What we have described above is a policymaking process that, on the one hand, is often resistant to research evidence and, on the other, is completely dependent on it to move forward. This can be seen as one part of what is often described as the ongoing tension between knowledge and power where “emphasising the role of power and authority at the expense of knowledge and expertise in public affairs seems cynical; emphasising the latter at the expense of the former seems naïve.”1 However, this apparent tension is better considered as interdependence especially if we view such decision-making processes as a continuous discourse.2 Our descriptions of the process through which a research-based idea actually becomes part of a government program directly supports this logic of a slow, ongoing, multi-voiced dialogue or as we referred to in the introduction, a two-way process of interaction towards a negotiated settlement.
The literature we have drawn from is mostly based on research developed in transition and developing countries and the underlying assumption for these authors is that all countries are in various stages of moving towards inclusive, open, functioning democracies.3 We also make this assumption in our work, but this does not get away from the fact that there seem to be particularly difficult obstacles to overcome in making the next steps in this direction. One of the current key hurdles relates directly not to the tension, but the current domination of power over knowledge or to put it another way, politics over solutions. This tends to result in a public and political dialogue that is based on taking sides and where policy decisions are only portrayed as a win for those in power and a loss for the opposition. For example, both Hungary and Bosnia and Herzegovina have sadly gone down this path in the last decade: there is hardly ever enough facts or evidence available from independent, reputable sources to ground a policy debate and move it towards a focus on the best solution to the current problem; and even if evidence is available, there is a tendency to cherry pick the source for political ends. Moreover, compounding the problem, politicians do not see such practices as an ethical problem, but rather just as a normal part of the game.
In many transition countries, politics still dominates over solutions.
This reinforces the absolute necessity in the transition context to promote an evidence-based decision-making culture and further, the need to stay the distance for those involved in producing and advocating for policy research and analysis. However, it is also a clear illustration of a further challenge for advocates: in some cases, it will probably not be enough to try to sell the ideas developed though the research, but you will probably also have to sell the idea and ethics of research evidence in the policymaking process, especially to those who may see it as an unnecessary obstacle for them to retain power. In the short term, the key must be to illustrate that their longer-term political lives are actually dependent on improving the lives of their voters, and without the expertise and evidence to support complicated policy decisions, there is little chance that they will survive. In the longer term, we all hope that such instrumental motivation would not be part of the equation and all actors will see the centrality of this interdependence between knowledge and power.
You not only have to sell the research, but also the idea of why such research is important in decisionmaking.