KT-EQUAL/ CARDI Workshop: ‘Lost in Translation’ 23 June 2011 Communicating research results to policy makers: A practitioner’s perspective.

Structure 1. What do policy practitioners expect from researchers? 2. The policy process - Implications for: 3. Communicating research results to policy makers 4. Opportunities for improving links between research & policy practitioners

Better policy-making agenda: Aims: To improve the capacity to address strategic, cross-cutting issues; To promote innovation in the development & delivery of policy; To promote evidence-based policy making, including the dissemination of relevant information and research.

Evidence-based Outward looking Innovative, flexible & creative Forward looking Inclusive Joined up Learns lessons Communication Evaluation Review 10 Features of Good Policy Making (OFMDFM, 2003)

 May not always proceed as neatly as suggested;  No two policies will need exactly the same process;  Sources of policy making will vary from case to case;  Existing state of policy and its complexity will vary;  Policy process can be blown off course;  Implementation and evaluation stages can be neglected. The policy process (1)

2. The Policy Cycle

The Policy Cycle Political Mandate Policy EvaluationPolicy Development Policy Maintenance Policy Implementation

The Policy Cycle - Contested Space Stakeholders: statutory agencies, NGOs, community, business & other interests Policy Evaluation Political Mandate Policy Maintenance Policy Development Policy Implementation

Experience & Expertise Judgement Pragmatics & Contingencies Resources Lobbyists & Pressure Groups EVIDENCE Habits & Traditions Values Factors Influencing Policy Making in Government (Davies 2004)

The policy process (2)  Time pressures  Use of in-house expertise at branch level  Role of economists / statisticians and other experts  Focus on ‘policy development’  Identified training needs  Policy networks at different levels – EU / Regional / Local

Communicating research results to policy makers  Essential to develop & sustain a dialogue  Language  Make it policy relevant. Examples: ‘Patterns of demographic ageing and related aspects’; ‘Sustainable Regional development from Rhetoric to Practice’; ‘Social impact Assessment in Regional & Land Use planning’  Nature of the policy process

Communicating research results to policy makers  Theory & Practice  Transfer of Learning  Consider a variety of communication formats to promote research findings: Examples: ‘Britain in 2011: Annual Magazine of the ESRC Community newsletters / Alumni news / www.  Think of How the research will be used and quoted.  Early dissemination of research e.g. Working papers.

Communicating research results to policy makers  Quality is important: Need for internal & external validity.  Policy cycle: how do the research findings relate to the policy cycle? (see next slide).  Facilitate collaboration & multi – disciplinarity.  Utilise or develop policy networks.

Communicating research results to policy makers  Perceptions: Consider how different research disciplines may be perceived: (e.g. Economics / Sociology / Occupational Psychology / Political Science / Public Health /Science / Law).  Policy evaluation: Maximise utility of evaluation findings.  Highlight innovation & creativity: identify the value added contribution of the research. Define the policy challenge – make clear the policy recommendations but outline the limitations of the work.

Communicating research results to policy makers Examples of research findings presented to policy officials  Fuel poverty  Devolution in practice  Implication of the ageing population  Equality issues  Early childhood disadvantage

Communicating research results to policy makers CONCLUSIONS  Identify policy implications of research findings in a comprehensible way.  Recognise the difficult choices policy makers have to make.  Be clear on the key messages for policy makers and other key stakeholders.  Need for ongoing dialogue - from design to dissemination.

Communicating research results to policy makers CONCLUSIONS continued.....  Recognise the complexity of the policy process:‘…the complex interplay between political interests, competing discourse and the agency of multiple actors’.  Enhancing communications skills for researchers  Encourage the utilisation of research by policy practitioners

 Devolution - opportunity for differentiated policy making  Professionalisation of policy making function  Potential for collaborative approaches  Dissemination of research results  Engagement of specialist staff in policy process  Utility of Research programmes  Contribution to ‘joined up’ thinking  Sustainable development agenda Improving the links between research and policy

A Policymakers view of issues

policylink