Ideas + Power = Influence?
From the above discussion and research evidence, it is clear that at present, there are a limited number of channels for interaction between researchers and policy makers, and that there is a lack of researcher engagement by policy makers in the policy processes. Thus, the opportunities for researchers to influence policy processes directly are minimal, and there are challenges associated with changing the status quo. At the same time, it is clear that policy influence is also linked to how relevant research is made to the context of policy.
In exploring the workings of the SPRC, it is clear that a research−policy-level engagement can take place most effectively under the Service Model, which at present focuses mostly on policy evaluative research-type engagement. Researchers bring in the objectivity required to assess the benefit, value and impact of government programs independently. Researchers undertake genuine program evaluations, not exercises designed to provide a seal of approval for government policy. This ensures a non- partisan approach to policy evaluation. In addition, the findings also indicate that researchers do not play an extensive role in the shaping of new policy ideas.
The appetite of government for engaging with researchers in setting policy agendas is, at least in the social science arena, minimal. While there may be advocates within government who embrace research and attempt to use evidence to inform policy processes and outcomes, this element is far from being fully institutionalised. However, it is evident from the findings that there is interest being generated by non-governmental organisations leveraging the research outcomes from various research initiatives
undertaken at the SPRC. These organisations repackage and use research findings to advocate their own causes. On occasion, researchers from the Centre have assisted such organisations in ensuring appropriate interpretation of technical aspects of the research, helping wider appreciation of the knowledge generated and also of the evidence gathered. SPRC does not play a very important role in lobbying for such self-interest causes, but ensures that it works with the relevant non-governmental organisation to ensure they understand the findings, thus avoiding misinterpretation. In this way, research informs the public debate in specific social policy contexts, which may or may not have an influence on public opinion, and subsequently on the public policy direction.
The issues surrounding research translation and the interpretation of research results into policy language was not a topic of concern for researchers, although there is room for improvement in this area. Researchers are aware of the need to produce non- technical reports for policy makers. Researchers have problems with the opaqueness of the policy process. They are unclear as to how the various hierarchical levels within the government departments use research in policy development. The experience of researchers here can be dependent on individual relationships between researchers and policy makers. Just as researchers have to undergo a peer review process to publish scholarly material, there is a view that governments should adhere to a similar process by which policy choices made are based on evidence that is publicly available and transparent.
What must be factored in here are the political influences on policies, especially when issues are highly contestable. This seems to be an area where researchers have limited
understanding, which is inevitable, given this is not their area of expertise. Thus, ‘political astuteness,’ which would help researchers develop an appreciation of policy development and its processes, would be a valuable skill for researchers to possess. However, this needs to be complemented by policy makers developing an appetite for proactively utilising research in the effort to develop informed public policy. Reviewing research material, synthesising and developing new policy perspectives are critical activities that need to be undertaken by bureaucrats and policy makers. This goes to support comments made above about the need to minimise issues subsequently creating a breed of ‘research bureaucrats’ and ‘policy researchers.’
Network and Governance: Institutional and Individual
As the research has revealed, the relationship between the Centre and government departments is premised predominantly on individual relationship and networks. The fact that the Centre was established by government ensured that an institutional relationship was initially created and fostered, but this has since morphed into a set of links centred on individual relationships. Being based solely on individual relationships carries a significant risk element. Given staff turnover within government, which was identified as an impeding factor, the need to re-establish relationships between policy makers and researchers on a frequent basis is challenging and onerous. This is a problem for researchers who have constantly to contend with changes in the bureaucracy, either when individuals move on to different roles, or when reorganisation and restructures take place. Hence, there is a need to institutionalise such relationships in order to ensure such research−policy networks are sustained.
