SKAPE Workshop Sparks New Research Outputs on ‘Cultures of Evidence’
By Kat Smith, Niklas Andersen and Valérie Pattyn.
In June 2022, the University of Edinburgh played host to a vibrant workshop on “cultures of evidence,” which was sponsored and co-organised by SKAPE. This dynamic event brought together scholars from a wide variety of disciplinary and national contexts for two days of comparative discussion about the cultures of evidence that shape the way research travels into policy. The workshop not only provided a platform for sharing ideas but also laid the foundation for two significant follow-on outputs that have recently been published.
The workshop was organised in the context of a growing calls, including in Evidence & Policy editorials, to move scholarship on the evidence-policy interplay beyond single case studies and analyses focusing on specific policy domains. As participants at the workshop observed, while this kind of focused work and within-case analyses can be extremely insightful, a lack of comparative cross-case analysis risks limiting our understanding of how the evidence-policy interplay functions across diverse institutional, national, sector, or disciplinary landscapes, thereby hindering systematic theory building. Recognising these limitations, the event catalysed an effort to embrace a more rigorous comparative and integrative perspective.
In the months following the workshop, participants have been busy translating discussions into concrete scholarly outputs. Niklas Andersen, Valérie Pattyn, and Kat Smith have collaborated with workshop attendees and others with an interest in this area to produce two complementary projects. The first is a special issue of Policy & Society, published in November 2024, that delves into ‘Cultures of Evidence.’ This issue explores the multifaceted ways in which evidence is constructed, validated, and utilised within different policy settings. It offers critical insights into how evidence is shaped by disciplinary traditions and institutional contexts.
The second output is a special themed section of Evidence & Policy, published in May 2025. This section emphasises the value of comparative research in studies of evidence use in policymaking. Drawing on the rich insights shared during the workshop, the section showcases how comparative research methods can illuminate the diverse ways that evidence is interpreted and implemented in different contexts. By comparing cases across countries and policy domains, the special section identifies some important commonalities that have perhaps been under-played by the single-case study lens of existing scholarship.
A key element underlying both outputs is the idea that ‘learning through comparison’ is a powerful means of unpacking some of the complexities involved in evidence use within policy settings. Our hope is that these two cross-disciplinary collaborations help showcase the value of comparative analysis in this area of research and serve as a foundation for work to achieve deeper conceptual clarity and even theoretical breakthroughs. By learning how different disciplines define, think about and assess evidence use, there are opportunities to challenge our own (often disciplinary bounded) ways of thinking. For example, the introductory paper to the Policy & Society special issue uses bibliometric analysis to identify some of the contrasting ways of thinking about ‘evidence cultures’ across disciplines, revealing a contrast between health researchers’ motivation to close perceived gaps between research and practice/policy versus a concern among more environmental scientists that the key gap lies between researchers and policymakers, on the one hand, and wider publics (the indigenous knowledge of local communities, for example). Similarly, the different papers of the special issue all show how contextual–cultural differences shape evidence production as well as its policy use across political-administrative settings at various levels, including international organisations; national parliaments; government scientific advisory systems and ministries; policy sectors, and local municipal levels. Together, the papers highlight the importance of considering how a distinct evidence culture often comes to dominate a given policy setting, thereby shaping the production, translation, and use of evidence. In the introductory article, we present a framework for analysing this more systematically, which we hope will inspire future research on the issue.
We also draw out some key common insights to emerge from the comparative research discussed in the special themed section of Evidence & Policy:
- Disciplinary Dominance Within Evidence Cultures
One of the most striking observations is the extent to which certain disciplines tend to dominate evidence cultures in particular policy settings. For instance, while the COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of social science perspectives, parliamentary science institutions privileged STEM-based evidence. This disciplinary dominance can filter out potentially valuable insights and lead to policies that are not fully informed by the diversity of available knowledge. - The Role of Politics and Democratic Legitimacy
Policymakers are continually tasked with balancing scientific expertise with the democratic imperative to reflect public values and interests. This is essential to understand since, when evidence that is not perceived as legitimate by key stakeholders—such as frontline workers or affected communities—it is likely to be sidelined, regardless of its academic rigor. For example, in certain national contexts like Denmark, education and employment policies that failed to engage critical stakeholders encountered significant implementation challenges. This underscores the necessity of ensuring efforts to support evidence use in policy are informed by democratic considerations. - The Need for Realism in Evidence Integration
Policymaking is a complex endeavour, influenced by time pressures, resource constraints, and bureaucratic hurdles. The concept of “epistemological bricolage”—whereby policymakers piece together evidence from various sources based on availability and feasibility—is central to understanding how evidence is operationalised in real-world settings. Even the most robust evidence may prove ineffective if it is not timely or accessible.
The workshop and its follow-on outputs highlight the necessity of interdisciplinary dialogue and the benefits of comparative research in developing more nuanced, democratic, and effective understandings of the evidence-policy interplay. By challenging the dominance of traditional disciplinary perspectives and advocating for more learning across different ‘evidence cultures’, the outputs aim to foster a richer, more critical understanding of evidence production and use.
Given SKAPE’s role as a hub for cross-disciplinary dialogue about the evidence-policy interplay, we hope the special issue in Policy & Society and the forthcoming themed section in Evidence & Policy are of interest to members. Looking forward, we hope these contributions stimulate further consideration of the ways in which evidence cultures shape the use of evidence in policy, and highlight the value of learning through comparison.