Dr Liz Such, Senior Fellow in Knowledge Mobilisation, The Policy Institute, King’s College London.
Dr Owain Johnstone, Partnerships Manager, Modern Slavery PEC
Dr Rowshan Hannan, Policy Impact Lead, Modern Slavery PEC
Impact is on everyone’s lips. Policymakers want their decisions to positively affect people’s outcomes and researchers want their work to make a difference in the ‘real world’. Doing it is often harder than we think. Policy agendas change, research takes too long, politics gets in the way; there are many reasons.
Mobilising evidence in decision-making environments is both a science and an art, particularly in a policy area such as human trafficking and modern slavery which is socially complex, politically challenging and draws together the portfolios of governments (including devolved governments), their departments and agencies. Given this context, there is no single playbook for getting evidence closer to decision-making.
This recent initiative, funded by the Modern Slavery PEC, came from a desire to try out different models of operationalising its funded research on prevention. Identified in its Statement of Research and Policy Priorities 2025-2027, the Centre committed to further developing its relationship with the Scottish Government which was in the process of finalising its Trafficking and Exploitation Strategy 2025 and beginning to develop a Delivery Plan to implement it. The Strategy is centred on a public health approach and a focus on prevention across what has become known at the BETR prevention continuum – prevention Before harm occurs, Early intervention, Treating harms and preventing Retrafficking (Such et al. 2022, 2024, 2025). At the Scottish Government’s request, the PEC brought Dr Liz Such, as one of the prevention studies’ authors, into the process to help embed an evidence-led prevention approach into the Delivery Plan.
After eight months and three workshops with policymakers, practitioners and people with lived experience in Scotland, we reflect on this process from the position of both the commissioner (Owain Johnstone and Rowshan Hannan at the Modern Slavery PEC) and the commissioned (Liz Such at King’s College London). We draw out 10 lessons to take forward into future evidence-to-policy activity in this complex field, opening up new ideas on how we might get better at making a difference with evidence.
- Policy is messy and complex: work with, not against it
Policy is non-linear and not as certain as we might think. Accepting this and working with it is helped by acknowledging the uncertainties of research. Together we surfaced gaps in both the evidence and policy and tried to make sense of the problem in a spirit of collaboration. This was partly achieved through a focus on delivery or how Scottish Government could turn strategic goals into action. Having this practical focus helped ground the discussion in what could reasonably be done with the input of those with lived and learned experience in the sector.
- Know the policy parameters
At least have a feel for them. This is particularly critical when working at devolved or local levels. Not all relevant policy levers were within the gift of Scottish Government (e.g. immigration policy). Set parameters out at the start and work with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.
- Do the groundwork: mobilising evidence is about relationships
Scottish Government has strong existing relationships with the third sector, frontline practitioners (e.g. policing) and survivor experts. This was a great starting point for research specialists. Like so much in the human trafficking field, this established an important foundation of trust.
- Be alert! Power plays out
Scottish Government had deep knowledge of their stakeholders. Putting organisation in their hands, especially configuring groupwork, ensured all voices were heard. But attending to power in conversations requires constant monitoring. This can be challenging as ‘outsiders’ who know little of the relationships and power dynamics. It is good to ask in advance.
- Policy impact is a process of ‘knowledge diplomacy’
Policy work of this nature is partly about facilitating a paradigm shift (towards upstream prevention and a public health model) and bringing coalitions of willing people together around it. Social impact models of knowledge mobilisation (Beckett et al. 2018) describe this approach; it is one of diplomacy and steady incremental gain.
- Research evidence is only one part of the policy process
Different types of knowledge inform the policy process, not solely research evidence. We worked with this, identifying what the formal evidence base could and couldn’t tell us. Practice knowledge and lived experience were essential in providing a fuller picture.
- Resource it
Engaging in deep exercises with policy is a time and resource investment on both sides. Scottish Government, partner organisations, the PEC and all workshop participants put much effort into the process. It needs to be properly resourced in a sustainable way. Buy-in from this range of partner organisations is also key for longer-term collaboration.
- Set the tone early on
We decided to use an ‘appreciative inquiry’ approach (Whitney and Trosten-Bloom, 2010). This allowed us to identify what was already in place, what was working well and how we could build from a position of strength. This helped set the tone, hopefully enhance motivation and a sense of constructive progress.
- Theory & concepts can help frame conversations
The BETR Prevention framework helped structure conversations and focussed minds on prevention, an aspect of human trafficking policy that can sometimes get left behind.
- Recognise and surface blind spots
We used a ‘parking lot’ to note down issues that we were getting stuck on or were struggling to grapple with. This helped avoid discussion rabbit holes. Recording them also means you can return to them later.
These ten observations are well represented in the knowledge mobilisation and implementation science literature. This is a vast field of inquiry from which the modern slavery and human trafficking field could draw more explicitly. To date, we have no bespoke library of knowledge about how we are doing in making the difference we seek. This is arguably despite signals that the research base is making an impact in policy and practice (e.g. in discussion in UK Parliamentary Committees). The increased routinisation of survivor involvement in research and decision-making is also an example of progressive action in the field.
A further learning point from our work is that mobilising evidence is a long-term process that necessarily shifts and changes over time. The winds of political change, churn in policy personnel and volatile contextual circumstances can present huge challenges to bringing evidence into the policy complex. There are also, however, huge potential opportunities. For example, improved alertness to issues that affect the policy environment and maintaining positive relationships with officials will help us to identify what are ‘windows of opportunity’ for informing policy, when these windows are open and when they are firmly closed (Kingdon, 1984). As a field we could be more intentional about operationalising such concepts to make best use of our research.
It is also worth reflecting on the art of mobilising evidence for policy and if and how we are creative enough in our thinking and practice. Creativity has emerged as a principle of several evidence-to-policy initiatives and can likely bring some benefits (e.g. UK government’s Policy Lab). Creative or artistic practice can engage audiences in ways that might otherwise be challenging. Creative outputs can help provide more easily understandable evidence. This approach is in its infancy in the human trafficking and exploitation field. There is an opportunity to explore this further.
In the final analysis, Scottish Government have received bespoke evidence support to develop their Delivery Plan in ways that are evidence-informed and value all forms of knowledge. The PEC has trialled a different way of bringing evidence directly into the policy process. We look forward to further win-wins as the process continues.
