What barriers hinder the use of existing RIE evidence?

Creating awareness for RIE, SRs and EGMs is central to increasing take-up of rigorous evidence. When creating awareness for the take-up of global evidence, it is particularly important to address the widespread belief that the global RIE evidence base does not lend itself to the GDC portfolio. Our analysis of 3ie’s DEP found that it contains a large number of studies that are indeed potentially relevant to the GDC portfolio.

Creating opportunities for RIE exchange can be a potential measure to increase evidence take-up, as direct, personal interaction is often more effective in fostering evidence take-up than disseminating written documents. Exchange can happen as peer-exchange, research-practice-exchange or policy-practice-exchange. The yearly BMZ-funded conference of the “Poverty reduction, equity and growth network (PEGNet)” is an example of such an event where research and practice meet to present and discuss new RIEs.

Leadership commitment and giving priority to evidence-informed decision making is an important measure to foster evidence take-up. Leadership commitment can be expressed by giving priority to evidence generation and take-up, by functioning as role models and explicitly using RIE findings for decision making or by rewarding evidence generation and take-up.

Organisations should commit to evidence-informed decision-making in their lead strategy to facilitate the take-up of self-generated and global RIE evidence. Such strategies provide orientation and help anchor RIEs during changes in leadership. BMZ’s recent strategy document for evaluation in GDC is a good example of such an effort in that it explicitly encourages impact orientation and the role of accompanying research such as RIEs within GDC (BMZ, 2021).

Formal legislation or requirements at the national level can be potential measures to increase RIE initiation. In concrete terms, this could be done by explicitly including the obligation to draw on rigorous evidence in existing process flows and respective guidance documents. Referring to scientific studies in the formal reporting documents would allow stakeholders, including BMZ employees, to verify the lines of reasoning. Formal requirements could also regulate the dissemination of results. Formal legislation and requirements for evidence take-up are judged heterogeneously. Although an explicit requirement can potentially be highly effective, there is also a chance that a requirement would not be practically feasible or not taken seriously. Further, formal requirements need to be combined with other measures such as resources and capacity development to be effective.

Next to formal regulations, setting incentives can enhance evidence take-up, for example by including evidence take-up in annual staff targets, or giving visibility to “evidence champions” who push for evidence take-up. This could be done, for example, by granting evidence awards, such as the Africa Evidence Leadership Award (Africa Evidence Network, 2021). To incentivise researchers to conduct evidence syntheses, it would be beneficial to recognise SRs as an adequate contribution to a PhD thesis.

Formal legislation or requirements at the national level can be potential measures to increase RIE initiation. In concrete terms, this could be done by explicitly including the obligation to draw on rigorous evidence in existing process flows and respective guidance documents. Referring to scientific studies in the formal reporting documents would allow stakeholders, including BMZ employees, to verify the lines of reasoning. Formal requirements could also regulate the dissemination of results. Formal legislation and requirements for evidence take-up are judged heterogeneously. Although an explicit requirement can potentially be highly effective, there is also a chance that a requirement would not be practically feasible or not taken seriously. Further, formal requirements need to be combined with other measures such as resources and capacity development to be effective.

Next to formal regulations, setting incentives can enhance evidence take-up, for example by including evidence take-up in annual staff targets, or giving visibility to “evidence champions” who push for evidence take-up. This could be done, for example, by granting evidence awards, such as the Africa Evidence Leadership Award (Africa Evidence Network, 2021). To incentivise researchers to conduct evidence syntheses, it would be beneficial to recognise SRs as an adequate contribution to a PhD thesis.

A systematic consultation of the global and self-generated RIE evidence base early on when designing projects can foster take-up of global RIE evidence. A systematic anchoring could happen by integrating reflection points in existing process flows and in guidelines about how to create module proposals or brief statements. Those reflection points can ensure that state-of-the-art RIE evidence supports the proposed project. AFD, IDB, Oxfam GB, WWN and J-PAL perform such reflective learning sessions. Similarly, USAID, Oxfam GB and FCDO reported having long-term formalised partnerships with universities and think tanks to provide inputs for project design using global evidence.

Close cooperation between researchers and other stakeholders is a central measure to enhance take-up of self-generated and global RIE.

Generating additional knowledge beyond the results from the RIE can be an effective measure to increase evidence take-up. This might be descriptive information, needs assessments, cost calculations and process evaluations. First, answering these additional questions has an added value in itself. Second, the additional knowledge can be useful when interpreting the results of an RIE. Additional knowledge was either generated by additional data (often qualitative data within a mixed-methods design) or by extensive analysis of baseline and follow-up.

