How Should Academics Engage in Policymaking to Achieve Impact?

Abstract

This article reviews the advice from the academic and ‘grey’ literatures to identify a list of dos and don’ts for academics seeking ‘impact’ from their research. From ‘how to do it’ sources, we identify consistent advice on how to engage effectively, largely because it is necessarily vague, safe, and focused primarily on individuals. We then consider the wider policymaking system in which actors make political choices and have unequal access to impact opportunities. We identify the effort it takes to have actual policy impact and how far academics should be expected to go to secure and take credit for it.

Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations

“…There has also been an increase in the infrastructure governments provide, such as scientific advisory posts and professionals (Doubleday and Wilsdon, 2012;Gluckman, 2014), and a range of secondments and fellowship opportunities designed to 'solve' the problem of limited academic-policy engagement (Cairney and Oliver, 2018). The UK Government recently asked departments to produce research priority areas (Areas of Research Interest (ARIs)), to guide future academic-policy collaboration (Nurse, 2015).…”

“…We know that potential users of research may sit within or outside government, with different levels and types of agency, making different types of decisions in different contexts (Cairney, 2018;Sanderson, 2000). Yet beyond 'tailoring your messages', existing advice to academics does not help them navigate this complex system (Cairney and Oliver, 2018). To take this lesson seriously, we might want to think about the emergence of boundary spanning-organisations and individuals which help to interface between research producers (primarily universities, but also civil society) and users (Bednarek et al, 2016;Cvitanovic et al, 2016;Stevenson, 2019).…”

Envisioning the scientific paper of the future

“…For research that provides solutions to society (e.g., informing political decision-making) the paper of the future should emphasize scientific evidence and practical recommendations (Cairney and Oliver 2018). For example, researchers can present results that are sensitive to user requirements (see Coristine et al 2018).…”

Reflections On the Use of Complexity-Appropriate Computational Modeling for Public Policy Evaluation in the UK

“…We aim in this paper to continue the development of complexity-appropriate evaluation and further elaborate thinking on one particular strand-the use of complexity-appropriate computational modeling in practice-by sharing our experiences and reflections on its use. We combine our experiences with recent contributions on how to have greater impact from the computational modeling (Gilbert, Ahrweiler, Barbrook-Johnson, Narasimhan, & Wilkinson, 2018) and policy research (Cairney & Oliver, 2018) communities.…”

“…efore we plot a way forward for applied complexity scientists, and policy evaluators and analysts, we want to briefly outline some recent contributions from the modeling and policy research fields in the UK, which might help direct our path. First, Cairney and Oliver (2018) review the advice given in the academic and grey literature to researchers wishing to have policy impact with their research and relate this through their understanding of the policy making process (as researchers of public policy and evidence use). They find relatively consistent advice across the literature they examine, revolving around eight core suggestions to researchers: (i) do high-quality research; (ii) make research relevant and readable; (iii) understand the policy process, actors, and context; (iv) be accessible to policy makers; (v) decide if you want to be an "issue advocate" or "honest broker"; (vi) build relationships and ground-rules with policy makers; (vii) be entrepreneurial or find someone who is; and (viii) reflect continuously.…”