The International Public Policy Observatory 2

英国拥有强大的政策相关研究基础设施和行之有效的研究中心。我们的目标是补充这一点，并与现有组织密切合作。我们通过与政策制定者的对话发现的主要差距是围绕更广泛的跨领域问题，这些问题现在被各级政府视为优先事项。因此，我们的主要目标是在这些专业领域开展工作，并帮助采取更具战略性的行动。我们与多个层面的决策者的接触证实了这一点，特别是在需要做出关于在目标中优先考虑什么的艰难决定时，例如平衡或脱碳。一个相关的差距是对一些重叠的问题缺乏关注--例如如何确保脱碳提高较贫困地区的生产率和增长，或如何确保新冠肺炎后的复苏解决因危机而恶化的不平等问题。我们在IPPO 1中的经验证实，从一开始就与政策制定者密切接触，更有可能使研究成果得到落实。这也证实了我们的论点，即对话与书面产出一样有效，以确保证据得到使用-因此，我们打算继续关注活动、圆桌会议、讨论和更大的活动。政策制定者的反馈也鼓励了另外两个重点的转移。首先是提供更全面的关键问题系统图，帮助决策者理解杠杆作用的关键点，同时也强调证据可能缺失的地方（我们将在下文中详细描述）。第二，不仅要涵盖证据确凿的经证实的干预措施，而且要涵盖有希望但尚未得到证实的创新。

The UK has a strong infrastructure of policy-relevant research and what works centres. Our aim is to complement this and to work closely with existing organisations. The primary gaps we have identified through conversation with policy-makers are around broader cross-cutting issues, which are now seen as priorities by governments at every level. So our primary aim is to work across these specialisms and help more strategic action. Our engagement with decision-makers at many levels confirms that there is a need for this, particularly as difficult decisions need to be made about what to prioritise in goals such as levelling up or decarbonisation. A related gap is the lack of focus on some of the overlapping issues - such as how to ensure that decarbonisation raises productivity and growth in poorer regions, or how to ensure that post COVID recovery addresses inequalities that have worsened through the crisis. Our experience in IPPO1 confirms that close engagement with policy-makers from the start makes it more likely to research will be acted on. It has also confirmed our contention that dialogue is as effective as written outputs for ensuring evidence is used - as a result we intend to continue our focus on events, roundtables, discussions and bigger events. Feedback from policy-makers has also encouraged two other shifts of emphasis. The first is to provide more comprehensive systems maps of key issues that can help policy-makers understand the key points of leverage, while also highlighting where evidence may be missing (which we describe in more detail below). The second is to cover not only proven interventions where evidence is strong, but also innovations that are promising but not yet proven.