Identify interventions and evaluation questions of operational, strategic or political relevance.

Capacity development is a frequently mentioned potential measure to increase the take-up of both self-generated and global RIE evidence. Capacity development for self-generated and global evidence should comprise:


Self-generated RIE evidence:


Trainings for interpreting the results of RIEs and their integration into project planning and policy advice can be particularly helpful to facilitate their actual take-up.


Global RIE evidence base:


Capacity development measures for increasing the take-up of global RIE evidence should focus on how to find, assess, interpret and integrate relevant RIEs and evidence synthesis products into project planning and policy making. For researchers and evaluators, the focus should be on the adequate communication of findings. For policy makers and programme implementers, capacity development measures should be very practical and tailored to needs and working realities (e.g. formats should be short).

Synthesising the global evidence base is the most relevant measure to increase take-up of global evidence. SRs, followed by EGMs, were mentioned as effective synthesis tools next to portals of the WWN, such as the teaching and learning toolkit from the Education Endowment Foundation.1 Unfortunately, such high-quality synthesis tools, including SRs and EGMs, are largely unknown in GDC and their production requires time. A synthesis strategy of several years that gives priority to a certain sector each would hence be helpful. Evidence syntheses could even be coordinated internationally in order to provide the entire development community with these products in a cost-effective manner.

Build a network of knowledge

Establish a comprehensive and active dissemination strategy

Present findings in an illustrative way

Build RIE take-up capacities

Define roles and responsibilities

Build a network of knowledge

Demonstrate leadership commitment to RIE

Present findings in an illustrative way

Provide evidence on a demand-driven basis

Synthesise and further condense the body of evidence

Building a network of knowledge brokers is by far the most relevant potential measure for increasing take-up of global evidence. Knowledge brokers can take on many of the measures that foster take-up of global evidence, including education and training, production or commissioning of evidence synthesis products or illustrative presentation of findings. There are already examples of existing structures of knowledge brokers at FCDO or NORAD (Evans et al., 2021). Knowledge brokers should keep a close relationship to the potential end-users, thereby gaining a good understanding for whom different pieces of evidence might be relevant and what the most pressing evidence questions are.

Creating awareness for RIE, SRs and EGMs is central to increasing take-up of rigorous evidence. When creating awareness for the take-up of global evidence, it is particularly important to address the widespread belief that the global RIE evidence base does not lend itself to the GDC portfolio. Our analysis of 3ie’s DEP found that it contains a large number of studies that are indeed potentially relevant to the GDC portfolio.

Demand-driven provision of evidence is a highly relevant potential measure to foster take-up of global RIE evidence. Such a demand-driven model is, for instance, implemented in Demark, Norway and Sweden. They have publicly funded units that actively and regularly engage with policy makers to discuss findings and identify evidence needs for policy making and programming (White, 2019). Other examples are the West Africa Capacity-building and Impact Evaluation (WACIE) Helpdesk and the countries of South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe, which also have rapid response services embedded within their governments. The timely provision of evidence is a precondition for the success of this measure, meaning that either rapid syntheses are required or that the demand is expressed early.

Improving knowledge management systems is a potential measure to improve take-up of self-generated RIE evidence at the organisational level. This can take the form of a platform or unit that collects and displays data, results and experiences from RIEs that have been generated in GDC in an easily accessible and user-friendly way. KfW Development Bank has recently launched an internal database for their general evaluations that gives quick access to KfW Development Bank’s evaluation reports. GIZ is considering developing a similar tool. BMZ has anchored the development of an RIE database in its BMZ 2030 reform processes, which can be found here.

Creating awareness for RIE, SRs and EGMs is central to increasing take-up of rigorous evidence. When creating awareness for the take-up of global evidence, it is particularly important to address the widespread belief that the global RIE evidence base does not lend itself to the GDC portfolio. Our analysis of 3ie’s DEP found that it contains a large number of studies that are indeed potentially relevant to the GDC portfolio.

Strengthening a culture of learning from failure can support take-up of self-generated RIE evidence. This also includes the open and unbiased interpretation of evaluation results by researchers and evaluators. Respondents to the evidence survey asked for independent and professional interpretations and recommendations that are unpolished and do not please the commissioner or any particular stakeholder group.

