Evidence-based policy-making : from data to decision-making.
Date: 2018-10-15
Institutions: European University Institute
Subjects: decision-making, disinformation, governance, information policy, proof

Issue 2018/15
July 2018

Evidence-Based Policy-
Making: From Data To 
Decision-Making

EXECUTIVE TRAINING SEMINAR

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE PROGRAMME 
& SCHOOL OF TRANSNATIONAL 
GOVERNANCE

Gaby Umbach, Caterina Francesca Guidi and 
Marta Russo, EUI.

In times of increasing populism and contestation in politics, reliable 
information  plays  a  vital  role  in  well-informed  policy-making 
based  on  evidence  and  not  only  on  emotions  and  values,  let  alone 
disinformation and fake news. The popular legitimacy of any political 
system therefore depends on its capacity to deliver good and targeted 
outcomes  based  on  transparent  evidence.  These  outcomes  need 
to  be  rooted  in  reliable  data  in  order  to  make  political  decisions 
understandable, assessable and sustainable. 

Because  of  this  demand  for  information  and  transparency  of 
evidence,  policy  proposals,  legislative  acts  and  implementation 
arrangements  are  evaluated  in  the  preparatory  and  scrutiny  phases 
of  policy-making  against  the  backdrop  of  the  factual  evidence  and 
statistical  data  that  added  to  their  development.  Such  evidence-
based (or -informed) monitoring is recognised as a complex steering 
mode in itself that results from changing governance patterns due to 
supranationalisation, globalisation and the opening-up of the political 
process to wider groups of actors. 

BRIEFPOLICY  
To the same extent to which the demand for independent 
sources  of  evidence  and  expertise  in  policy-making 
have  rapidly  grown  over  recent  years,  the  landscape 
of  information  sources  and  the  modes  of  injecting 
evidence  into  policy-making  have  also  grown  in  a  way 
that  is  an  easily  confusing  for  non-data  scientists.  As  a 
result,  evidence-based  policy-making  (EBPM)  reflects 
a  re-structuring  of  interactions  between  political  actors 
of different institutional origins and at different political 
levels. It represents an influential policy-making pattern 
at the intersection of the politics and policy dimensions 
of multilevel political systems. 

To contribute to a better understanding of different modes 
of  and  instruments  for  evidence-based  policy-making, 
GlobalStat  organised  an  Executive  Training  Seminar 
(ETS)  on  ‘Evidence-based  Policy-Making:  From  Data  to 
Decision-making’  together  with  the  Global  Governance 
Programme  (GGP)  of  the  Robert  Schuman  Centre  and 
the EUI’s School of Transnational Governance (STG). The 
seminar  examined  recent  developments  in  EBPM,  data 
science  and  policy  evaluation,  including  various  tools 
for impact assessment and foresight, the policy-oriented 
use  of  large  data  resources  and  data  visualisation,  and 
related  them  to  transparency  and  legitimacy  in  EBPM. 
The purpose of the ETS was to support the development 
of  innovative  modes  of  providing  evidence  to  policy-
makers, including a critical assessment of the limitations 
of  empirical  and  data-based  evidence  in  defining  new 
policies. Through presentations, case studies, and ‘hands 
on’  work,  the  seminar  offered  31  participants  –  public 
officials  and  academics  –  from  23  different  states  an 
advanced understanding of the main issues and trends in 
contemporary EBPM.

Ingo  Linsenmann  (Executive  Coordinator,  Robert 
Schuman  Centre  for  Advanced  Studies)  and  Fabrizio 
Tassinari (Executive Coordinator, School of Transnational 
Governance)  welcomed  the  ETS  as  the  first  training 
session  on  EBPM  held  by  GlobalStat  together  with  the 
GGP  and  the  STG.  As  a  project  reaching  beyond  the 
traditional boundaries of the university community and 
beyond Europe, GlobalStat started its training activities 
to interlink the worlds of policy-makers and researchers 
and  to  offer  learning  opportunities  across  silos.  With 
this  initiative,  the  ETS  not  only  represented  the  core 
aims and values of the RSC GGP but it also linked to the 
STG’s key objective of studying methods of transnational 
governance  beyond  the  state  involving  different  actor 

