Mapping knowledge needs for evidence-informed policymaking in Denmark

A new interview-based study among Danish ministries finds a strong appetite for enhancing evidence-informed policymaking and growing analytical capacity inside government. But the study also reveals familiar challenges: time pressure, fragmented connections to research, disciplinary silos, and a lack of systematic mechanisms for bringing evidence into policy. The findings offer lessons for the wider European effort to strengthen the EIPM ecosystem.

Across Europe, evidence-informed policymaking is moving higher up on the agenda. In a time of growing complexity and technological disruption, there is a widespread perception that governments need to integrate wider bodies of knowledge. Challenges such as artificial intelligence, climate change, and demographic pressures, require policymakers to widen the scope of internal analytical capacities and include external knowledge bases. Inspired by the JRC-OECD TSI projects, we undertook a qualitative study of current practices, enablers, and bottleneck in the Danish ecosystem for science-to-policy. 

In the report, The Role of Research in the Policy Room [in Danish], published by the Queen Mary’s Centre at the University of Copenhagen, we provide a close-up view of what some of the institutional challenges look like. The report examines how scientific knowledge enters policymaking in the Danish central administration. Based on interviews with 24 experienced civil servants from ministerial departments and government agencies across six areas, we conducted a qualitative study identifying recurring practices, tensions and opportunities from the perspective of those working directly with policy development. 

A clear demand for knowledge

Among the most significant findings of the report is the consensus that research-informed advice and evidence increase the quality and legitimacy of the policy process. Across interviews, policymakers express a clear interest in creating stronger links between knowledge providers and policy development. For example, respondents mention that research is valuable in the policy practice as it broadens problem definitions, challenges assumptions, and brings new and deeper perspectives into the early stages of policy formation.

Evidence and research is perceived to help open the policy process for wider deliberation rather than closing the conversation around a narrow set of political alternatives. Importantly, policymakers consider the contribution and impact of evidence as one among several inputs to the policymaking process: not as as a showstopper but as an important contribution to understanding scenarios, complexities, decision spaces, and outcomes. Emphasis is placed on the ability of research and researchers to contribute to anticipatory governance, e.g., clarifying and translating early signals of crises or disruptions into tangible policy options. 

At the same time, policymakers urge scientific advisers and experts serving on governmental working groups and panels to better understand the political reality. Advice delivered to the policy process needs to take stock of political priorities, legal considerations, economic constraints, administrative procedures, and the presence of other, non-academic stakeholders. In Denmark, the co-operative social model is based on broad inclusion of interest groups, civil society, and industry representatives, all of whom are invited to submit input to the policy process. Researchers wanting to make an impact on policy needs to understand and navigate this wider web of interacting institutions by ensuring that political choices can draw on a broad and robust knowledge base. 

The interview analysis shows signs of growing organisational readiness. Several ministries have strengthened their internal analytical capacities and are establishing evidence and data-driven units closer to central decision-making. These units can help connect policy departments, administrative expertise, and external research teams, while supporting rigour and quality in the translation of evidence into policy-relevant formats. 

At the same time, this growing internal capacity also implies, according to interviewees, that researchers and advisers need to be professional, composed, and structured when they are invited into the policy room. Tight deadlines, urgent needs, and navigating a complex policy landscape are some of the elements that evidence-providers need to be comfortable with. Correspondingly, bottlenecks and lack of willingness to include external knowledge occur when researcher lack contextual knowledge, provide too abstract or complex input, or insist on specific details. In these circumstances, policymakers prefer to consult with professional think tanks, lobby groups, or consultancies rather than research organisations.  

From willingness to routines

The interviews point to considerable openness to experimentation and new mechanisms. Policymakers identify better use of data, more iterative approaches to policymaking, stronger collaboration with research communities, and clearer organisational capacities for evidence-use as promising ways forward. Yet the study also reveals a gap between willingness to use evidence and the routines that make it possible.

Research engagement remains uneven. In some ministries, civil servants have long-standing relationships with universities and arrangements for mobilising scientific advice. In other situations, engagement is more ad hoc and random. Timing, social skills, personal networks and the capacity to communicate effectively are some of the characteristics that determine whether research is used. Trust and relationships matter and enhance the likelihood that research input is integrated in legislation and policy initiatives. 

“My wish would be for the connection between our system and the academic world to be closer than it is today. I find that whenever we have concrete, direct dialogue, it is fruitful. And I actually think that applies to both sides.” – Civil servant, Danish Ministry of Digitalisation

Another, related challenge is interdisciplinarity. Complex policy problems rarely fit neatly within administrative or disciplinary boundaries, while evidence-use often is organised in silos. The study finds that ministerial cultures and decision-making processes can privilege forms of knowledge that fit existing procedures – particularly economic, legal and quantitative analysis—while making it harder to integrate other disciplinary perspectives, for example those stemming from the behavioural and social sciences. The respondents observe considerable potential for broader, cross-disciplinary approaches. 

Scientific research retains a particular value for civil servants when it is easily discoverable, timely, interpretable and relevant to the problem at hand. The report identifies translation and brokerage as increasingly important functions. Researchers and research institutions cannot simply make knowledge available and assume that it will travel by itself. 

Finally, the report shows that new interfaces are needed. These should not merely consist of formal requests for expert advice. The interviewees call for continued relationship-building and inter-organisational connectivity: recurring dialogue, shared platforms, clearer points of contact, and clearer incentives for researchers to communicate evidence are some of the drivers towards are more integrated working culture. 

From readiness to capacity

The study shows that demand for evidence exists. And that internal analytical capabilities are developing. Policymakers recognise the value of expertise and closer interaction with research communities. Yet, there is considerable room for improvement, specially creating more even institutional mechanisms that turn readiness into everyday practice.

The report points towards leadership commitment, clearer responsibilities, sustained relationships with research organisations and greater organisational capacity to find, assess and translate knowledge. It also highlights the value of iterative policy development, in which interventions can be tested, evaluated and adjusted rather than being treated as fully formed solutions from the outset. 

Interestingly, Danish policymakers do not associate evidence-informed policymaking with the wider European democracy agenda. The European Commission has presented the European Democracy Shield in response to new systematic uncertainties and threats, such as eroding trust in institutions. One of the actions announced in the Democracy Shield (action 37) is “supporting scientific evidence and its use in public policymaking”. Strengthening evidence-informed policymaking is seen by the Commission as an important pathway for ensuring that institutions, debates and decision-making are rooted in factual, transparent and accountable processes and impartial knowledge. 

These broader democratic arguments for fostering trust and legitimacy in governance are not prevalent in our interviews. The machinery of the Scandinavian welfare state is focused on efficiency and policy deliverables: and to some extent take for granted that democratic arrangement prevails. This, perhaps, is one of the risks for the future. If citizens and researchers are not empowered to provide input to the policy process, it will be subject to increased scepticism by the public. 

Like the European conversation, the EIPM landscape of Denmark needs to be concerned not only with producing more evidence, but with strengthening the ecosystems through which evidence is requested, interpreted, challenged and used. The Danish experience suggests that readiness is increasing. The real challenge is to how turn that readiness into durable capacity.

Suggested reference: Blond, Thor, Maja Ejrnæs, Sarah Steinitz, David Budtz Pedersen (2026). “The Role of Research in the Policy Engine Room” (Forskningens rolle i det politiske maskinrum). Queen Mary’s Center. University of Copenhagen. https://marycenter.ku.dk/udgivelser/publikationer/et-staerkere-vidensgrundlag-for-politikudvikling/Forskningens_Rolle_-_Digital.pdf