Inside out: knowledge brokering by short-term policy placements

Abstract

The evidence-policy interface is important for delivery of sustainable development policy. We examine one specific form of knowledge brokering, the temporary placement of academic research scientists in UK policy arenas. We argue that successful knowledge brokerage depends on establishing social processes critical to effective knowledge exchange. Merely facilitating proximity of academic and policy actors is insufficient. Cultural understandings are key conditions for knowledge brokerage in this context. Academics who are outsiders to the policy process need to become credible insiders in order to be effective in bringing an outsiders perspective into play. Background Research and policy impact Interest in creating impact from research has strengthened over several decades. Scientific collaborations between policy and academia increased during the 1970s and 80s (Denis & Lomas 2003). The need for effective science-policy interfaces became even more important in the face of the 'perfect storm' of climate change, resource depletion and food insecurity (Foresight, 2011). In the UK a further driver is the inclusion of 'impact' as a quality criterion in university research department quality assessment (REF 2014 1). Sustainable development (SD) is a particularly challenging context in which to consider policy impact. A Thomson Reuters Web of Science publications database search of article titles including the term 'sustainable development' from 2000-2015 revealed that SD is a concept employed by a vast range of experts and practitioners. For example, SD principles are considered in articles on hydrogeology, climate change, transport, steel-making, building design, energy, mining, education, food security energy and SD policy instruments. SD publications also cover a wide scalar range, from the modelling of blast-furnace operations to global population issues. Moreover, these diverse directions suggest a high degree of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary policy and evidence activity (e.g. Brandt et al. 2013, Simon & Schiemer 2015). Although not all of this SD research activity aims to deliver knowledge at the policy interface, there is clearly a major challenge to find effective mechanisms that direct SD evidence into the policy world. The complex, value-laden and uncertain nature of SD has led to an emphasis on stakeholder involvement as key to the production of robust knowledge (Lang et al. 2012, Cornell et al. 2013, Hedlund-de Witt 2014). Less attention has been paid to how this knowledge informs policy and it is this latter aspect that forms the focus of this paper.

Collective knowledge brokering: the model and impact of an embedded team

“…The literature largely describes three main brokering models: 1) single brokers (Robeson et al, 2008, Ward et al, 2012, Urquhart et al, 2011; 2) a cohort of brokers from the same profession deployed across similar organisations (Moore et al, 2017, Rivard et al, 2010, Bruce and O'Callaghan, 2016 or 3) a quasi-/fully independent agency with either an explicit or added remit for brokering (Frost et al, 2012, Olejniczak et al, 2016, van Kammen et al, 2006. However, a fourth, newlyemerging model is of brokers from different disciplines entering into two-way secondments, with each working in isolation, rather than together (Uneke et al, 2017, O'Donoughue-Jenkins andAnstley, 2017).…”

“…Like other embedded initiatives (Morris et al, 2013, Bruce andO'Callaghan, 2016), co-location and attachments to research/ commissioning teams provided rich learning opportunities for brokers to gain tacit, experiential knowledge of host organisations. Other secondment schemes have found dedicated time important (Gerrish and Piercy, 2014); part-time contracts of two years' duration were sufficient to become acclimatised, improve performance and achieve objectives.…”

“…• institutional levers that at best dis-incentivise and at worst impede researchercommissioner collaborations (Marshall et al, 2014) • mismatches between commissioners need for rapid information and researchers requiring years to produce that information (Bruce andO'Callaghan, 2016, Cheetham et al, 2018) • role strain with competing, unrealistic expectations and obligations from too many taskmasters (Vindrola-Padros et al, 2016) • lack of career progression (Lightowler and Knight, 2013, Bruce and O'Callaghan, 2016, Marshall et al, 2014, Bullock et al, 2012.…”

Building university-based boundary organisations that facilitate impacts on environmental policy and practice

“…In recognition of this need, new and innovative institutional structures have been developed and implemented to enhance the use of environmental science in policy and practice. For example, it has become increasingly common for decision-making organisations to ‘embed’ scientists within their organisations [ 12 – 14 ]. There is evidence that this increases the likelihood that priority knowledge gaps will be answered and outcomes will be shared quickly throughout the decision-making agency, thus improving the likelihood that the information will inform decision-making processes and deliver beneficial impacts [ 15 ].…”

Applying systems thinking to knowledge mobilisation in public health

“… Treat brokering as a long-term, relational process, not a ‘stage’ that follows knowledge production [ 65 ] Broaden the concept of ‘evidence’ in brokered syntheses to include diverse information and ideas, including from local contexts, that can shed light on problems and possible solutions [ 4 , 66 ] Start with what matters to end users: knowledge is imbued with social meaning and its value depends on these meanings [ 27 , 67 ] Brokering should not focus on transferring knowledge products, it is a form of change agency [ 68 ] Shift the KM goals from bridging gaps to blurring the boundaries between groups and bringing them together [ 69 ] Knowledge brokers need to understand and find a ‘fit’ with organisational culture and goals. They must become credible insiders [ 70 ] [ 68 ] Aim to facilitate experiential learning and goal-orientated engagement with research rather than disseminating research products [ 71 ] Embed knowledge facilitators within organisations to support engagement with research, collaboration, capacity development and organisational change [ 72 ] Create cross-sector training opportunities and secondments for researchers, practitioners and policymakers [ 72 ] Brokers should be embedded in organisations with strong support from leaders and adequate flexibility and resources [ 68 ] Develop & resource credible trustworthy local champions who can influence how people engage with different forms of knowledge [ 17 ]. Knowledge brokers can support organisational knowledge orthodoxy or disrupt it: lessen constraints by placing brokers in senior roles, forming multidisciplinary brokerage teams, and linking brokers across different levels and parts of a system [ 73 , 74 ] Ideas often have more impact than formal knowledge products [ 75 ].…”