Cultures of Evidence, Cultures of Engagement: An empirical examination of the relationship between evidence use and engagement across UK policy organisations

Alongside efforts to improve the use of evidence in policy, a combination of grassroots demands and governance-driven democratisation (Warren, 2009) have given rise to the development of an ever-increasing range of public engagement processes in policy organisations. These offer channels for policy makers to hear from the populations they serve. The role, efficacy and outcomes of such processes is the source of much discussion and yet, scholarship on evidence use in policy and democratic engagement with policy has tended to remain separate (Stewart et al 2020). In this paper we explore how efforts to promote evidence use and efforts to promote democratic engagement intersect within three distinct policy organisations, each of which is working at a different levels of policymaking in the UK: local (Sheffield City Council), regional (Greater Manchester Combined Authority) and national (devolved) (Scottish Government). Employing a combination of interviews and documentary analysis, over the last two and a half years we explore how individuals working in policy advisory and analyst roles discuss the role of evidence in policy vis-à-vis the role of public engagement, focusing particularly on understanding: when, why and how they do public engagement work; when, why and how they use evidence; and how they view the relationship between the two. Informed by Lorenc et al’s (2014) notion of ‘cultures of evidence’, we assess whether there appear to be identifiable ‘cultures of evidence’ in our case study policy organisations. Extending this concept, we then explore the extent to which these interact with cultures of public engagement. Our research reveals a wide range of mechanisms, and reasons, for undertaking public engagement and for using evidence, with similar variations within each of our case study organisations. Thus, while no singular culture of evidence or engagement can be ascribed at an organisational level, we argue that at least three positions can be identified at the evidence-engagement interface: (1) policy actors who view public engagement as a foundational principle of policymaking, who position evidence as playing a supplementary role to public preferences; (2) policy actors who position public engagement as a strategic means of achieving public-political support for evidence-informed policy options; and (3) policy actors who view evidence as the ideal basis of policy proposals and who are, as a result, often sceptical about the value of public engagement. These findings underline calls to examine the disconnect between efforts to promote public engagement and efforts to promote evidence use in policy, suggesting that each may be gaining traction with distinct policy audiences. More positively, the data indicate a desire from at least some participants to find ways to better integrate, or bridge, public engagement and evidence within policy settings. Such efforts will have to attend to complex questions of policy utility, and democratic legitimacy. Lorenc, T., et al. 2014. Cultures of evidence across policy sectors: systematic review of qualitative evidence. European Journal of Public Health 24, 6, 1041-1047 Stewart, E., et al. 2020. Opening up evidence-based policy: exploring citizen and service use expertise. Evidence and Policy 16, 2, 199-208