groups, such as policy-makers, the business community 
and  the  non-governmental  world.  To  support  this 
objective will also be one of the main aims of the new STG 
InnoHub on public policy innovation and outcomes that 
GlobalStat  director  Gaby  Umbach  is  currently  setting 
up  at  the  STG.  In  her  introduction  to  the  current  ETS, 
Gaby  Umbach  underlined  its  overall  aim  of  supporting 
the  creation  of  a  worldwide  knowledge  and  practice 
community on EBPM. This objective is rooted in a strong 
demand from practitioners and academics to learn more 
about  the  details  of  and  conditions  for  EBPM.  As  the 
first training session of its kind, the ETS adopted a broad 
perspective  to  inform  on  different  elements  of  EBPM, 
such  as  knowledge  generation,  information  and  data 
selection,  transparency,  accountability  and  ownership, 
and  its  impact  on  both  bureaucratic  and  democratic 
processes.  The  ETS  therefore  examined  EBPM  through 
five  different  lenses:  (1)  a  conceptual  lens:  What  does 
it mean?; (2) a procedural lens: How does it work?; (3) 
a  systemic  lens:  Who  does  it  affect?;  (4)  a  content  lens: 
What does it include?; and (5) a didactic lens: What does 
it require? Further deep dives into individual aspects of 
EBPM will follow in a specialised ETS series on EBPM 
which is to be developed by GlobalStat.

Evidence-informed Policy-Making: 
Challenges for Policy-Makers and 
Scientists
The ETS was introduced with a keynote speech on the main 
challenges  deriving  from  EBPM  by  David  Mair  (Head 
of  the  ‘Knowledge  for  Geographic  Coordination’  unit, 
Directorate H ‘Knowledge Management,’ Joint Research 
Centre,  European  Commission)  providing  insight  into 
the way the increasing demand for the use of evidence has 
changed the parameters of contemporary policy-making. 
With  increasing  policy  complexity,  policy-shapers  and 
-makers  face  multiple  and  interconnected  challenges 
that  are  neither  simple  nor  straightforward.  The 
influence of new modes of governance, especially in their 
participatory forms, add to this complexity by increasing 
the  group  of  relevant  actors  in  the  political  process. 
This  increase  in  actors  and  complexity  quite  naturally 
influences the quantity and quality of information,  and 
the  evidence  policy-makers  need  to  process.  Alongside 
this  increased  influx  of  evidence,  emotions  and  values 
also  become  ever  more  visible  variables  in  the  political 
increasingly 
process.  Consequently,  policy-making 

2 ■  Robert Schuman Centre | July 2018

acknowledges their undeniable role in the development 
of  public  policy.  Emotions  and  values  (consciously  or 
not) influence political choices and, particularly through 
social media, polarise and politicise the political debate 
through emotional interpretations of evidence. Emotions 
also affect information-processing strategies to cope with 
the  perceived  superabundance  of  information  and  to 
reduce  complexity,  sometimes  resulting  in  ‘evasive’  or 
‘de-construction’ approaches, such as active information 
avoidance and denial of factual evidence.

As public policy depends on various systemic and non-
systemic variables, a contextualisation and embedding of 
policies and politics is essential for EBPM. As no natural 
law exits on how policies can best embrace evidence and 
knowledge, EBPM seems to be one of the most suitable 
ways  of  combining  science  and  politics  for  political 
reasoning.  At  the  same  time,  EBPM  must  acknowledge 
that it is not merely facts that inform decision-making. 
Emotions  and  beliefs  are  also  essential  influencers  of 
political  behaviour  and  preference-building.  With  the 
over-supply of information, these additional influencers 
have  become  powerful  evidence  contesters  in  politics. 
For  policies  to  be  resilient  it  is,  however,  of  particular 
importance  to  strengthen  the  policy  process  in  such  a 
way as to balance alternative sources of information with 
reliable  evidence.  Knowledge  communities  of  scientists 
and policy-makers are therefore useful fora in which to 
identify relevant knowledge, to pool expertise and to get 
different stakeholders involved in knowledge creation to 
improve policy-making.  

