“Evidence Based Policy Making” or “Evidence Informed Policy Making”?, by Stephen Gregory

Stephen Gregory is the Library Enquiry Services Manager in Welsh Government Information, Library & Archive Services. Stephen is also the Honorary Secretary to the Government Information Group Committee. He writes in a personal capacity. 

This blog post considers how language surrounding the use of evidence for the creation of governmental policy may be evolving and specifically looks at the use of the phrases Evidence Based Policy Making  (EBPM), Evidence Based Policy (EBP), Evidence Informed Policy Making (EIPM) or Evidence Informed Policy (EIP). The prevalence of these phrases in one bibliographic database is explored. This leads to the conclusion that it may be time to reappraise our own use of this terminology in the workplace and professional literature.

 

The Past

When I joined GKIM as a policy support librarian in a UK devolved administration in 2006, my librarian colleagues, as well as government social researchers and policy officials frequently referred to EBPM. At the time, perhaps naively, to me EBPM offered an exciting arena for government knowledge and information management (GKIM) specialists and as well as government analytical professionals (social researchers, statistician, economists and cartographers) to provide policymakers with evidence to support effective policy-development. Through the provision of the best published evidence, I felt that I could really help to make a difference. At the time we recognised that policy implementation and change will always have a political dimension. The political colour of the government of the day naturally determines the palatability or otherwise of certain policy initiatives. We also recognised that other factors were also in play: financial and sociological / societal. But somehow these weren’t directly encompassed in the EBPM terminology. They remained latent factors.

Nick Youngson / Licensed by R M Media Ltd under a CC BY-SA 3.0  license available from https://www.picpedia.org/post-it-note/e/evidence-based.html.

 

Corridor Conversation

Fast-forward to 2023 and a corridor discussion with a policy official. We were chatting about how evidence is used in policy making, and out I trip with the phrase “EBPM”. The official very gently and kindly explained that my terminology was a little dated, and that it may now be more appropriate to refer to “Evidence Informed Policy Making” (EIPM). He rehearsed the argument that policy development may be informed by published and other forms of available evidence. However, additional factors enter the policy change mix, including a Minister’s political leanings, as well as significant factors such available funding, competing government priorities, societal issues, and potentially in the UK devolution context, whether a government has powers to make such changes. 

The change in terminology to EIPM was a revelation and I am so grateful for that conversation! I have since shared this with my work colleagues and at a recent Government Information Group committee meeting. In both cases colleagues were grateful for the opportunity to explore this potential change in terminology. A great reason for this blog posting!

 

Echo Chamber?

I then began to wonder if I had been stuck in a terminology echo-chamber; a sealed black box? How had I not picked up on this terminological change sooner?  An analysis using Elsevier’s Scopus database reassuringly suggests otherwise. It appears that specific reference to EBPM continues to predominate in the published literature. The phrase “EBPM” first appears in the Scopus database (in title, abstract or keyword fields) in 1997, with gradually increasing frequency throughout the early decades of the 21^st century. In 2023 in the Scopus database there are 402 citations quoting the phrases EBP or EBPM in these fields, and which do not also refer to EIP OR EIPM. The phrase EIPM does not appear in the Scopus database, in the previously mentioned database fields, until 2001. EIPM / EIP start from much lower frequencies, in Scopus at least, and have a slower and more gradual increase in usage. In 2023, 68 Scopus citations included EIPM or EIP, whilst also specifically not referring to EBPM or EBP.  A small number of citations indexed in Scopus refer to both EBPM / EBP and EIPM / EIP, with this occurring from 2013 onwards. The bar chart illustrates these trends (Figure1).

Figure 1. Frequency of EBPM or Evidence Based Policy, and EIPM or Evidence Informed Policy in the Scopus database, Title, Abstract or Keyword fields, 2020-2023 (Data at 14 January 2024). 

So, the literature indexed in Scopus demonstrates the continuing predominance of EBPM, and a gradual rise of EIPM. I have only researched the bibliometrics in Scopus. Grey literature or monographic sources may tell a different story, but I suspect not.

 

So what?

My experience indicates that EBPM was always understood as including elements of political, sociological and economic reality, it’s just that these elements remained hidden or blind within the terminology. Recently, the European Parliamentary Research Service recognise the sociological aspects in the application of EBPM whilst retaining the phraseology:

“This paper deals with 'evidence-based policy-making', as it uses the best available scientific evidence to formulate policies. However, 'evidence-based policy-making' does not imply that policy decisions should be taken solely based on scientific evidence. Policy decisions based exclusively on scientific evidence are technocratic, which is not a policy's aim in a parliamentary democracy. Democratic policy-makers usually combine the best available evidence with their understanding of a society's needs, i.e., contextualising the evidence in terms of what they believe is in accord with the citizens' expectations, values and preferences.” Source – EPRS. Evidence for Policy Making. European Parliament, March 2021. PE 690.529. [accessed on 14/01/2024].

The bibliometric analysis from Scopus demonstrates that we are likely to continue to experience the use of EBPM or EBP in our professional reading, and no doubt, within discussions. When we do, we might do well to personally reflect on, and acknowledge, the latent political, economic, and sociological factors that may also influence, moderate or refute the application of the evidence in the provision of new or reformed policy, or indeed in the decision to make no change, to leave things as they stand.

In our own conversations and writings, it may be more appropriate, transparent, and therefore more accurate to talk in terms of EIPM or EIP. In doing so we may help others to consider the wider range of influences involved in governmental policy making, whilst still valuing the role that GKIM and government analysts can, and do play in supporting governmental policy design, reform, and evaluation processes.

 

Get in touch!

Hopefully this blog has helped you review your terminological use and understanding? We are keen to hear about your experiences. Does this resonate with you? Are there additional considerations or perspectives that need to be taken on board?