Journal of Iranian Public Administration Studies

Journal of Iranian Public Administration Studies

Proposing a Conceptual Framework for Evidence-Based Policymaking as a Model of the Science–Policy Interface

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Iman Akbari 1
Hossein Aslipour 2
1 PhD Candidate, Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/jipas.2025.536408.1834
Abstract
Purpose: Evidence-based policymaking (EBPM), proposed in the United Kingdom in the late twentieth century as a framework for structuring the relationship between science and policy, has gained increasing attention within the discourse of public administration in the country over the past decade, nearly twenty-five years after its initial emergence. Meaningful engagement with this body of literature-aimed at strengthening evidence-orientation in national policymaking-requires careful reflection on its theoretical foundations and a critical assessment of its compatibility with domestic conditions. Accordingly, this study first seeks to provide a macro-level overview of the EBPM literature. It then undertakes a deeper conceptual analysis of EBPM as a model of the science–policy interface and evaluates its relevance and applicability in relation to the country’s institutional, political, and administrative context.
Methodology: The research was conducted in multiple stages. In the first stage, a systematic literature review was undertaken to identify and compile the most influential and relevant studies on EBPM. In the subsequent stage, the selected studies were refined and subjected to in-depth content analysis with the aim of developing a coherent conceptual framework. To assess the contextual feasibility and relevance of EBPM within the country, a series of semi-structured interviews was conducted with scholars and experts active in this field. Finally, an inductive thematic analysis was employed to synthesize findings from both the reviewed literature and the expert interviews, enabling an integrated and context-sensitive interpretation of EBPM.
Findings: The systematic review initially identified 292 studies related to evidence-based policymaking. In the next phase, 44 studies were selected based on their alignment with the objectives of the present research and their relevance to contextual adaptation. These studies were analyzed alongside interviews with national experts in order to assess the transferability of EBPM to the domestic setting. The analysis resulted in the development of a conceptual framework structured around several overarching themes, including conceptual foundations, historical evolution, the evidence ecosystem, key drivers and barriers, and major analytical classifications within the EBPM literature.
Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that evidence-based policymaking is a seemingly simple yet inherently complex approach. While the idea of placing evidence at the core of decision-making initially appears attractive, feasible, and intuitive, it often loses effectiveness when confronted with the practical constraints and complexities of real-world policymaking environments. In practice, EBPM may become marginal in decision-making processes or, in some cases, be instrumentalized for political purposes. This is primarily due to the interpretive nature of evidence, as data require analysis to become evidence, and evidence itself must undergo further interpretation to be translated into policy recommendations. Each stage of interpretation is shaped by the values, interests, and political and social processes of the actors involved, rendering the assumption of evidence as purely objective and universally applicable problematic.
Moreover, policymaking constitutes an arena of interaction and competition among values, interests, and actors. Consequently, attempts to frame policymaking as a purely technical exercise or to address it through reductionist and simplified approaches are unlikely to succeed. Excessive emphasis on evidence-orientation also carries the risk of drifting toward technocracy. In addition, evidence-based research frequently overlooks the actual needs and priorities of policymakers, focusing instead on academic agendas. This underscores the necessity for researchers to develop a realistic understanding of policymakers’ working environments, values, and concerns, and to engage with policymaking realities from their perspective.
Finally, the study highlights the contextual roots of EBPM in the United Kingdom, where a strong and institutionalized academic system, traditions of objectivism, and close linkages between science and policy provided favorable conditions for its development. Such conditions remain uncertain in the domestic context, where decision-making often lacks transparency, procedural consistency, and objectivity. As a result, the scientific system has been marginalized and has not evolved in alignment with governance needs. Therefore, strengthening evidence-informed policymaking requires critical reflection and reform across three key institutions: the scientific community (universities), policy research institutions, and political actors, including policymakers and public managers.
Keywords
Evidence-based Policymaking
Conceptual Framework
Systematic Literature Review
Thematic Analysis
الوانی، سید مهدی (1389). تصمیم‌گیری و تعیین خط‌مشی دولتی. تهران: سمت.