Creating awareness for RIE, SRs and EGMs is central to increasing take-up of rigorous evidence. When creating awareness for the take-up of global evidence, it is particularly important to address the widespread belief that the global RIE evidence base does not lend itself to the GDC portfolio. Our analysis of 3ie’s DEP found that it contains a large number of studies that are indeed potentially relevant to the GDC portfolio.

Creating opportunities for RIE exchange can be a potential measure to increase evidence take-up, as direct, personal interaction is often more effective in fostering evidence take-up than disseminating written documents. Exchange can happen as peer-exchange, research-practice-exchange or policy-practice-exchange. The yearly BMZ-funded conference of the “Poverty reduction, equity and growth network (PEGNet)” is an example of such an event where research and practice meet to present and discuss new RIEs.

Leadership commitment and giving priority to evidence-informed decision making is an important measure to foster evidence take-up. Leadership commitment can be expressed by giving priority to evidence generation and take-up, by functioning as role models and explicitly using RIE findings for decision making or by rewarding evidence generation and take-up.

Organisations should commit to evidence-informed decision-making in their lead strategy to facilitate the take-up of self-generated and global RIE evidence. Such strategies provide orientation and help anchor RIEs during changes in leadership. BMZ’s recent strategy document for evaluation in GDC is a good example of such an effort in that it explicitly encourages impact orientation and the role of accompanying research such as RIEs within GDC (BMZ, 2021).

Formal legislation or requirements at the national level can be potential measures to increase RIE initiation. In concrete terms, this could be done by explicitly including the obligation to draw on rigorous evidence in existing process flows and respective guidance documents. Referring to scientific studies in the formal reporting documents would allow stakeholders, including BMZ employees, to verify the lines of reasoning. Formal requirements could also regulate the dissemination of results. Formal legislation and requirements for evidence take-up are judged heterogeneously. Although an explicit requirement can potentially be highly effective, there is also a chance that a requirement would not be practically feasible or not taken seriously. Further, formal requirements need to be combined with other measures such as resources and capacity development to be effective.

Next to formal regulations, setting incentives can enhance evidence take-up, for example by including evidence take-up in annual staff targets, or giving visibility to “evidence champions” who push for evidence take-up. This could be done, for example, by granting evidence awards, such as the Africa Evidence Leadership Award (Africa Evidence Network, 2021). To incentivise researchers to conduct evidence syntheses, it would be beneficial to recognise SRs as an adequate contribution to a PhD thesis.

Formal legislation or requirements at the national level can be potential measures to increase RIE initiation. In concrete terms, this could be done by explicitly including the obligation to draw on rigorous evidence in existing process flows and respective guidance documents. Referring to scientific studies in the formal reporting documents would allow stakeholders, including BMZ employees, to verify the lines of reasoning. Formal requirements could also regulate the dissemination of results. Formal legislation and requirements for evidence take-up are judged heterogeneously. Although an explicit requirement can potentially be highly effective, there is also a chance that a requirement would not be practically feasible or not taken seriously. Further, formal requirements need to be combined with other measures such as resources and capacity development to be effective.

Next to formal regulations, setting incentives can enhance evidence take-up, for example by including evidence take-up in annual staff targets, or giving visibility to “evidence champions” who push for evidence take-up. This could be done, for example, by granting evidence awards, such as the Africa Evidence Leadership Award (Africa Evidence Network, 2021). To incentivise researchers to conduct evidence syntheses, it would be beneficial to recognise SRs as an adequate contribution to a PhD thesis.

A systematic consultation of the global and self-generated RIE evidence base early on when designing projects can foster take-up of global RIE evidence. A systematic anchoring could happen by integrating reflection points in existing process flows and in guidelines about how to create module proposals or brief statements. Those reflection points can ensure that state-of-the-art RIE evidence supports the proposed project. AFD, IDB, Oxfam GB, WWN and J-PAL perform such reflective learning sessions. Similarly, USAID, Oxfam GB and FCDO reported having long-term formalised partnerships with universities and think tanks to provide inputs for project design using global evidence.

Close cooperation between researchers and other stakeholders is a central measure to enhance take-up of self-generated and global RIE.

Generating additional knowledge beyond the results from the RIE can be an effective measure to increase evidence take-up. This might be descriptive information, needs assessments, cost calculations and process evaluations. First, answering these additional questions has an added value in itself. Second, the additional knowledge can be useful when interpreting the results of an RIE. Additional knowledge was either generated by additional data (often qualitative data within a mixed-methods design) or by extensive analysis of baseline and follow-up.

