Policy briefs as communication tools for policy research. Presentation by Arnaldo Pellini and Jeff Knezovich OID RAPID August 2008, Dar es Salaam (Tanzania)

1. Policy Briefs:
a development research
communication tool
Arnaldo Pellini, PhD
‘Micro-level Perspectives of Growth’ project
August 2008, Dar es Salaam

3. Content
1) Why policy briefs?
2) Planning your policy brief
3) Designing your policy brief
4) Conclusion

4. Part 1: Why a policy brief?
The research/policy divide
• Divergent needs & pressures
regarding information usage Factors influencing policy making
• Specialised research expertise vs.
democratised knowledge Experience &
Expertise
• Policy engagement vs. objectivity of Pragmatics &
Judgement Contingencies
researchers
• Researchers’ hypothesis driven Evidence
Lobbyists &
Resources
processes vs. policy-makers time Pressure Groups
constraints
Habits, Policy
• Multiple and competing influences Context
Values &
Tradition Source: Phil Davies Impact to
upon policy decisions Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

5. Part 1: Why a policy brief?
• A short document that presents the findings
and recommendations of a research project
to a non-specialist readership
• A medium for exploring an issue
and distilling lessons learned from research
• A vehicle for providing policy advice
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

6. Part 1: Why a policy brief?
• Recent ODI/ Sci-DevNet survey with developed and
developing country policy makers working in field of
Science, Technology and Innovation found:
– 50% of policy-makers and 65% of researchers thought
dissemination of research findings for policy uptake
insufficient
– 79% respondents ranked policy briefs as valuable
communications tool
– Confirmed by expert and stakeholder interviews as means
of informing decision-making processes
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

7. Part 2: Planning your policy brief
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

8. Part 2: Planning your policy brief
A policy brief should be:
• A stand alone document
• Focused on a single topic
• Approximately 1,500 words (2-4 pages)
• A mix of text and graphics/ illustrations
• Provides suggestions for follow up reading
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

9. Part 2: Planning your policy brief
• Evidence
 Quality evidence
 Credible messenger
• Context
 Understanding of political context
• Engagement (links)
 Fostering linkages between researchers & policy-
makers
 Ongoing dialogue
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

10. Part 2: Planning your policy brief
Evidence
• “What value does this have for the reader?”
• Develop a persuasive argument line:
 Clear purpose
 Cohesive argument
 Quality of evidence
 Transparency of evidence underpinning policy
recommendations
• Describe the urgency of the situation
• Speak in terms of benefits, advantages
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

11. Part 2: Planning your policy brief
Ask yourself…
• Who are your readers?
• Who am I writing this brief for?
• How knowledgeable are they about the subject?
• How open are they to the message?
• What are their interests & concerns?
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

12. Part 2: Planning your policy brief
Context
• Policy makers are not a homogenous group
• Needs differ by sector (economic vs social)
• Level of position (national vs sub-national)
• Role in policy-making process (policymaker, researcher,
intermediary)
• Point in the policy/project cycle (agenda setting vs
implementation vs M&E)
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

13. Part 2: Planning your policy brief
Context
Policy-makers using
scientific information at
various stages of the policy
cycle
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

14. Part 2: Planning your policy brief
Engagement
“I often read policy briefs for
• Recommendations relevant & both my official and non
official needs. I cannot think
realistic in context
of going forward without
consulting policy briefs. It
• Results clear expands my knowledge as I
• Time pressures of policy- get an opportunity to
understand what is
makers to deliver policies happening around me.”
with rapid & visible impacts (Policy-maker, India)
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

15. Part 3: Designing your policy brief
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

16. Part 3: Designing your policy brief
Present evidence-
informed opinions
• Not shying away from opinion
and value judgements (vs.
objectivity)
• 80% policy-makers valued
researchers’ opinions about the
policy implications of research
• Demand for opinion highest in
South
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

17. Part 3: Designing your policy brief
Use clear language
• Define your purpose
• Identify salient supporting points
• Distill the points down to essential info
• Clear language & jargon free
64% respondents thought low levels of scientific
understanding by policy makers is a significant obstacle
to uptake
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

18. Part 3: Designing your policy brief
Structure:
• Executive statement
• Introduction
• Methodology
• Results: what did we learn?
• Conclusions: what does it mean?
• Implications and Recommendations
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

19. Part 3: Designing your policy brief
Executive statement: Many in Congress and the
administration have called for new
• Distill the essence of the brief investments in education in order
to make the United States more
• Provide an overview to busy competitive, with President Bush
readers stressing the importance of
education in preparing young
• Interest the reader to read further Americans to “fill the jobs of the
• Appear on the cover, or top of the 21st century.” Yet advocates of
early childhood education have
first page only recently stressed the
• Be written last so that author is economic benefits of preschool programs,
and it has been difficult to win support for
clear about the over-arching these short-term investments given the
message conveyed long-term nature of the benefits to the
Economy.
The Brookings Institution, Policy Brief N. 153:
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb153.pdf
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

