A new study of senior officials across Nigeria’s federal ministries and the National Assembly has found that policymakers with doctorate degrees are significantly more likely to engage with a wider range of research evidence when shaping public policy, highlighting persistent gaps in evidence-based decision-making across government.
A new study has found that senior Nigerian policymakers with doctorate degrees are significantly more likely to rely on diverse forms of research evidence in decision-making than their counterparts without advanced academic training.
In the study titled: “Patterns of evidence use in Nigerian policymaking: insights from latent class analysis”, the researchers found that only 20 per cent of respondents—described as “eclectic users”—regularly engaged with a broad mix of rigorous scientific evidence such as systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, and peer-reviewed studies, alongside other sources like expert opinions and internal documents.
By contrast, 54 per cent belonged to a middle category that recognised several evidence types but relied mostly on less systematic sources such as case studies, expert opinions, internal policy documents, and needs assessments.
Another 25 per cent were classified as “non-users,” reporting little familiarity with most of the 11 evidence types examined in the study, ranging from meta-analyses to news reports.
The research was led by Toyib Aremu of the University of Vermont alongside Travis Reynolds and Fritz Sager of the University of Bern.
Using a statistical approach known as latent class analysis, the researchers examined how Nigerian policymakers interact with different forms of evidence rather than simply asking whether they use research at all.
“Out of the 196 respondents, 146 (or 78.1%) are male, 121 (or 61.7%) work in the National Assembly, and 61% hold at least a master’s degree. The average age of respondents is about 46 years and have worked for about 16 years on average,” the researchers noted.
They said respondents in ministries are all senior officers (starting from grade level 9 for research officer I to grade level 17 for director) while respondents in the National Assembly are mostly senior legislative Aides (80) or legislative aides (31).
The study found that the most methodologically rigorous forms of evidence—including meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, and peer-reviewed survey and qualitative studies—were the least familiar and least used among respondents.
Instead, policymakers reported relying most on expert opinions, case studies, statistical facts, internal policy documents, needs assessments, and news media.
Officials working in ministries were found to depend more on systematic reviews, expert opinions, and statistical facts, while legislative aides in the National Assembly relied more heavily on news media.
The researchers said this reflects the different demands of executive and legislative policymaking.
Among the variables examined—gender, age, education, years of experience, and workplace—education emerged as the strongest predictor of how broadly policymakers engaged with evidence.
The study found that holding a doctorate increased the likelihood of belonging to the middle evidence-use group by about nine times and the eclectic group by approximately 21 times, compared to the non-user category.
Years of experience also mattered, with each additional year in service increasing the likelihood of belonging to the middle group by about seven per cent.
However, experience alone did not significantly predict whether a policymaker would become an eclectic user of evidence.
The researchers noted that while years on the job may improve familiarity with available information and strengthen networks with knowledge producers, formal doctoral training appears more important for developing the analytical skills needed to assess rigorous research designs.
Interestingly, the study found no significant differences between male and female policymakers or between officials in ministries and those in the legislature in terms of evidence-use patterns.
This contrasts with previous international studies, particularly in Canada, where gender and workplace influenced awareness of scientific evidence.
The authors suggested that in Nigeria, access to evidence may depend more on professional experience and academic qualifications than on institutional location or gender.
Nigeria has long promoted evidence-informed governance, especially since civil service reforms in the 1980s created Departments of Planning, Research and Statistics across ministries, departments and agencies.
However, the study notes that there is still no formal requirement compelling policymakers to base decisions on rigorous evidence, and many officials lack the skills needed to find, assess, and apply such evidence effectively.
Although about 86 per cent of respondents said they were familiar with evidence-informed policymaking and 80 per cent reported using scientific evidence in the past year, the study found that engagement with stronger forms of evidence remains limited.
The researchers said the findings suggest that policy reform efforts should focus on the largest group—the 54 per cent who recognise evidence but use a narrow range of sources.
They recommended targeted training through institutions such as the National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies and the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, particularly around systematic reviews and experimental research.
They also advised the government to recruit more highly educated personnel into policymaking roles and strengthen collaboration between policymakers and local researchers across multiple disciplines.
“The motivation is basically that even though it’s starting to change gradually, there is not a lot of global south context in our understanding of how evidence enters the policy process and without that knowledge, it will be very difficult to ‘configure’ the way we do policy in countries like Nigeria to be more accepting of rigorous evidence,” Mr Aremu said, in an interview with PREMIUM TIMES.
The authors acknowledged that the study relied on self-reported survey data, which may be affected by social desirability bias, with respondents possibly overstating their use of evidence.
They also noted that the sample size limited deeper comparisons across ministries or policy sectors.
