“These are the realities”: insights from facilitating researcher-policymaker engagement in Nigeria's household energy sector

The study addresses how scientific evidence and knowledge co-production can more effectively inform Nigeria’s household energy policymaking, where despite decades of policy efforts, modern energy access remains limited. Globally, 1.1 billion lack electricity and 2.7 billion cook with polluting biomass; in Nigeria, multiple policy iterations have not produced commensurate access gains. The authors hypothesize that greater, context-sensitive use of rigorous scientific evidence—especially from social sciences—could improve policy effectiveness. The research aims to diagnose the status quo of evidence use in Nigeria’s energy sector, identify where and how researcher–policymaker engagement can be strengthened, and provide practical, politically viable strategies to institutionalize evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM).

Evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) has gained traction in Africa but remains underutilized in practice. Studies in South Africa and Nigeria reveal a gap between policymakers’ stated support for evidence and actual use. Energy policy literature in Africa often emphasizes institutional frameworks (legal, regulatory, investment) while overlooking how policy inputs are generated and by whom, leading to neglect of the 'energy underclass.' Political dynamics, not just technology, shape persistent energy problems, underscoring the importance of social science evidence, which is relatively marginalized in Nigeria. Transdisciplinary knowledge co-production reframes research–policy relations as iterative, collaborative processes among academics, policymakers, civil society, and business, helping anchor global goals (e.g., SDGs) in local realities. Advocates argue for elevating scientific evidence within policymaking due to its rigor; this is particularly pertinent where evidence has a diminished role, as in Nigeria, where weak research–policy linkages limit uptake from the earliest stages of research framing. Calls exist for extensive, context-sensitive inquiry into strengthening science–policy interactions. This paper positions knowledge co-production both as a means and an outcome for enhancing engagement with evidence in Nigeria’s energy policy, tailored to local political and institutional realities.

The study employed action research over May 2018–April 2019, led by two academics with expertise in energy access and STI policy in Nigeria. Initial guiding questions probed (1) policymakers’ criteria and their relative weight in prioritizing household energy options; (2) available evidence types and perceptions of their legitimacy; (3) translation mechanisms to bridge research–practice gaps; and (4) needs for new evidence and institutional incorporation pathways. A reflexive, iterative approach allowed reframing based on stakeholder engagement, shifting from inserting preselected evidence (e.g., cooking energy) to building a broader culture of evidence use aligned with current policy priorities. Methods included 13 in-depth interviews with stakeholders (government departments, academia, civil society, private sector), acknowledging access challenges to high-level officials, and two participatory workshops (June 2018, February 2019) with 27 participants across stakeholder groups. The first workshop opened communication channels and elicited experiences of evidence use/non-use; the second was a roundtable with core policy officials that co-produced an 'evidence ecosystem map' of Nigeria’s energy sector, identifying funders, producers, users, and gaps in evidence flows. Workshops provided breadth and real-time exchange but were limited by delegation of attendance to junior officers lacking decision authority; one-on-one interviews mitigated this by securing higher-level engagement. Data were thematically analyzed to map institutional arrangements, evidence use patterns, and entry points for researcher engagement.

