From Research To Policy: Evidence Use In Shaping Public Policy Decisions In Nigeria’s Federal Government

This three-paper dissertation examines the production and use of evidence in Nigeria to understand the degree to which rigorous evidence is produced and disseminated in ways that reach policymakers and inform policy decisions. The use of science in decision making has been the subject of much research concentrated particularly in high-income countries. This leaves much to be known about the production and use of science in low- and middle-income countries. This knowledge is relevant because policy systems differ widely across countries and regions, and lessons from one context are not readily transferable to another. Better understanding the production and use of different types of evidence from a middle-income country in Sub Saharan Africa can inform production of more policy-relevant research as well as policies and programs to improve the uptake of evidence by policymakers. The papers in this dissertation can also inform discussions about the role of science in policymaking, a debate which is currently dominated by studies in high income countries.The first paper uses a systematic literature review to consider the question of evidence supply in Nigeria. Research evidence syntheses (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) are understood to be important, objective, and rigorous assessments of evidence, although there is a gap in knowledge on whether such syntheses are produced in ways that make them easily usable by decision makers. To bridge this knowledge gap, this study develops an analytical framework from the literature on facilitators and barriers of scientific evidence use to analyze agriculture-based evidence syntheses in Nigeria. Based on pre-defined search criteria, I find 19 relevant syntheses which relate to policy-relevant problems; but mostly do not provide statistics, solutions to address identified problems, or implementation strategies. I provide recommendations for researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to enhance the production of more policy-relevant evidence syntheses in Nigeria. The second paper uses original survey data to better understand the characteristics of evidence users in Nigeria. Based on a survey of 196 policy experts and legislative assistants at the federal level, I highlight the awareness, use, and attributed importance of evidence in the policy process. When asked if they use science to influence policymaking, experts in ministries and advisors in the legislature in Nigeria widely assert that they rely on scientific information. However, analysis of 11 different types of evidence points to very low use of synthesized, systematic, and rigorous evidence in both branches of government, as indicated by respondents’ low awareness, use, and ranking of these evidence types. Instead, respondents report using non-systematic evidence types such as needs assessments, statistical facts, and internal policy documents. Given the practical and theoretical implications of these findings, I offer recommendations for researchers and policymakers to strengthen measurement of evidence use and the role of systematic, scientific evidence in the policy process. The third paper asks: is there a pattern to the use of different types of evidence among federal policymakers? Using latent class analysis, I identify three classes of decision makers based on their awareness and use of 11 different types of evidence: Class 1 (non-users, 26%) characterized by minimal familiarity or use across scientific/non-scientific evidence types, Class 2 (non-systematic users, 54%) dominated by those with some familiarity but limited active use of non-scientific evidence types, and Class 3 users (eclectic users, 20%) defined by familiarity and use of both scientific and non-scientific evidence types. Multinomial logistic regression shows that holding a doctoral degree substantially increases the odds of belonging to Class 2 (OR = 9.4, p < .1) and Class 3 (OR = 20.7, p < .05), while each additional year of experience increases the likelihood of being in Class 2 (OR = 1.07, p < .1). This underscores the role of advanced training and experience in shaping policy analytic capacity. Overall, the studies highlight the need for more policy-relevant research with useful information to understand and solve policy problems; production and supply of more synthesized, systematic, and rigorous evidence to policymakers; and an experienced and educated workforce with the right analytical capacity to use diverse evidence types to answer policy questions.