explanations), and ‘know who’ (contacts and networks).”3
Clients need to know more than just the solution—they also need to know the how, why, who, and when.
To flesh this out a little more, the client usually wants you to develop extensive answers to these questions in the commonly accepted formats such as a policy study, policy brief(s), or oral presentations. The core elements of any policy argument are centered on a movement from problem to solution to application. Taking this framework, the following table illustrates the key questions that need to be answered in each element.
Table 2.
The elements of a policy argument
| ELEMENTS OF A POLICY ARGUMENT | QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED |
|---|---|
|
Problem Providing the rationale for action (core question: why act?) |
|
|
Solution Providing a choice of and justification for a strategic solution (core questions: what to do? And what not to do?) |
|
|
Application Providing a plan to implement the chosen strategy (core question: how to implement?) |
|
However, the client normally retains copyright control of the research through the contract signed with the research organization, meaning they can choose whether the research produced will be made public or not. This sometimes means that a client will choose not to publish or publicly use the research if they feel that the response to it from various audiences could pose a strategic risk for them.