The  related  community-building  exercise  needs  to 
link  different  knowledge  communities  to  broaden  the 
information-base  of  policy-making.  Consequently,  in 
terms of academic disciplines, it cannot only be political 
science  that  influences  the  respective  research  agenda. 
To generate a paramount understanding of the interplay 
among pathos, logos and ethos in modern policy-making, 
disciplines  like  psychology,  neurology,  anthropology, 
sociology,  linguistics,  history  and  philosophy  need  to 
be  involved  too.  Informed  story-telling  and  targeted 
debunking  of  ‘alternative  facts’  might  be  one  option  to 
advance  in  developing  focussed  approaches  to  creating 
consistent  and  comprehensive 
framing  of  policy 
issues  to  design  evidence-based  policy  solutions  that 
link  to  people’s  visions,  perceptions  and  geographical 
provenance.  For  the  future  of  EBPM,  this  also  means 
‘bringing ethics back in’ and using active-listening ability 

to  respond  to  the  factual-emotional  basis  of  politics  in 
a more holistic manner that at the same time embraces 
‘knowing,’ ‘doing’ and ‘being.’ 

The ‘Evidence Turn’ in Policy-Making 
Paul  Cairney  (Professor  of  Politics  and  Public  Policy, 
Department of History and Politics, University of Stirling) 
reflected on the ‘governance’ consequences of EBPM and 
particularly on political steering and knowledge sharing 
for policy innovation. Moreover, he discussed the value-
laden process of identifying good evidence and reasons 
for evidence not having enough power to inform policy-
making. 

Offering  explanative  insights  into  EBPM,  policy  theory 
provides a wealth of knowledge about the role of evidence 
in  policy-making  systems.  It  supports  understanding 
of  the 
interplay  among  psychology  and  complex 
policy-making  environments  in  situations  of  ‘bounded 
rationality’:  policy-makers  combine 
rational  and 
irrational  shortcuts  to  information-gathering  to  make 
‘good enough’ decisions quickly. First, to develop rational 
shortcuts  and  minimise  cognitive  load,  they  reduce 
uncertainty by using syntheses of the evidence available 
to set goals and identify the best sources of information. 
Second, through irrational shortcuts, they use gut-level, 
habitual, emotional or belief-driven short cuts to reduce 
ambiguity and apply story-telling and problem-framing 
in specific ways. However, the quality of story-telling and 
evidence in politics not only depends on their factual and 
empirical roots in peer or systematic reviews. It also relies 
heavily on their social legitimacy. Evidence in politics is 
not  just  the  result  of  a  translation  of  knowledge  from 
experts to politicians; it is the result of public deliberation 
on the evidence presented involving citizens and the wider 
public  to  generate  a  broad  legitimacy  of  the  decisions 
taken. Information avoidance and the above-mentioned 
‘evasive’  approaches  also  need  to  be  factored  in  just  as 
‘minimalist’ approaches to gathering thin evidence need 
to be. Additionally, and as David Mair also underlined, 
emotions play a strong role in informing and influencing 
political decisions. Emotional choices are not inherently 
wrong or negative. They play a central role in decision-
making  and  in  changing  peoples’  judgements,  which 
themselves  fundamentally  involve  emotions.  Contrary 
to many types of factual evidence, they are developed in 
certain environments and are therefore to be regarded as 

3 ■ Evidence-Based Policy-Making: From Data To Decision-Making. Executive training seminar

culturally and socially constructed concepts rather than 
evidence. 

Individual policy-makers cannot control complex policy-
making  environments.  Contemporary  policy-making 
arenas include different and diverse actor groups at many 
levels of government and in different modes of governance 
that interact with and in various institutions and networks 
(each with their own informal and formal rules), respond 
to  socio-economic  conditions  and  events,  and  learn  to 
engage with prevalent ideas or beliefs about the nature of 
policy problems. In the absence of a unique entry point 
into the policy cycle, EBPM departs from the traditional 
idea of a linear and staged political process that consists 
of an established sequence of phases. Understanding the 
institutions – that is, the rules and processes – of policy-
making and building trust, knowing the actors and ideas 
involved,  and  embracing  changing  conditions,  crises 
or  events  to  create  opportunities  are  therefore  essential 
aspects  of  successful  EBPM.  The  absence  of  a  uniform 
access  point  to  the  policy  cycle  under  conditions  of 
changing  contexts  requires  political  actors  to  develop 
long-term  strategies,  form  alliances,  learn  the  rules 
and  build  trust.  Diving  deeply  into  story-telling  being 
one  of  the  techniques  policy-makers  and  practitioners 
can  pragmatically  and  effectively  use  to  respond  to  the 
requirements of EBPM, the ETS participants engaged in 
story-telling about their professions, narrating their own 
expertise in speed presentations. Story-telling and active 
listening were the key aims of the exercise.

