Knowledge Transfer in Policy

What’s stopping evidence from driving better policy? A fundamental disconnect between researchers and policymakers may hold the answer. 👉 77% of policymakers undervalue science advice, while 73% of researchers struggle to understand policy processes. This gap creates significant challenges in tackling global issues such as climate change, public health crises, and the regulation of emerging technologies. The solution? This Nature editorial (link in the comments) highlights two critical elements: 1️⃣ The vital role of knowledge brokers: bridging the gap between complex research into actionable insights for policymakers, ensuring evidence is not only heard but also understood and applied. 2️⃣ Training for researchers – equipping them with the skills to effectively engage with policy spaces. For researchers, engaging with policy is about more than sharing academic evidence it is: 👍 Communicating complex ideas in accessible language. 👍 Building trust and understanding differing priorities. 👍 Learning how government systems and timelines operate. The message is clear: If we want research to shape a better world, we must invest in the people and processes that connect science and policy. #EvidenceInformedPolicy #KnowledgeBrokers #ResearchImpact #ScienceCommunication

When I first started meeting bureaucrats, policymakers, and politicians while working on air pollution and climate change, I assumed scientific research would naturally lead to better policies. But over time, I kept getting the same response—expressed in different ways. Here, I’m sharing some early experiences that shaped my understanding of this disconnect. 🔹 One of my first experiences was when a very senior officer invited us to discuss solutions. As scientists, we proposed a research-driven approach that would take two to three years. His response? "We have funding that must be spent within a year. We expected practical solutions from you. We can’t wait three years—I might even be transferred before then." 🔹 Another realization came when we proposed analyzing pollution sources. A senior officer responded, "We already know the sources—traffic, industry, construction, waste burning, road dust, cooking fuel, etc. Will your study show anything drastically different?" When we explained that our study would refine insights and reduce uncertainties, his response was: "We don’t care about these nuances right now. That detail matters later, once mitigation efforts are underway. Right now, we need feasible solutions that fit economic, demographic, and practical constraints." Another officer later remarked: "Scientists aren’t here to provide solutions. Their focus is securing funding, publishing papers, and showcasing work to funders." He even cited global reports that had never been downloaded. At that moment, I felt disappointed. But I also realized they weren’t entirely wrong—perhaps even more right than I was. Policymakers work within short funding cycles, shifting priorities, and limited tenures—typically three years for an officer, five for a politician. Their constraints are real, and their approach reflects these realities. 💡 This disconnect between science and policy is a major barrier in sustainability. Scientists seek accuracy, while policymakers need actionable, timely solutions. So, how do we bridge this gap? ✔ Policy-Research Intermediaries – Teams that translate scientific findings into actionable policies. ✔ Adaptive Research Timelines – Delivering short-term, high-impact solutions alongside long-term studies. ✔ Collaborative Working Groups – Scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders aligning research with real-world needs. ✔ Flexible Funding Models – Ensuring funding supports both immediate action and long-term research. 🚀 If we don’t bridge this gap, science remains detached from policy, and policy stays reactive instead of proactive. #AirPollution #ClimateAction #SciencePolicy #Sustainability #Collaboration #ResearchToAction

What happens to evidence once it enters a government department? This paper (https://lnkd.in/etZG37gg) strips away the fiction that #evidence simply “feeds into” #policymaking. Inside departments, #KnowledgeBrokering is less about transfer and more about constant translation, negotiation, and alignment. Evidence moves through informal conversations, trusted relationships, and iterative sense-making long before it appears in briefings or submissions. What matters most is not the quality of evidence in isolation, but its fit with departmental priorities, timing, and internal workflows. Brokers spend much of their effort managing expectations, mediating between analytical standards and policy urgency, and protecting evidence from being either ignored or overstated. The insight here is practical and political. #EvidenceUse is shaped by organizational pressures and power relations, not by deficit of skill or goodwill. Strengthening evidence-informed policy, therefore, means investing in brokering capacity as core governance infrastructure rather than treating it as a peripheral function. Evidence does not travel on its own. It moves because someone makes space for it. #KnowledgeTranslation #PoliticalLiteracy

For many working in research, the evidence-to-policy pipeline is the holy grail. But what if the identity of the messenger providing evidence matters as much as the message? A very neat new trial conducted in Spain by a large team and now forthcoming in the AER by a large team - Jorge Garcia-Hombrados (a former cool young reseacher!), Marcel Jansen, Martínez, Berkay Ozcan, Pedro Rey Biel, and Roldán-Monés -- seeks to unpack the role of ideological alignment between the knowledge broker and the policy maker in leading to policy adoption. The authors are able to compare identical policy information delivered to local policy-makers by three different parties: a research institution with no salient ideology, and think tanks and newspapers that had opposite ideological characteristics. (If you're curious, the policy to be adopted is very straightforward: updating the municipality's wikipedia page, to increase tourism.) They find that policy adoption increases by 65% when the informing institution is perceived to be ideologically aligned. Ideologically opposed institutions had no effect. Neutral institutions had some positive effect (more than ideologically opposed institutions), but the difference was not significant. Fascinating findings - would love to see the same trial done in other contexts.