This case-study indicates that the incentives provided to the Centre researchers to ensure research was meeting policy needs, or to governments (state or federal) to make use of the research evidence in policy processes were minimal or non-existent. In the case of the Centre, the University agreed to continue funding the Centre, as it broadly believed it was meeting its stated objectives. Given the Centre’s geographical location and the presence of other major universities, non-governmental organisations, businesses and interest groups, the competition to gain access to policy makers at the state level is intense. As policy makers have to contend with competing sources of information, this has limited the ability of the Centre to clearly determine how much influence it has been able to wield over the policy makers, at least at the state level.
The Centre has also become more integrated within the University as compared to when it initially commenced operation in the 1970s. This has caused a tension between the competing goals of the University and the Centre. As in every other university, staff must teach, undertake research and publish regularly in top-tier academic journals. For the Centre, remaining operational and sustainable has meant that staff have had to get involved in sourcing funding for research projects by engaging with external stakeholders. Thus, the Centre operates in a semi-academic role within the University. The challenge of incentivising staff is clear, and in many instances, researchers have questioned the challenge of meeting competing priorities working in such an environment. There is no doubt that the University, heightening its focus on social impact as an outcome, considers the Centre to be meeting its goals and objectives, and this was clear from this research. Some researchers have tested this through their own applications for promotion within the University; they were successful because of the positive societal impact that was created as a result of the Centre’s work. This denotes a change in the University’s culture, which has become more accepting of the third
mission of academic institutions, which is to make a social impact. This supports the discussion undertaken in the earlier chapters about the Mode 3 responsibilities for universities. Thus, in conclusion and from this study, we identify and distinguish the roles of researchers and policy makers as follows:
Table 5.1: Distinguishing roles of researcher, policy maker and intermediary Researchers:
• Frame research questions and
undertake literature reviews
• Engage with policy makers to
understand the policy and political context
• Determine research
requirements and methodology
• Understand the constraints
within which policy makers function
• Progress research and analysis • Generate findings
Policy makers:
• Provide the policy and political context
to understand the policy problem from a holistic perspective
• Ascertain the data and resource
requirements to pursue research that generates evidence to inform the policy problem
• Ensure that the relationship between
researchers and policy makers is institutionalised
• Understand the limitations of research
and clearly articulate how research will inform the development of various policy options
• Provide details of the current policy
gaps and policy questions Intermediary:
• Establish and facilitate the network interactions between researchers and
policy makers, and where needed, incorporate other external stakeholders
• In seeking to narrow the silos between governments and universities,
ascertain policy and research questions in collaboration with researchers and policy makers
• Translate literature reviews into succinct policy briefs
• Assist in the translation of research findings for policy makers and offer
new policy ideas that emerge from the research process
• Muster resources needed for the research
• Seek end-user engagement in the research process and possibly explore
pilot policy models
Through this case study, we have identified some of the strengths of the Centre and challenges that it is exposed to in terms of bridging the research/policy divide. However, there are some clear opportunities that also emerged from the analysis:
1. The Centre could create policy networks with government, industry, community and academics that function beyond project scopes; and endeavour to institutionalise these relationships. This will allow innovative attributes to be brought in to a research−policy network such as social and community engagement; knowledge transfer processes and frameworks to be developed by which policy processes can be influenced.
2. Seek closer engagement with Government Departments through staff exchanges and secondments, such as the Fellowship model.
3. Enhance understanding of the policy process by interacting with policy makers, allowing engagement to also inform policy makers about research and researcher challenges.
4. Identify internal linkages across SPRC projects and facilitate frequent peer interactions.
5. Continue to ensure the research process and outcomes are rigorous and grounded through end-user engagement (where appropriate).
6. Enhance interdisciplinary interaction within the University that fosters a broader appreciation of changing political and policy contexts.
7. Seek to partner with independent intermediaries to achieve policy leverage emerging from research endeavours. Some of the key areas where an intermediary must support the Centre are: bringing together a cross-section of government departments at federal and state levels for interaction and networking; translating extensive literature reviews into succinct policy briefs;
and, finally, ensuring an opportunity for new evidence to be implemented by end-users, ensuring the trialling of new policies.