20. Part 3: Designing your policy brief
Introduction: The increased fear of a pandemic at
• Answers the question why is the current time is due to the fact that the
H5N1 strain causing the outbreak is capable of
this important or urgent? mutating rapidly and acquiring genes from
• Describes the research viruses infecting other animal species, including
humans. If the new virus contained sufficient
objective human influenza virus genes, direct
transmission from one person to another
• Acts as an overview of the (human-to-human) could occur, heralding a
findings and conclusions possible influenza pandemic. The current H5N1
strain causes high mortality among humans,
• Creates curiosity about the with mortality rates exceeding 50 per cent in
most countries.
rest of the brief AN EFFECTIVE REGIONAL RESPONSE TO THE THREAT OF A PANDEMIC
UN ESCAP Issue N.1 2005
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

21. Part 3: Designing your policy brief
Methodology:
• Describes relevant background
• Describes issue and context of the investigation
• Describes research and analysis activities
o What methods were used to conduct the study?
o Who undertook the data collection and analysis?
o Important to provide transparency of research process
but should not be overly technical
• Opportunity to highlight strengths/ value-added of study
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

22. Part 3: Designing your policy brief
Do The Electric Fences Work?
Results: What did we learn?
• Provide a summary of the facts Overall, it was found that although
the electric fencing does help…it is
• Make content easy to follow, not capable of completely
understand eliminating conflict. In each
…area…technical as well as
• Start by painting a general socioeconomic factors
picture affect…success. Technical failures
• Move from general to specific mainly affected the early
fences…Other problems resulted
• Base conclusions on results from failure to take into account
• Express ideas using strong elephant behavior and distribution
patterns.
assertions
Elephants and Electric Fences: A Study From Sri
• Make sure ideas are balanced, Lanka. EEPSEA 2005-PB11
defensible
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

23. Part 3: Designing your policy brief
Implications and recommendations
• Implications - what • Recommendations –
policy changes or actions what does the researcher
do the results point to? think should happen?
• Supported by evidence • Supported by evidence
• Must be actionable
• Must be actionable
• Less direct than
• Describe clearly what
recommendations
should happen next
• Useful when advice not
• State as precise steps
requested or not
welcome
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

24. Part 3: Designing your policy brief
Engage with audiences visually
• Visually as well as conceptually
engaging
• Would you be interested by the
document?
• Often just 30-60 minutes spent by
policy makers reading information on
an issue
• Over 80% respondents found graphs &
explanatory diagrams helpful
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

25. Part 3: Designing your policy brief
• Sidebar or textbox – a short insert that
examines a specific aspect of the
research
• Additional to the main discussion
• Aim to ‘hook’ a reader’s attention,
often through additional qualitative
information or case studies
• Aim to make sidebars or textboxes:
– Short, Descriptive
– Stimulating (ask questions, provide
answers
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

26. Part 4: Conclusions
Key ingredients of effective policy briefs
Persuasive Argument Clear purpose; cohesive argument; quality of evidence;
Evidence
transparency of evidence underpinning policy
recommendations (e.g. a single study, a review of available
evidence, etc.)
Authority Messenger (individual or organisation) has credibility in eyes
of policy-maker
Audience context Written to address specific context and needs of target
Policy
specificity audience;
context
Actionable Information linked to specific policy processes, clear and
Recommendations feasible recommendations on policy steps to be taken
Presentation of author’s own views about policy implications
Presentation of
Engagement
evidence-informed of research findings; but clear identification of argument
opinions components that are opinion based
Understandable by educated, non-specialist
Clear Language/
Writing Style
Appearance/Design Visually engaging, presentation of information through
charts, graphs, photos
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

27. Thank you 
a.pellini@odi.org.uk

28. Group work: Session 1
Read the 2 pg policy brief entitled: “Challenges for
Sustainable Development in the Mekong Delta”
Use the checklist and score the brief out of 5 (0 is for
very poor, 5 for excellent) on each category. Be sure
to note your reasons for your scores

29. Group work: Session 2
Form 4 groups:
• i) Trade liberalisation and employment,
• 2) Private sector competitiveness,
• 3) Value chain analysis,
• 4) Migration and off-farm employment
Based on the presentations from the Sapa workshop identify:
– Your audience?
– Your value-added findings in 3 key points, 15 words each
– 4 key policy implications stemming from your findings
– 2 key policy recommendations to
• National government bureaucrats;
• Provincial government bureaucrats;
• Committee on Economic Affairs in the National Assembly;
• Donors;
• NGOs
– A topic and text for a textbox or sidebar

30. RAPID Framework
External Influences political context
Politics and
Campaigning, Policymaking
Policy analysis, &
Lobbying
research
Media,
Advocacy, Networking
Research,
Scientific
learning &
information
thinking
exchange &
validation
evidence
links

31. Part 3: Designing your policy brief
Results: What does it mean?
• Use this section to interpret your
data One problem is the destruction of
• Aim for concrete conclusions fences by illegal timber fellers and
• Express ideas using strong illicit liquor producers. Such
assertions activities can be policed by well-
• Make sure ideas are balanced, organized community-based
groups.
defensible
Elephants and Electric Fences: A Study From
Sri Lanka EEPSEA 2005-PB11
Why? Planning Design Conclusions

32. Group Planning
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7
25 Aug 1 Sept 8 Sept 15 Sept 22 Sept 29 Sept 6 Oct
Other
commit
ments
Research Research
paper papers
sent (26
Sept)
Policy
paper