Four Years of Evidence Synthesis: What Did We Learn?
Sarah Chaytor
IPPO was originally set up to identify and synthesise evidence that could help policymakers better understand how to mitigate against the worst effects of the global pandemic.
In its second phase, we widened our focus to encompass Covid-19 impact and recovery; net zero, place and spatial inequalities, and socio-economic inequalities.
We have done this through commissioning systematic reviews, undertaking global policy scans to capture innovations and evidence from across the world, delivering rapid evidence briefings and convening experts from different academic disciplines, public policy areas, and sectors to share insights and explore policy solutions.
As we come to the end of project, we undertook an experimental large language model synthesis across all of IPPO’s outputs. Reviewing this ‘synthesis of synthesis’, we identified 5 key insights which recur throughout IPPO’s work.
- Inequality is the challenge of our time. It presents a major policy challenge in itself, in terms of the health and wealth of the nation. But it also underpins other major societal problems, from the climate crisis to food security, to technological development and disruption, to social cohesion. Policy responses to any of these challenges, and many more besides, will need to take account of and address inequalities.
- Silos are the enemy of effective policymaking. The major societal challenges of today require holistic responses which recognise and address interdependencies between different policy areas. For example, health outcomes are affected by level of income; and progress towards green technologies are impacted by skills policy. Public policymaking needs to be increasingly sophisticated and aimed at generating co-benefits, rather than singularly focused.
- Our most important capital is social capital. Social fabric builds resilience and mitigates the negative consequences of many social challenges – from the pandemic to spatial inequalities. It is too easy to overlook the foundational importance of social bonds and empowered communities. Policymaking is ultimately about people. This needs better recognition of and support for social capital alongside economic growth.
- Complex global challenges require localised action. Policy solutions which are designed and implemented locally are often more effective. However, there is a significant capacity gap in sub-national government in the UK, notwithstanding ongoing devolution within England. Locally-based responses also offer more scope for meaningful engagement with citizens around policy challenges and potential solutions. Building local delivery capacity as well as capacity to deploy evidence in local policymaking needs to be a priority.
- More evidence is not (always) the solution. Most policymakers we worked with were enthusiastic about deploying evidence to inform policy development and decision-making. The pandemic placed a premium on rapidity – that is, on what was known at the points that decisions had to be made. The challenge is less the generation of evidence, but more one of how to make existing evidence (however imperfect) available at the point of policy need. This also requires the incorporation of diverse perspectives and forms of expertise to provide balance, particularly for decision-making at pace.
We suggest that, taken together, these insights point to a rebalancing of the policymaking framework in the UK. A much stronger focus is needed on holistic approaches and localised responses to tackling key challenges, with a recognition that addressing inequality and investing in the social fabric of the country should be core priorities. This will require academic researchers, policymakers and many other actors to work more proactively together to share collective insights and identify potential policy solutions.