The case studies in this research explore the extent to which research has been informing the development of public policy and the role government has played in this context. To develop a thorough understanding, two case study subjects were selected: the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) at the University of New South Wales, and the HC Coombs Policy Forum (Coombs), operating under the recently established Australian National Institute of Public Policy at the Australian National University. SPRC is a university research centre that focuses on social policy issues. It was initially set up in the late 1970s to assist government with social policy issues. Since then, the Centre has undergone several changes with regards to its governance and funding model. It was initially heavily dependent on government resources, but has had to evolve, becoming a research institute focused on applied policy issues. It is also tasked with promoting itself at the national and international levels. The case study of SPRC provides a historical focus on its operations over the last three decades, which assists in developing an understanding of how political interactions have shaped the Centre’s work.
Coombs, on the other hand, operates as a think tank at the cusp of research and policy. Coombs is working to carve out a niche for itself by bringing together academic researchers, policy makers from the federal government and other relevant stakeholders
in a networked manner to address policy issues being faced within Australia. By positioning itself at the intersection of research and policy, it provides a framework for interaction, governance and subsequent policy influence. Like SPRC, Coombs was also established and funded by the federal government. What is interesting, and this will be discussed later, is that the government has moved away from funding research centres to now creating structures that sit between government and research centres. As Coombs’ establishment is only recent, this case study offers some detailed insights by way of looking at a particular research−policy engagement in the natural resource management (NRM) policy space between Coombs and the Australian Government.
Following the study of these cases, we will readdress the question of how research has been used and continues to be utilised by policy makers, and the processes which accompany such linkages. The discussion will conceptualise a model and identify the conditions under which the model could function effectively, bearing in mind the political and policy contexts. In addition, the case studies endeavour to shine some light on issues which are wider than the remit of political science, i.e., the roles of ideas, power and structures in policy making, and also the interplay of these issues with sociological issues relating to societal actors.
Interviews
The case studies involved in-depth interviews with selected individuals (see Appendix I) from these institutions, desktop analysis and attendance at institutional activity such as a roundtable in the case of Coombs to observe the underlying processes involved in the formation, management, coordination and functioning of policy networks required to influence public policy. The face-to-face interviews varied in length from 30 to 75
minutes, and were semi-structured to allow and stimulate discussion around a set of themes. The interview questions (see Appendix II) were structured to elicit information relevant to the theoretical underpinnings of policy networks and governance. The interviews commenced with broader questions that were then followed up by questions, which delved deeper into the participant responses. For instance, the interview commenced by asking participants to outline their role within the institution setting. This provided the researcher with a sense of how the interviewee in a particular role viewed issues relating to networks, policy process, governance and the like. Participants were provided with an overview of the research and the manner in which the methodology was being used to address the research questions. They were asked about their role in research, policy or in both processes. The interview participants were allowed to talk extensively about their experience as related to research. In situations where the responses deviated from the research focus, participants were prompted with follow-up, open-ended questions that helped bring the emphasis back to the research in question. Some of the themes that guided the interview questions related to the following:
• Institutional structure
• Research/policy/political process
• Network engagement and interactions across organisations • Resource exchange between organisations
• Research translation into policy • Role of intermediaries
• Leadership, performance/impact measurement, skills and knowledge
For instance, the interview questions (see Appendix II) included the following:
• What level of interaction does the organisation have with government
departments/academic researchers? Is this limited to formal meetings and engagements?
• Can you describe the research undertaken by yourself that aligns with policy
agendas of the government (local/ State/ Federal)?
Such questions allow the interviewee to provide a descriptive narration that shed light on the institutional context, and which can be contrasted with responses received from the other interviewees. They allowed the interviewee to attempt a form of ‘story telling’ needed to gain a full understanding of the context, situation, intent, action and the subsequent policy outcome.
Confidentiality
At the outset, the research methodology and data-gathering process was subject to and approved by the University’s human research ethics clearance processes. The individuals who participated in the study shared their experiences of working in a university, government department or think tank. In order to maintain confidentiality, particular attention was paid to key qualitative research elements as discussed by scholars such as Patton (2002) and Marshall and Rossman (1999). Prior to commencing each interview, I outlined to participants the format of the interview, the central issue of the research pursued and the relevant research questions. In the light of this, all participants were happy to be interviewed and have their responses recorded. Some participants wanted to be notified if they were to be quoted, so they would have an opportunity to ensure their comments were adequately represented. In many instances,
discussing the aims of the research with participants helped them reflect on their experiences in a way they had seldom had the opportunity to do so previously. This helped build a relationship of trust and dialogue with participants. Of course, if participants requested confidentiality, this was honoured.
Participant Selection and Data
Participants were selected for the interview in consultation with the directors of the two centres. Participants from government departments were also selected based on their engagement with the Centre. The number of participant interviews was decided on the basis of a redundancy framework, i.e., when new interviews were adding minimal new information to the process and the study, interviewing ceased. All participants agreed to be recorded for the research following which summary notes were drafted.
Analysis
The data collected was analysed in alignment with accepted principles of qualitative research methodology, in that the research used inductive frameworks to help categorise the data (Charmanz 2000). Given the aim of the research was to explore the manner in which participants and their institutions were rooted in the research and policy process, there was no need to assess the validity of the interviewee responses. This approach was an attempt to use the perspective of the participant to understand how their role and involvement shaped the research−policy linkages. This approach helped identify the experiences that participants viewed as critical in bridging the research/policy gap. Where possible, an effort was made to triangulate the interview findings with the available documentary data concerning the organisations, individuals and projects.
In the analysis of interviews, resonating themes were identified to allow comparison of contexts and other relevant factors. For instance, interviews with government officials resulted in a theme around complexity and the structures that help shape government interaction with non-state actors. This theme also emerged from interviews with researchers as a factor affecting interaction with political actors within government. Documentation produced by both SPRC and Coombs was analysed. This included publicly available policy briefings, research material, meeting notes and other archival material. The analysis helped in understanding the political and policy contexts, in addition to the institutional and individual policy actor’s preferences.
The secondary research material analysed included reports and articles that were less descriptive or analytical. Such material was used if it met four criteria: authenticity, credibility, representativeness, and meaning. The internal consistency in presentation and style, accuracy, clarity and the comprehensibility of the document were vital factors also taken into account. These two levels of analysis provided an avenue for what Vromen (2010:262−263) calls ‘interpretivist discourse analysis.’ The triangulation of information collected through interviews, observation, fieldwork and document analysis enriches the interpretation offered in case studies. In this way, findings were strengthened, and a better understanding of how policy networks between governments, think tanks and universities can provide better-informed policy development was enabled. Part of the analysis also incorporated the inductive and iterative analysis of the interview data and literature material. The aim was to explore relationships between the different sources of evidence obtained. In examining the case studies, the iterative process (i.e., moving back and forth between outlining and presentation of the data to interpreting and theorising) will be evident.
This iterative process helped develop a better understanding of the data and was subsequently used to categorise evidence into research findings. The challenge here was to balance the empirical research findings with those of the interpretations used for the purposes of theory construction. There was a need to respect the depth of experience that participants expressed in the interviews and balance this with the interpretation of the data to understand how the policy network and research policy nexus could be better understood within a political context. In order to balance this, the case studies and the findings will be detailed before making an effort to conceptualise and build a new theoretical framework based on these findings. These lessons and theoretical frameworks are discussed in detail in Chapter 7.