Legitimacy and Accountability in 
Evidence-Based Policy-Making

Speaking about legitimacy in EBPM and its accountability, 
Tracey Brown (Director, Sense about Science) elaborated 
on  the  public  interest  in  good  policy-making,  the 
transparency  of  evidence  and  the  overall  relevance  of 
publishing the evidence that informs policies. Focusing 
on  testable  questions  and  on  the  optimal  moment  for 
injecting evidence into policy-making are key elements 
to  foster  understanding  of  the  motivations  for  policy-
making and consent or dissent to them.

As  Sense  about  Science’s  ‘Transparency  of  Evidence’ 
report and its transparency of evidence framework and 
scoreboards  establish,  publishing  the  evidence  behind 
policies is an essential condition for democratic policy-
making.  Co-created  by  think  tanks  and  the  British 

government, the framework can serve as an example of 
the  scrutiny  processes  regarding  transparent  decision-
making  under  the  conditions  of  EBPM.  It  serves  as  a 
monitoring  and  assessment  tool  for  transparency  and 
accountability in government decision-making processes. 
The related annual UK scoring exercise, inaugurated in 
2015,  regularly  points  to  the  practice  of  transparency 
of  and  access  to  evidence  used  for  policy  development. 
The ultimate aim of such monitoring exercises is to help 
citizens  fully  understand  the  basis  and  depth  of  public 
policies and to make evidence behind policies available 
in the critical moments in which citizens need it. In this 
perspective, EBPM is not merely perceived as an abstract 
government  technique  or  tool;  it  offers  the  means  and 
a moment for the development of joint understandings 
in ‘evidence communities’ to make public policies more 
resilient. 

As information on policy preparation processes is often 
not public, such an ex-post evaluation sheds light on the 
transparency  of  choices  during  this  particular  phase  of 
the political process and on the evidence selected therein 
to  inform  policies.  The  design  of  this  transparency  of 
evidence  scrutiny  process  enables  citizens  to  take  part 
in  a  central  evaluation  exercise  rendering  government 
work  more  accountable  to  the  public.  Civil  evidence 
literacy is increasing, while the invisibility of institutional 
knowledge, i.e. evidence, is decreasing. By verifying the 
‘accountability  chain’  of  policy  development,  citizens 
can assess how easily they can identify the evidence that 
informed  government  policies.  What  the  evidence  says 
about  the  topic  in  question  and  whether  the  evidence 
represents  an  individual  assessment  or  a  collectively 
agreed  one  are  central  questions  in  this  evaluation 
process.  As  a  result,  government  departments  receive 
scores  according  to  the  level  of  transparency  of  their 
information on the evidence that informed their policies. 
A  common  feature  across  the  different  departments 
of  the  British  government  in  2016  was  the  existence 
of  evidence  that  informed  policy  development  but  a 
lack  of  communication  of  it  to  the  public.  To  liberate 
the  assessment  process  from  the  dangers  of  ideological 
debates,  the  assessment  does  not,  however,  deal  with 
whether or not this evidence can be deemed valuable or 
reliable. 

To get a better idea of this flagship initiative to monitor 
EBPM,  the  ETS  participants  analysed  a  directive 
launched by the UK Department of Transport applying 

4 ■  Robert Schuman Centre | July 2018

the ‘Transparency of Evidence’ framework and using the 
‘Transparency  Score  Table’  to  detect  the  evidence  used 
and made accessible to the public.

