Pondering on Evidence-Based Policy Writing(Fellowship Reflection Series #7)

10:19 am, Monday (August 15, 2022)

Jenn looked better in our check-in this week. We had one on one conversation this week sharing about our progress in our research and to be able to complete the data collection and then to be sharing how can we make the presentation out of what we have gathered so far was something new for me. Usually, I don’t share my research journey with anyone unless it gets published. But to have someone to assist me continuously with data collection, data analysis, and also to go through the emotions that I usually feel in bringing those data into life. The reassurance that there is a team to help me set the agenda of the issue that is important is definitely helpful.

The major work that we did this week was placing ourselves in the larger discussion related to evidence-based policymaking. It took me back to the frustration that I had felt when the Nepal Government proposed a new rule asking women under 40 years of age to produce consent from family and the permission from local ward to travel abroad. There were so many spaces where we could connect while the examples from Mexico, Pakistan, Kenya, and Niger were being shared regarding the policy drafting phase. The challenges of using the linear traditional model (Research-Evidence-Action -Impact) for drafting a policy were discussed. I was shocked to read the data that 31% of the World Bank’s policy reports were never downloaded. This is shocking as World Bank is considered the organization with resources to go for applied research while preparing policy reports. One of the major takeaways was the role of politics in the policy drafting phase. Two quotes that we discussed that stayed with me are:

“The accumulation of further evidence is highly unlikely to persuade politicians to act because it necessarily fails to explain why they should be persuaded to act.”

“If more means more recent, more relevant, or more inclusive, then yes ‘more’ may be better.

Then we moved on to the feminist perspective of evidence-based policymaking. The major points were:

1. Policy agendas are moved by values more than evidence.
2. The policy is informed by evidence and ideology, public opinion, and the likelihood of attribution.
3. The policymaking process is not objective but subject to gender bias, norms, stereotypes, and emotions.

Then we discussed further how writing for policy impact is different than writing for research impact. This is a continued discussion that we will be having over the coming weeks.

Another highlight of the week was our interaction with the Vice President and Director of the Global Economy and Development Program at Brookings, Brahima Coulibaly. It was yet again reassuring to hear how diversity and inclusion are crucial for Brookings. Finally, we wrapped up the week by reflecting further on our data. We all shared the feeling of the heaviness that we have now as a researcher for the generosity the people had shown by sharing their thoughts and stories with us.