CONTRIBUTORS
Shukri F Mohamed
Associate Research Scientist
Eshetu Girma Kidane
Research Scientist
Kenya has some of the most progressive health policies in principle, designed to improve population health and wellbeing. Yet, it is common to hear people reflect and say, “we have great policies but challenged when it comes to implementation”. These policies often sit on shelves, though technically sound, yet rarely enforced or fully operationalized. And still, in nearly every policy making discussion, researchers and other technocrats are often nudged towards “more evidence” to assist policy makers build political will or define decisions. But where does the real change lie?
Is it in the lack of technical evidence? Is it a failure to translate evidence? Or is it in the lack of inclusive, co-created policy processes that consider the interests and priorities of all stakeholders? How often are governments (national and local in Kenya’s devolved system), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), media, and the general public brought together around a shared vision for policy change? And how can the researchers who bear the burden of providing technical guidance, function effectively at the intersection of competing political and institutional agendas?
In 2021, APHRC launched on the Food Environment Policy Action study (FEP-Action) to address these very tensions. The goal to generate evidence and mobilize multi-stakeholder engagement in support for four core food environment policies aimed at preventing unhealthy diets and reducing nutrition-related non-communicable diseases (NR-NCDs) like overweight and obesity, diabetes, and cancer. These policies include: 1) a Kenya specific nutrient-profile model (KNPM), 2) a front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) system, 3) fiscal policies on unhealthy foods, 4) public procurement in public institutions, and 5) restrictions on child-directed food and beverage marketing.
Grounded in an implementation science approach, FEP-Action supports the adoption and integration of evidence into real-world policymaking and practice. This project brings together representatives from research and academia, civil society and advocacy partners, government (national and county), non-governmental organizations and the community to co-create the context relevant policies that are not only technically sound, but politically sound and socially viable. This collaborative momentum has been made possible through the support of IDRC, APHRC, and other key stakeholders. And here we are, an internationally reputable research institution, sitting at the intersection of evidence, politics and public interest.
Evidence generation – Aligning research with policy and public voices
Policy and decision makers, and the populations that benefit from policies should not just be considered end-users, they are co-creators. First, evidence for policy development needs to be shaped by or consider what policy makers actually need to know. What evidence or research questions need to be asked to empower them to act? Can we prove that our findings and asks align with the legal landscape and frameworks and administrative capacities that exist? So, we must engage all stakeholders to ensure that we are asking and answering the right questions. And that is exactly what we did.
A critical component of this is engaging the public to generate contextual evidence to inform our direction. This is also important if we are to build public trust and ownership of outcomes that are responsive to their real-world needs. Policies must be usable, understandable and relevant to the context in which populations live, including the political realities.
For this process to be successful, it must be iterative. Engaging both policy makers and the public in the process of designing studies, data collection, and dissemination. Furthermore, macro-level evidence such as economic modelling and legal and political feasibility evidence through the involvement of academia and research partners is essential. These micro and macro level engagements must happen, especially in the context of implementation research for a granular understanding of how policies and strategies will be applied on the ground.
Navigating interests and power: evidence, interests, and influence
Here comes the real dilemma. In theory, evidence is king. But in practice, we know that policy making is far from a purely rational process. Decisions are shaped by political, economic, social interests, timing, public sentiment, and the pressure of powerful stakeholders. So, evidence alone cannot drive change.
Policy analysis tells us that political will is not built on evidence alone. Ideas must align with the political agenda, appeal to the grassroot constituencies, and fit with economic or ideological realities. But what happens the evidence we generate conflicts with these forces?
So then what do we do? Do we then package, oversimplify or slightly distort evidence to suit policy priorities? And, what does that mean for our integrity as researchers, and for the communities we serve?
Perhaps the answer is not to distort but to communicate the evidence more strategically; connecting with the political and public narrative. We are not manipulating truth; we are facilitating uptake and building the case for political will. Policy making is a value-laden process, it considers what is urgent, right and to some extent, what is perceived as fair. As researchers, we must understand political windows, align with narratives that matter and engage with systems without compromising evidence itself.
Yes, the pressure to conform to powerful stakeholder interests exists. But, one short-term win gained through selective framing can erode long-term credibility. It is better to move slowly, even at a greater cost, if it means sustaining the integrity of our work and building lasting impact.
The way forward?
We don’t say this lightly. It is messy! Competing values, shifting priorities and occasional disregard for evidence makes navigating the policy terrain difficult. But even in the messy interests, we must hold true to our core values: rigor, transparency, objectivity and integrity.
Researchers need support beyond generating evidence, they need tools to communicate persuasively, analyze power dynamics, and ethically navigate policy ecosystems. That means investing in policy communication, political economy analysis (who holds the power, what are their interests and how policies evolve) and skills on ethical negotiation.
Let’s talk about integrity. It is often misunderstood as rigidity or being out of touch. But integrity is about principled flexibility which strategically. Trust is our most valuable currency. It allows researchers to be present in high stakes conversations, without bending evidence to fit agendas. We don’t compromise truth for influence rather we work at the soft intersection of credibility and strategy. We must be honest and compelling. Grounded, yet engaging. It’s not either-or. After all, what is the value of evidence and policy if it doesn’t move beyond paper? If it doesn’t manifest in better health outcomes or stronger health systems?
In the end, trust is the soft underbelly of evidence-based policy. When evidence fails to translate into action, the issue is rarely about data. It is about failure to build the trust, relationships, trust, and political alignment needed to bring it to life.
Authors: Veronica Ojiambo, Dr. Shukri Mohamed, and Dr. Eshetu Girma