عابدی‌جعفری، حسن؛ تسلیمی، محمدسعید؛ فقیهی، ابوالحسن؛ و شیخ‌زاده، محمد (1390). تحلیل مضمون و شبکه مضامین: روشی ساده و کارآمد برای تبیین الگوهای موجود در داده‌های کیفی.  اندیشه مدیریت راهبردی، ۵(۲)، 198-151.
کیانی، پاکنوش؛ پورعزت، علی‌اصغر؛ دانش فرد، کرم‌الله؛ و معمارزاده طهران، غلامرضا (1401). شناسایی ابعاد و مؤلفه‌های کاربست الگوی ارزشیابی عملکرد دولت در حوزه سلامت. مطالعات مدیریت دولتی ایران، ۵(۱)، 58-31.
Abedi Ja’fari, H., Taslimi, M. S., Faghihi, A., & Sheikhzade, M. (2011). Thematic analysis and thematic networks: A simple and efficient method for exploring patterns embedded in qualitative data (municipalities). Strategic Management Thought, 5(2), 151–198. )In Persian(
Alnavi, S.M.  (2010). Decision-making and determining government policy. Tehran: SAMT. )In Persian(
Andrews, C. (2006). Rationality in policy decision-making. In W. A. Wallace (Ed.), Social science methods in policy research.
Ansell, C., & Geyer, R. (2017). Pragmatic complexity: A new foundation for moving beyond evidence-based policy making? Policy Studies, 38(2), 149–167.
Bangdiwala, S. I. (2024). The importance of systematic reviews. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 31(3), 347–349.
Boaz, A., Grayson, L., Levitt, R., & Solesbury, W. (2008). Does evidence-based policy work? Learning from the UK experience. Evidence & Policy, 4(2), 233–253.
Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: SAGE Publications.
Bowers, J., & Testa, P. F. (2019). Better government, better science: The promise of and challenges facing the evidence-informed policy movement. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 521–542.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Cairney, P., & Kwiatkowski, R. (2017). How to communicate effectively with policymakers: Combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1–8.
Cairney, P., & Oliver, K. (2017). Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), 1–11.
Cairney, P., & Oliver, K. (2020). How should academics engage in policymaking to achieve impact? Political Studies Review, 18(2), 228–244.
Capano, G., & Malandrino, A. (2022). Mapping the use of knowledge in policymaking: Barriers and facilitators from a subjectivist perspective (1990–2020). Policy Sciences, 55(3), 399–428.
Christensen, J. (2021). Expert knowledge and policymaking: A multi-disciplinary research agenda. Policy & Politics, 49(3), 455–471.
De Marchi, G., Lucertini, G., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2016). From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics. Annals of Operations Research, 236(1), 15–38.
Demir, F. (2020). Evidence-based policy-making: Merits and challenges. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance (pp. 1–13). Cham: Springer.
Dorren, L., & Wolf, E. E. A. (2023). How evidence-based policymaking helps and hinders policy conflict. Policy & Politics, 51(3), 486–507.
Durrant, H., Havers, R., Downe, J., & Martin, S. (2024). Improving evidence use: A systematic scoping review of local models of knowledge mobilisation. Evidence & Policy, 20(3), 370–392.
French, R. D. (2019). Is it time to give up on evidence-based policy? Four answers. Policy & Politics, 47(1), 151–168.
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Grayson, L. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services: A review. Evidence & Policy, 3(3), 439–457.
Greenhalgh, T., & Russell, J. (2009). Evidence-based policymaking: A critique. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52(2), 304–318.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications
Head, B. W. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1–11.
Head, B. W. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29(2), 77–94.
Head, B. W. (2016). Toward more “evidence-informed” policy making? Public Administration Review, 76(3), 472–484.
Howlett, M. (2009). Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 52(2), 153–175.
Kadio, K., Dagenais, C., & Ridde, V. (2023). How does explicit knowledge inform policy shaping? The case of Burkina Faso’s national social protection policy. Plos One, 18(4): e0284950.
Kano, H., & Hayashi, T. I. (2021). A framework for implementing evidence in policymaking: Perspectives and phases of evidence evaluation in the science-policy interaction. Environmental Science & Policy, 116, 86–95.