Identify interventions and evaluation questions of operational, strategic or political relevance.

Capacity development is a frequently mentioned potential measure to increase the take-up of both self-generated and global RIE evidence. Capacity development for self-generated and global evidence should comprise:
Self-generated RIE evidence:
Trainings for interpreting the results of RIEs and their integration into project planning and policy advice can be particularly helpful to facilitate their actual take-up.
Global RIE evidence base:
Capacity development measures for increasing the take-up of global RIE evidence should focus on how to find, assess, interpret and integrate relevant RIEs and evidence synthesis products into project planning and policy making. For researchers and evaluators, the focus should be on the adequate communication of findings. For policy makers and programme implementers, capacity development measures should be very practical and tailored to needs and working realities (e.g. formats should be short).

Synthesising the global evidence base is the most relevant measure to increase take-up of global evidence. SRs, followed by EGMs, were mentioned as effective synthesis tools next to portals of the WWN, such as the teaching and learning toolkit from the Education Endowment Foundation.1 Unfortunately, such high-quality synthesis tools, including SRs and EGMs, are largely unknown in GDC and their production requires time. A synthesis strategy of several years that gives priority to a certain sector each would hence be helpful. Evidence syntheses could even be coordinated internationally in order to provide the entire development community with these products in a cost-effective manner.

Build a network of knowledge

Establish a comprehensive and active dissemination strategy

Present findings in an illustrative way

Build RIE take-up capacities

Define roles and responsibilities

Build a network of knowledge

Demonstrate leadership commitment to RIE

Present findings in an illustrative way

Provide evidence on a demand-driven basis

Synthesise and further condense the body of evidence

Building a network of knowledge brokers is by far the most relevant potential measure for increasing take-up of global evidence. Knowledge brokers can take on many of the measures that foster take-up of global evidence, including education and training, production or commissioning of evidence synthesis products or illustrative presentation of findings. There are already examples of existing structures of knowledge brokers at FCDO or NORAD (Evans et al., 2021). Knowledge brokers should keep a close relationship to the potential end-users, thereby gaining a good understanding for whom different pieces of evidence might be relevant and what the most pressing evidence questions are.

Creating awareness for RIE, SRs and EGMs is central to increasing take-up of rigorous evidence. When creating awareness for the take-up of global evidence, it is particularly important to address the widespread belief that the global RIE evidence base does not lend itself to the GDC portfolio. Our analysis of 3ie’s DEP found that it contains a large number of studies that are indeed potentially relevant to the GDC portfolio.

Demand-driven provision of evidence is a highly relevant potential measure to foster take-up of global RIE evidence. Such a demand-driven model is, for instance, implemented in Demark, Norway and Sweden. They have publicly funded units that actively and regularly engage with policy makers to discuss findings and identify evidence needs for policy making and programming (White, 2019). Other examples are the West Africa Capacity-building and Impact Evaluation (WACIE) Helpdesk and the countries of South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe, which also have rapid response services embedded within their governments. The timely provision of evidence is a precondition for the success of this measure, meaning that either rapid syntheses are required or that the demand is expressed early.

Improving knowledge management systems is a potential measure to improve take-up of self-generated RIE evidence at the organisational level. This can take the form of a platform or unit that collects and displays data, results and experiences from RIEs that have been generated in GDC in an easily accessible and user-friendly way. KfW Development Bank has recently launched an internal database for their general evaluations that gives quick access to KfW Development Bank’s evaluation reports. GIZ is considering developing a similar tool. BMZ has anchored the development of an RIE database in its BMZ 2030 reform processes, which can be found here.

Creating awareness for RIE, SRs and EGMs is central to increasing take-up of rigorous evidence. When creating awareness for the take-up of global evidence, it is particularly important to address the widespread belief that the global RIE evidence base does not lend itself to the GDC portfolio. Our analysis of 3ie’s DEP found that it contains a large number of studies that are indeed potentially relevant to the GDC portfolio.

Strengthening a culture of learning from failure can support take-up of self-generated RIE evidence. This also includes the open and unbiased interpretation of evaluation results by researchers and evaluators. Respondents to the evidence survey asked for independent and professional interpretations and recommendations that are unpolished and do not please the commissioner or any particular stakeholder group.