With more academic or expert audiences, the focus of the first challenge is often on the relevance, objectivity and comprehensiveness of the research methods employed and evidence generated.1 This credibility challenge goes beyond the person or provider of the research and addresses whether this particular piece of research presents a “rigorous and substantiated analysis,”2 and whether the results derived from it are reliable and valid.
Research needs to be seen as high quality, that is, both accurate and objective with methods appropriate to the target question and context.3 For example, one of the more usual challenges is related to transfer issues: policy research is usually done by focusing in an in-depth manner on particular cases of a policy problem, such as in a few municipalities or towns or schools. However, it often seeks to make recommendations at levels beyond the focus of the particular cases studied, often on national-level policy. The question or challenge then arises as to how researchers can make this jump from findings developed at the local level to national-level policy. You should carefully consider how representative are the cases for your argument. Are they cases of best practice (that all can learn from), an average case (in terms of, for example demographics or capacity, which then says something about all other cases), or a worst-case scenario (where an improvement in any direction would probably help all other cases)
Consider in advance how your research and evidence could be challenged.
Another common challenge is the nature of the evidence collected. The first important task is to present evidence that is relevant to the policy problem being discussed, for example, long-term quantitative analysis of recognized indicators for macroeconomic policy. The second is the simple argumentative challenge, that is, whether you have the right type or amount of evidence included or generated to support the claims you are making.4
Arguably, a focus on these issues should have been built into the research design stage of the project, rather than only emerging at the later advocacy planning stage. Nevertheless, even if this has been done, it is a different thing to design your research in the safe confines of your own team than to have to defend it in public. Hence, the focus of this planning phase is to develop sound, understandable arguments in preparation for these challenges, so that the research and your messages survive these first hurdles. This preparation should not lead in constructing your messages, but some elements certainly can support or frame it. More importantly, it must be available to draw upon by advocates when this type of challenge arises.