Kay, A. (2011). Evidence‐based policy‐making: The elusive search for rational public administration. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70(3), 236–245.
Kyani, P., Pourezzat, A. A., Daneshfard, K., & Memarzadeh Tehran, G. (2022). Identifying the dimensions and components of the application of the government’s performance evaluation model in health sector. Journal of Iranian Public Administration Studies, 5(1), 31–58. (In Persian)
Labafi, S., Ebrahimzadeh, S., Kavousi, M. M., Abdolhossein Maregani, H., & Sepasgozar, S. (2022). Using an evidence-based approach for policy-making based on big data analysis and applying detection techniques on Twitter. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 6(4), Article 160
Leuz, C. (2018). Evidence-based policymaking: Promise, challenges and opportunities for accounting and financial markets research. Accounting and Business Research, 48(5), 582–608.
Lowther, J. (2017). Evidence-based policy making in the social sciences: methods that matter. Local Government Studies, 43(5), 871–873.
MacKillop, E., & Downe, J. (2023). What counts as evidence for policy? An analysis of policy actors’ perceptions. Public Administration Review, 83(5), 1037–1050.
MacKillop, E., Quarmby, S., & Downe, J. (2020). Does knowledge brokering facilitate evidence-based policy? A review of existing knowledge and an agenda for future research. Policy & Politics, 48(2), 335–353.
Marceta, J. A. (2021). The evidence-based policy movement and political idealism. Evidence & Policy, 17(3), 525–534.
Menter, I., & Hulme, M. (2012). Reviewing literature to inform policy: Some complexities and tensions. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 35(2), 141–152.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
Naughton, M. (2005). ‘Evidence-based policy’ and the government of the criminal justice system—Only if the evidence fits! Critical Social Policy, 25(1), 47–69.
Nelson, J. P., Lindsay, S., & Bozeman, B. (2023). The last 20 years of empirical research on government utilization of academic social science research: A state-of-the-art literature review. Administration & Society, 55(8), 1479–1528.
Newman, J. (2017). Debating the politics of evidence-based policy. Public Administration, 95(4), 1107–1112
Newman, J., Cherney, A., & Head, B. W. (2017). Policy capacity and evidence-based policy in the public service. Public Management Review, 19(2), 157–174.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1).
Oliver, K., & Boaz, A. (2019). Transforming evidence for policy and practice: Creating space for new conversations. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1-10.
Oliver, K., Lorenc, T., & Innvær, S. (2014). New directions in evidence-based policy research: A critical analysis of the literature. Health Research Policy and Systems, 12(1), 1-11.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
Pawson, R. (2002a). Evidence-based policy: In search of a method. Evaluation, 8(2), 157–181 .
Pawson, R. (2002b). Evidence-based policy: The promise of ‘realist synthesis’. Evaluation, 8(3), 340–358.
Pawson, R., Wong, G., & Owen, L. (2011). Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns: The predicament of evidence-based policy. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(4), 518–546.
Richards, G. W. (2017). How Research–Policy Partnerships Can Benefit Government: A Win–Win for Evidence-Based Policy-Making. 43(2), 165–170.
Saltelli, A., & Giampietro, M. (2017). What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved? Futures, 91, 62–71.
Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-Based Policy Making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1–22.
Sanderson, I. (2006). Complexity, ‘practical rationality’ and evidence-based policy making. Policy & Politics, 34(1), 115–132.
Sanderson, I. (2009). Intelligent Policy Making for a Complex World: Pragmatism, Evidence and Learning. Political Studies, 57(4), 699–719.
Sanderson, I. (2011). Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? Reflections on Scottish experience. Evidence and Policy, 7(1), 59–76.
Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 18(2), 226-244.
Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2018). The Public Policy Theory Primer.
Strydom, W. F., Funke, N., Nienaber, S., Nortje, K., & Steyn, M. (2010). Evidence-based policymaking: A review. South African Journal of Science, 106(5), 1–8.

  • Receive Date 22 July 2025
  • Revise Date 10 September 2025
  • Accept Date 22 September 2025