- Nigeria’s energy policy landscape is shaped by overarching documents (NEP 2003; draft NEMP 2014; NREEEP 2015) and sectoral reforms, yet access remains limited: after two decades of investment, reliable electricity output is ~4 GW (up from ~2 GW in 1999), with over one-third of Nigerians lacking electricity; access to modern cooking fuels is ~5%. - Policy prioritization is constrained by scarce resources and institutional weaknesses, leading to attention imbalances (electricity prioritized over cooking energy). The Energy Commission of Nigeria (ECN) has limited coordinating influence, compounded by relocation from the Presidency to the Ministry of Science and Technology, weakening formal research–policy channels, including oversight of six federal energy research centres. - Policymaking often privileges political and business interests, with informal advisory channels and consultant-led drafting (e.g., NREEEP) lacking transparent, evidence-based processes; consensus-building tends to trump explicit appeals to scientific evidence. - Policymaker decision criteria emphasize pragmatic factors: legal/policy mandates, incumbent priorities, alignment with international agreements, funding availability, implementation complexity (preference for low-hanging fruit), local capacity, and geographic reach. Evidence is invoked mainly via pilots (“seeing is believing”) and lessons/‘failures’ from other countries. - Evidence use skews to quantitative, macro-level data (National Bureau of Statistics), with high perceived reliability, but requests cluster in economics-related domains, limiting scope. Sector agencies like the Rural Electrification Agency (REA) emphasize technical modelling and often discount social/cultural dimensions of energy access. - Evidence uptake frequently depends on individual 'champions' rather than institutionalized mechanisms. Government research departments and public research institutes (e.g., ECN centres, NISER) are underfunded/underutilized, ceding agenda-setting to a few individuals and external actors. - Latent demand exists within government for stronger engagement with research actors; workshops revealed openness to reconciling assumptions with scientific findings. However, academia has historically been peripheral to energy policy discourse, despite potential to broaden evidence beyond statistics. - Two key windows for researcher engagement: 1) Problem definition: Private sector coalitions (e.g., Nigerian Economic Summit Group) and development partners heavily influence agendas; involving local academics at this stage can diversify questions and ensure contextual fit, addressing tensions between equity and market viability (e.g., mini-grids, DISCO performance). 2) Adoption–implementation lag: Many adopted policies are poorly executed due to governance deficits, capacity gaps, funding irregularities, and patronage. Academics can use evidence to elevate neglected but high-impact policy objectives (e.g., cooking energy access) and strengthen feedback loops between evaluation and implementation. - Effective engagement strategies (learned from NGOs): accessible storytelling (e.g., video), highly visual empirical summaries, trusted intermediaries for contentious issues, early cultivation of policy champions, and small, intimate forums conducive to diplomacy. Incremental change and long-term relationship-building are crucial measures of progress.

The findings confirm the initial hypothesis that the limited and narrowly framed use of scientific evidence contributes to suboptimal energy policy outcomes in Nigeria. Mapping the policy ecosystem reveals structural barriers (weak coordination, political economy dominance, consultant-led opacity) that marginalize rigorous, contextually grounded evidence, particularly from social sciences. Yet the identification of latent demand and specific windows—problem framing and adoption–implementation lag—provides a pragmatic pathway to embed evidence without confronting entrenched priorities head-on. Engaging at agenda-setting enables academics to shape the questions and ensure policies are tailored to local realities, balancing equity and market incentives. Leveraging the implementation gap allows evidence to catalyze action on neglected objectives (e.g., clean cooking), while building institutional habits of evaluation-informed decision-making. Co-production processes not only generate relevant knowledge but also foster trust, mutual understanding, and policymakers’ capacity to use evidence, aligning with EIPM principles adapted to African contexts. These approaches demonstrate how researchers can achieve influence through politically aware, incremental strategies rather than purely technocratic advocacy.

The study illuminates how Nigeria’s household energy policy ecosystem privileges pragmatic and political considerations over systematic evidence use, constraining progress on energy access. In the absence of strong institutional evidence-to-policy structures, evidence uptake often relies on individual champions and quantitative macro-data, overlooking qualitative social and political economy insights. Two underused opportunities can advance evidence-informed policymaking: (1) introducing academic, context-sensitive evidence at the problem-definition stage to diversify agendas dominated by private sector and development partners; and (2) exploiting the lag between policy adoption and implementation to advocate, with evidence, for executing beneficial yet neglected policies (e.g., in clean cooking). Pursuing these pathways through knowledge co-production can yield near-term policy traction and, over time, nurture a culture of evidence use within institutions. The case offers transferable lessons for similar contexts: academics must engage proactively, learn from NGO communication strategies, invest in long-term relationships, and seek training in policy engagement to navigate complex, consensus-oriented policy environments.

- Access constraints limited interviews with some high-level officials (e.g., Federal Ministry of Power, Works and Housing; Women Affairs; Environment), potentially narrowing elite perspectives; representation was partly recovered via workshop participation. - Workshop attendance was often delegated to junior officers lacking decision authority, constraining direct science–policy exchanges; mitigated by targeted one-on-one interviews. - Reliance on action research over a one-year period may not capture longer political cycles or shifting priorities. - Evidence-to-policy observations are context-specific and may not generalize across all Nigerian agencies or regions. - Datasets generated are not publicly available due to contextual sensitivity, limiting external verification (available on reasonable request).