Creating and Using Meaningful Indicators 
of Evidence-based Policy-Making 
Disaggregated  data  –  that  is,  indicators  used  as  proxies 
for  different  aspects  of  life  and  human  interactions 
–  are  among  the  central  knowledge  units  in  EBPM. 
Consequently,  data  visualisation  is  a  central  tool  to 
communicate  these  knowledge  units  in  a  way  that 
increases  the  transparency  and  comprehension  of 
evidence used. As such, both data and data visualisation 
are  key  elements  of  EBPM. 
  Reflecting  on  these 
aspects,  Matthias  Rumpf  (Organisation  for  Economic 
Co-operation and Development) and Christian Dietrich 
(European Union Institute for Security Studies) focussed 
on  the  ways  data  and  evidence  are  developed  and 
communicated to policy-makers and decision-takers. 

Statistics  are  a  constantly  growing  field  of  research  and 
practice  in  which  data  generation  and  experimental 
data add much to the measurement and understanding 
of  reality.  However,  data  do  not  only  measure  reality. 
They  also  define  the  subjects  of  measurement  through 
the provision of thematic frames and data narratives for 
the development of statistics. The ‘post-growth’ and the 
‘human well-being’ debates are the most recent examples 
of this normative power of statistics. Following this logic, 
many areas can be identified in which new or additional 
statistical  data  and  indicators  offer  further  context  and 
deeper insight into problems and challenges for policy-
making.  A  good  example  of  such  data  is  the  OECD’s 
Better Life initiative, which was used as a reference point 
for  the  creation  of  innovative  new  indicators  to  grasp 
developments in the area of human well-being. 

Adding  to  the  strong  position  of  data  in  EBPM,  data 
visualisation  is  one  of  the  key  tools  to  make  data 
relevant and insert easily accessible ‘knowledge bites’ of 
evidence into the public debate. They help grasp complex 
concepts  and  new  approaches  more  easily  and  quickly 
than  a  written  text  could  ever  do.  As  interactive  and 
dynamic  visualisations,  they  also  facilitate  step-by-step 
deep  learning  of  complicated  and  interlinked  pieces  of 
evidence. 

Different forms of data management and data visualisation 
strongly  support  data-driven  story-telling.  A  thorough 
knowledge of data sources and the identification of data 
gaps are additionally important in creating and selecting 
meaningful  and  relevant  data  for  EBPM.  Moreover, 
for  a  comparative  perspective  to  inform  EBPM,  the 
contextualisation  of  data  and  complementary  data  are 
essentially  relevant  in  order  not  to  get  caught  in  the 
‘pears-and-apples’  trap,  e.g.  factoring  in  social  security 
services  provided  by  the  state  and  not  just  referring  to 
tax levels when analysing the welfare state base and the 
performance  of  a  country.  In  the  same  vein,  subjective 
and  objective  data  and  international  comparisons  need 
to  be  taken  into  account  to  analyse  all  the  facets  of  a 
potential political issue, such as crime victims vs. fear of 
crime.

To  create  data  narratives  with  target  groups  in  mind, 
data interpretation capacities are essential. Story-telling 
is therefore an essential skill and a certain level of data 
literacy is a precondition for the use of data as evidence 
in  EBPM.  Moreover,  imagination  and  creativity  help 
transmit key messages from data in intuitive ways though 
colours and graphic elements. Participants were able to 
themselves actively experiment with data narratives and 
data-driven  story-telling  during  a  ‘hands  on’  session  in 
which they also developed their own data visualisations.

Impact Assessment and Strategic 
Foresight
Evidence-based policy-making extends to ex-ante policy 
development  phases  and  ex-post  scrutiny  exercises. 
Impact  assessments  (IAs)  and  strategic  foresight  play 
a  particular  role  here.  Erik  Akse  (Impact  Assessment 
Institute)  reflected  on  these  forms  of  policy  evaluation, 
on  prospective  policy  planning  and  on  their  impact  on 
policy-makers  and  public  officials.  The  use  of  evidence 
to determine policy responses, the structure and content 
of  policy  preparation  processes,  and  the  definition  of 
budgetary  requirements  connected  to  policies  were 
central elements discussed. 