Only 10-15% of workforce training transfers to workplace practice: what we can do about it. Recent research states that only 10-15% of what people learn in formal training actually transfers to workplace practice. Those of us building skills for improvement & change in health & care can relate to this. Health & care organisations invest massively in improvement training, yet it frequently fails to translate into practical improvements in care delivery. The transfer problem is not primarily the training itself or participant capability. The primary determinant of successful learning transfer is work environment. As leaders, we hold the key to unlocking the 85-90% of learning that might be failing to translate into improved care. Actions we can take based on the research findings: 1) Create support structures. People need identified peer supporters & line managers who understand their role in enabling application of new skills. This support directly affects transfer through impact on motivation & determination to overcome obstacles. 2) Align learning with organisational priorities. When we connect improvement training & individual learning goals explicitly to strategic goals we get more learning transfer. 3) Provide time, resources & opportunity to apply learning. Improvement work needs protected space, not an expectation it will happen alongside unchanged operational demands. 4) Suggest transfer projects that address genuine organisational problems. Projects should be strategically aligned, resourced & accompanied by clear agreements about outcomes. 5) Foster knowledge networks & social exchange. Create conditions for knowledge sharing through communities of practice & regular opportunities for peer exchange. 6) Build a positive error culture. A culture that allows experimentation without fear of blame is a predictor of informal learning AND a facilitator of transfer. Improvement requires testing changes & testing requires psychological safety to learn from what does not work as well as what does. 7) Move evaluation beyond end-of-course feedback. We should track whether participants are applying improvement methods, whether teams are adopting new approaches & whether changes are producing better care outcomes. 8) Integrate three forms of learning. Combine formal improvement training with informal learning through experimentation & reflection & self-regulated learning where people set their own goals and monitor their progress. We should support individual learning journeys rather than treating training as a one-off event. The evidence is clear: successful learning transfer is a system property, not an individual responsibility. When we create the environmental conditions that enable transfer, improvement training can fulfil its potential to transform care for the people & communities we serve. https://lnkd.in/eAk9upKZ. By Simone Kauffeld & colleagues. Sourced via John Whitfield MBA.

🌍 World Health Organization has published the first-ever global research agenda on knowledge translation and evidence-informed policymaking — and it deserves serious attention. The gap between what research shows and what governments do has always been the quiet scandal of public health. This agenda names it plainly: evidence arrives too late, is too complex, or too disconnected from local realities to inform decisions. After two years of structured work — 131 experts, 38 countries, two Delphi rounds, 850-participant launch — WHO has produced a ranked, validated, cross-sectoral framework that tells us not just what we don't know, but what we should be studying to find out. 📌 The top five priorities: 🔷 Institutionalisation — Making evidence use routine, not exceptional 🔷 Evaluation of KT interventions — We fund evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues without rigorous evidence they change decisions. That gap is now formally named 🔷 Co-creation — Who sits in the room, and when, matters more than the document itself 🔷 Contextual factors — Political economy and power dynamics determine whether evidence lands 🔷 Evidence in emergencies — The pandemic exposed how fragile rapid knowledge translation infrastructure remains

The WHO Global Research Agenda on Knowledge Translation and Evidence-Informed Policy-making has been launched. 📖 Find out more here: https://lnkd.in/gguxQiAr I know ‘knowledge translation research’ is a new concept for many people. It’s about understanding how to better support the use of research in policy, practice, and community. Knowledge translation research has been underfunded and fragmented, and this new global agenda is a step towards a more coordinated and strategic approach. As someone who contributed to the development of the agenda and conducts research in this area, these three priorities resonate: 💠Institutionalising the production, translation, and use of evidence 💠Evaluating knowledge translation strategies and interventions 💠Understanding what drives decision-makers to use evidence 💡 Why this matters: If we want research to make a difference in the world, we need to invest in the science of how that happens. To reduce duplication, fill gaps, and move the field forward, we need: 💠 Funders to prioritise research in the priority areas identified 💠Researchers to align their work with the agenda’s priority areas. If you're interested in hearing more about the research agenda or a funder interested in supporting knowledge translation research, I’d love to connect. #KnowledgeTranslation #ResearchImpact #EvidenceInformedPolicy #KT #ResearchFunding #Impact #ResearchStrategy #KnowledgeMobilisation #Funding #WHO

𝗚𝗲𝘁 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 When I talk with local governments about #SmartCityGovernance, I often feel just how wide the gap still is between research and practice. In #TechnologyGovernance. We produce a huge amount of knowledge, yet too little of it meaningfully enters policy conversations. We only need to look at how many local governments currently manage smart city development to grasp the scale of the problem - https://lnkd.in/eHZQ9wC3. Science and policymaking have drifted apart, and reconnecting them matters more than ever, particularly in fast-moving domains shaped by #DigitalTransformation. 𝗪𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲 - https://lnkd.in/e4e9wYzC 1️⃣ 𝗗𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Scientific knowledge often fails to influence policy but because it is poorly translated. Evidence needs to be timely and clearly framed around the decisions policymakers are actually facing. 2️⃣ 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 We need advisory bodies and intermediary organisations designed to carry evidence into policy processes and keep it there over time. Reconnection does not happen through individual efforts alone. 3️⃣ 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 We need research that is not only about policy, but done with policymakers. Participatory research methods where policymakers are actively involved can help ensure that research speaks directly to real governance challenges. This kind of engagement is an overlooked resource and can makes evidence more relevant and far more likely to inform policy decisions. #PolicyResearchDivide #ResearchInformed #EvidenceBasedPolicy #ParticipatoryResearch #KnowledgeProduction #TechnologyGovernance #SmartCityGovernance #SmartCities #DigitalTransformation #UrbanInnovation #ResponsibleInnovation