The Perfect Blend: Three Types of Evidence to Support your Policy Claims
The perfect blend for effective policy advocacy is a mix of scientific facts, expert testimonies, and emotional narratives.
There is a common idea that policy must be lead by fact, truth, and educated information.
We ask our representatives to vote on politics with an understanding of the question they are voting on. And this understanding comes from having relevant, trusted data.
But the range of information that can lead to a political decision is diverse. Idealy, we'd like science to provide hard facts. But the feeling and perception of citizens is also relevant to policymaking. Finaly, emotions play an important role in politics.
As lobbyists, our role is to capture this variety of evidence and present it to policymakers as to orient or, often in EU policymaking, inform their decisions.
But is there a hierarchy of evidence? Are some proofs better than others, and why? Can policymaking be improved by selecting objectively better pieces of evidence?
The Roasts
Let’s try to list the various kinds of evidence that can illustrate an advocacy position.
Scientific evidence is perhaps the most “factual” evidence. You can’t argue with facts. These are the basis of an informed political decision, although they are not “superior” or sufficient to other evidence, as we’ll see later on. Include there not only lab-research (for health or chemical industries, for instance), but also statistics and analytical data (such as unemployment or national debt figures)
Expert testimonies are extremely relevant to policymaking. They bring an expertise to the table that neither policymakers nor lobbyists have. The perception of experts is (hopefully) evidence-based, but they also come with a lot of prejudices and potential political agendas. This sort of evidence is therefore an intermediary between hard scientific facts and personal perceptions.
Citizen perceptions are also relevant to building a case. In our representative democracy, we must include citizens’ perceptions into account, even if this means it won’t be the most factual evidence. We can also include here the most emotional narrative (best illustrated by young climate activist Greta Thunberg).
All arguments used to defend a position fall under one of these three cathegories. But is there one that is better? More effective? Let’s consider that now.
Is There a Hierarchy of Evidence?
A naive look at the question would rank evidence from “real” scientific data amoung the most useful. On the other hand, personal testimony would rank last, the least relevant, or trustworthy.
And although, in an ideal world, we would prefer hard facts, reality is much more complex.
We lobbyists care first and foremost about the effectiveness of our message. Does it come across? Does it convince the right person? These are the questions that campaigners (from both for- and nonprofit circles) should always have these questions in mind.
Therefore, the only relevant hierarchy of evidence, for lobbyists, would be based on usefulness.
But is there one type of argument stronger than the other? Is scientific data always winning the vote? What about raw emotions? We quickly see that it is impossible to pick one evidence over the others.
The Perfect Blend
But what if the right dosage of all three ingredients was the most effective?
Some lawmakers will prefer hard fact. For them, your narrative should include scientific evidence, research-based figures. Others will be easier to convince with emotional narratives. For this second batch, feel free to convey stories from the people impacted by the proposed policy.
Yet, I would argue that the best narrative is the one that is backed by both emotions and hard facts.
Policymakers are human beings like the rest of us. Therefore, they fall victim to the same prejudices. Namely, that they take decisions based on emotions, and justify these decisions by rational facts.
Now, I propose a little exercise for your next appeal to policymakers. Present them with hard facts and emotion-backed stories. See how they react.
Also, don’t forget that you can support The Beubble — for the price of a coffee.
Thanks for reading!
I’m Alexandre Météreau, EU lobbyists and campaigner.
The Beubble is a side project where I share insights and practical advice on EU policymaking and influence.
Connect with me on LinkedIn or subscribe to The Beubble for more content and updates. You can also support the newsletter by selecting a premium plan.