Taking  the  European  Union  (EU)  as  a  reference  point 
for  a  highly  developed  policy  preparation  and  impact 
assessment system driven by the obligation to show the 
added  value  of  EU  interventions,  procedural-cultural 
change has been witnessed since 2002, leading to new ways 
of collaborating and coordinating policy-making across 

5 ■ Evidence-Based Policy-Making: From Data To Decision-Making. Executive training seminar

political  levels  and  actor  groups.  As  a  result,  decision-
preparation and -making arenas reflect the requirements 
of consultative exchange on evidence more than they did 
before.  IAs  accompany  the  policy  process  in  two  ways: 
ex-ante IAs have become an obligatory tool in EU policy 
planning, gathering the best possible evidence to evaluate 
the potential impact of a policy in the planning stage; and 
ex-post IAs focus on evaluating the impact of policies in 
place. To determine policy responses and ensure uniform 
preparation, both instruments require intensive analysis 
of the evidence available concerning problem definitions, 
a comparison of policy options and objectives, the setting 
of  targets,  identification  of  actor  groups  affected  and 
mutual  learning,  possible  and  actual  societal  impacts, 
and policy monitoring and evaluation. The evaluation of 
applied knowledge systems plays a particular role here in 
identifying potential biases in the underlying assumptions 
that inform IA. Consequently, IAs include: (1) problem 
definition (‘assess what is going on and who is affected’); 
(2)  objectives  (‘define  the  point  on  the  horizon’);  (3) 
policy  options  (‘consider  possibilities  and  alternatives’); 
(4) analysis of impacts (‘ensure broad understanding of 
effects’);  (5)  comparison  of  options  (‘choose  the  most 
advantageous’); and (6) policy monitoring and evaluation 
(‘define 
indicators’).  Additionally, 
specific  programmes  for  reviewing  existing  legislation 
focus  on  administrative  burden  reduction,  increasing 
the  efficiency  of  legislation,  recasting,  consolidating, 
reviewing requirements, and applying the ‘evaluate first 
principle.’  Consultations  form  an  important  part  of 
interactions during all the stages of an IA. They involve 
stakeholders  of  all  kinds  (those  directly  affected;  those 
implementing  decisions;  those  interested)  in  targeted 
consultations  and  open  online  public  consultations. 
Such  consultation  processes  are  particularly  important 
as they offer new insights and information, communicate 
and  make  the  work  performed  visible,  increase  the 
transparency of governance structures, result in feedback 
on  ideas,  and  identify  potential  bottlenecks,  concerns 
and other implementation challenges.

success 

future 

The ETS participants deepened their practical experience 
with IA in an exercise in which they informed the Council 
of  General  Secretaries  of  a  country  on  the  implications 
of  introducing  a  programme  for  administrative  burden 
reduction. Their report, it was assumed, would form the 
basis for a Government decision to determine a reduction 

6 ■  Robert Schuman Centre | July 2018

target  and  the  timeframe  within  which  it  should  be 
implemented. 

Capacity-building at the Science-Policy 
Interface 

Considering  the  requirements  resulting  from  EBPM, 
capacity-building  to  improve  the  identification  of  good 
evidence  becomes  a  central  concern  of  policy-makers 
and civil society. Jonathan Breckon (Director of Alliance 
for  Useful  Evidence)  analysed  the  essential  elements  of 
this capacity-building for EBPM and strategic planning, 
focussing on silo linkages between politics and expertise, 
demand  stimulus  for  the  use  of  research  evidence  in 
politics  in  times  of  false  information  and  fake  news, 
and  the  core  qualifications  required  to  use  evidence  to 
prepare, make and assess public policies.

Good  evidence  should  influence  politics  and  inform 
policies. It is required to generate options or make a case, 
to commission services and products, to develop funding 
bids, to de-commission and stop political action, to align 
services  with  ‘customer  needs,’  to  develop  a  workforce, 
and to create effective campaigns and communications. 
To effectively develop and propose policies, an analysis of 
patterns, particularities and positions of the  knowledge 
systems  involved  is  indispensable  to  navigate  through 
different  forms  of  evidence  (expert  evidence;  opinion-
based  evidence;  ideological  evidence;  media  evidence; 
internet evidence; lay evidence; street evidence; cabbies’ 
evidence;  research  evidence).  Evidence  also  serves  to 
balance various forms of bias in decision-making, such 
as optimism bias, confirmation bias, hindsight bias, loss 
aversion, framing effects and meta-cognitive bias.

