The discussion notes that policy advisers need good news about effectiveness, confidence in the results, costs included in the evaluations, a feeling of involvement in the agenda-setting process, timely production of results, the specification of what works, good communications from the researchers, and researchers’ willingness to take risks in making inferences from their data. Practitioners need to know what works, where, and why; help in replicating what works; and help in generating testable hypotheses. They also need timely research, involvement in setting the agenda, reports and recommendations in plain English, knowledge of current good practice, and feedback on the results of research in which they have participated. Methodologies that may represent viable alternatives to experimental methods traditionally used by social science researchers include the theory of change approach, scientific realism, and the use of rival explanations. The analysis concludes that researchers, policymakers, and practitioners need to give more attention to one another and that publication and scrutiny of results by the academic community and by the critical and independent media should help offset any tendency toward partiality, exaggeration, or inaccuracy. 43 references