Learning through comparison when studying evidence and policy

The aim of this special themed section is to demonstrate the conceptual and empirical contribution that comparative perspectives offer in advancing scholarship on the evidence-policy interplay. It is motivated by our sense that a lack of comparative analysis within this area of research risks conceptual confusion and contributes to limited engagement with the more political dimensions of evidence use. It brings together four papers which, between them: examine evidence use across different government ministries within the same country; provide a cross-national comparison of parliamentary institutions to support evidence use; explore variations in evaluation approaches within different national settings; and reflect on how perspectives on evidence shift when researchers become politicians, trying to navigate complex policy environments. We use this editorial to reflect on three cross-cutting themes that emerge from these four contributions. First, a tendency for dominant disciplines to shape evidence cultures in policy settings. Second, the complexity of policy making, which, in democracies, necessarily includes political dimensions. These two themes inform a third, the need for realism when working to support the use of evidence in policy. We conclude by arguing that this themed section highlights the contextual, divergent and contingent nature of evidence use in policy. By showcasing four contrasting approaches to comparative analysis of evidence use, we hope to encourage a desire to learn from, and reflect on, the insights provided by less familiar contexts and disciplines, while also underlining the necessity of considering the political and democratic dimensions of evidence use in policy.