transparency, 

appropriateness, 

Following  a  definition  by  the  British  Department  of 
Foreign  and  International  Development  (DFID),  good 
evidence is recognised by its high quality in conceptual 
framing, 
cultural 
sensitivity,  validity,  reliability  and  cogency.  The  central 
standards of evidence of impact as developed by Nesta, 
a  UK  charity  and  global  innovation  foundation,  are 
responding to the demands of change theory, measuring 
data  collection  quality,  demonstrating  causalities, 
synthesising  evidence  and  systematically  reviewing: 
“(1)  You  can  describe  what  you  do  and  why  it  matters 
logically,  coherently  and  convincingly;  (2)  You  capture 
data that shows positive change, but you cannot confirm 
you  caused  this;  (3)  You  can  demonstrate  causality 

using a control or comparison group; (4) You have one 
+  independent  replication  evaluations  that  confirm 
these  conclusions;  (5)  You  have  manuals,  systems  and 
procedures to ensure consistent replication.”   

During  the  concluding  training  session  of  the  ETS,  the 
participants  prepared  for  a  face-to-face  meeting  with  a 
government minister of education who is very interested 
in  talking  about  potentially  funding  physical  activity 
to  improve  educational  attainment.  To  prepare  for  the 
meeting, the participants needed to review the evidence 
in this area in groups using so-called ‘Evidence Tasting 
forms.’  Each  group  gave  a  very  short  two-minute  oral 
report back to the entire group on what they would say to 
their stakeholder. The key objectives of the exercise were 
to assess the quality of different information sources, to 
find counterfactual evidence, and to develop abilities to 
present evidence to stakeholders.

Executive Training on Evidence-based 
Policy-making – Why bother?
Evidence-based  policy-making 
is  a  complex  and 
multi-dimensional  feature  of  contemporary  politics. 
Insight  into  political  systems,  governance  techniques, 
democratic participation, knowledge management, data 
mining, statistical literacy and negotiation techniques are 
essential abilities policy-makers and stakeholders need to 
acquire and perfect in order to perform well in modern 
policy-making.  While  it  is  difficult  to  develop  these 
abilities ‘on the job,’ moments of reflection and zooming 
out from daily practice help sharpen views and improve 
the  skills  required  to  understand  the  interconnected 
logics  of  EBPM.  The  first  EBPM  Executive  Training 
Seminar  conceived  by  GlobalStat  offered  a  broad 
perspective on the field and provided a starting point for 
deep dive sessions that will support capacity-building on 
the various sub-aspects of EBPM.

7 ■ Evidence-Based Policy-Making: From Data To Decision-Making. Executive training seminar

8 ■  RSCAS | Policy Brief | Issue 2018/15 | July 2018

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced StudiesThe Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS), created in 1992 and directed by Professor Brigid Laffan, aims to develop inter-disciplinary and comparative research on the major issues facing the process of European integration, Euro-pean societies and Europe’s place in 21st century global politics. The Centre is home to a large post-doctoral programme and hosts major research programmes, projects and data sets, in addition to a range of working groups and ad hoc initiatives. The research agenda is organised around a set of core themes and is continuously evolving, reflecting the changing agenda of European integration, the expanding membership of the European Union, developments in Europe’s neighbourhood and the wider world.The Global Governance Programme The Global Governance Programme (GGP) is research turned into action. It provides a European setting to conduct research at the highest level and promote synergies between the worlds of research and policy-making, to generate ideas and identify creative an innovative solutions to global challenges. The Programme is part of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies of the European University Institute, a world-reknowned academic institution.  It receives financial support from the European Commission through the European Union budget. Complete information on our activities can be found online at:  globalgovernanceprogramme.eui.euContent © Gaby Umbach, Caterina Francesca Guidi and Marta Russo.Views expressed in this publication reflect the opinion of individual authors and  not those of the European University Institute or the European Commission. © European University Institute, 2018QM-AX-18-015-EN-Ndoi:10.2870/869841ISBN:978-92-9084-615-4ISSN:2467-4540Global Governance Programme Robert Schuman Centre  for Advanced StudiesEuropean University InstituteVia Boccaccio, 12150133 FlorenceItaly Contact GGP:GlobalGovernance.Programme@EUI.eu