Policy brief: how to turn scientific research into public decision-making

Short document helps researchers translate evidence into recommendations for policymakers, legislators, and public authorities

Daniel Dieb

Four professionals in business attire gather around an office table. A man in a gray suit and black tie is standing, leaning over the table, holding a pen and speaking. A woman in a navy blue blazer and glasses watches him attentively. A woman with light hair, her back to the camera, and a man in a light blue blazer, complete the group. They are in a modern, bright office, with large windows in the background.

The findings of scientific research can reach decision-makers and influence the formulation of public policy. This, however, is a simplified description of a cycle that rarely proceeds without friction.

In the time between a study’s conception and its publication, the issue that motivated the research may have dropped off the agenda, the budget may have been redirected, or the relevant policymaker may have changed. Even if none of that happens and a paper does reach a decision-maker’s desk, it still has to compete for that person’s attention and make it through the political process of implementing evidence-based policies.

The timelines of science and politics may differ, but the aim of policy briefs is to find an intersection between the two. These short documents present clear recommendations about topics of public interest.

The target audience is not the scientific community, but decision-makers: public managers, legislators, regulators, and leaders of international organizations.

More than just informing, the goal is to persuade and guide action. While scientific articles are written to withstand peer review, policy briefs are designed to be read quickly and to influence a decision.

The most common mistake researchers make when attempting this transition is treating the format as a summary of the paper—condensing the study into a few pages using the same academic language, without adapting it for the intended audience.

Jakov Bojovic and Imogen Bayley, founders of the Centre for Policy Writing (CEPOW) in Madrid, Spain, identified three obstacles in the book Policy Communications: How to Write an Effective Policy Brief. The first is when decision-makers are overwhelmed with information; the second is when there is a conflict between research and public opinion, the economic climate, and the interests of certain groups; and finally, when there is a gap between producing rigorous science and knowing how to communicate it.

Based on this diagnosis, they and other experts, including guidance from the Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA) in Brazil and international literature on the subject, have offered a set of practical guidelines for those wishing to influence policy with evidence.

How to write an effective policy brief

1. Write to persuade, not to inform.: A policy brief is not a research summary—it is an argument with recommendations. Data support the story, but data are not the story.
2. Define the audience before writing anything.: The target reader profile determines the tone, language, and recommendations. A municipal manager has different demands from a federal official or an international agency.
3. Get involved in the political process early.: The challenge for researchers is to ensure their position is considered as early as possible in the policy-making process. Timing is just as important as content.
4. Use simple language and the active voice.: Short sentences, no jargon, no academic tone. Avoid technical terms and unnecessary foreign words.
5. The document should be readable over a coffee.: Research on the attention span of decision-makers indicates that just five to ten minutes is considered a successful engagement with a public policy document. Adapt the text to this timeframe.
6. Make specific and realistic recommendations.: The ideal is to propose one key recommendation. If there must be more than one, make three at most. Vague or politically infeasible proposals do not yield results.

The case of the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic offered an example of how the format can work in practice. The World Health Organization (WHO) published a series of policy briefs on mask use, viral transmission in enclosed spaces, and vaccination strategies. The documents, ranging from four to eight pages, were targeted at national governments and health authorities, with specific recommendations based on the evidence available at the time.

At a time of urgent decisions and fragmented information, the format showed its value: quick summaries, clear recommendations, and identifiable sources.

The WHO policy briefs served as key references for national governments making decisions on lockdowns, school reopenings, and hospital protocols—a rare example of science influencing politics in real time.

* This article may be republished online under the CC-BY-NC-ND Creative Commons license.
The text must not be edited and the author(s) and source (Science Arena) must be credited.