EVIDENCE

Recommendation IV
Routine publication of research the government has
considered in policy formulation, with, if appropriate,
reasons for rejecting it
When publishing policy, government departments should provide a reference and relevant links
to research evidence that has been considered, and, if the policy conflicts with the evidence, a note
explaining why the evidence was rejected.
Where research is considered to be substandard, publication may be delayed for long enough to have
it independently assessed. If poor quality is confirmed, the default position should be publication
with a critique.
Where policy runs ahead of research, interim research findings should where practicable be published.
External research, when submitted, should be promptly made accessible online by the department
or agency commissioning it. This should be noted on any register. Future publication in, for example,
specialist journals should not be regarded as a substitute for prompt online access where a final report
has been made to the government.
Recommendation V
A clear statement of the current requirements for prompt
publication and adherence to them
Discrepancies between the understanding and practices of different departments, and within
departments, have recurred throughout the evidence heard and submitted to this inquiry. Ministers
should be asked to confirm that their departments understand and adhere to the current rules, outlined
in Section 2, regarding prompt publication of third party research. Ideally one set of rules and principles
should be applicable across all of government, but at the very least departments should be directed
to submit any additional guidelines they have produced to internal and external scrutiny and approval
to ensure adherence to these rules and principles.
Recommendation VI
Training in research for policy communicators
A programme of training and briefing should be established as part of the induction of ministers,
special advisers and communications officials to cover the rules regarding publication of commissioned
research and, in some cases, training in how to handle research communication confidently and openly
in a political context.
While there is considerable research experience in government, this is not necessarily deployed
in the communication of research, which is often undertaken by those with a more political role or who
are more concerned with communication and negative publicity. Furthermore, there seems to be little
sharing or appreciation across government of those cases where departments have handled research
publication well and engaged in a respectful and open discussion with the public, and how this has
been achieved.
Greater cross-departmental sharing of research communication experiences should be established.
This might be achieved through the existing departmental heads of analysis or another body.
SECTION 4: REMEDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
36