Modelos de Variables Numéricas Continuas

Translational Research

The general experience of interviewees indicated that interpretation of research by policy makers was not a significant issue. One of the reasons for this is that the Centre presents research findings to policy makers in a non-technical manner through reports and face-to-face presentations. This approach is often separate and in addition to the academic output produced by the Centre’s researchers. In situations where the interactions between the researcher and officials within a government department are well-established, there is a mechanism of continuous feedback and interaction through ongoing communication that also helps smooth out any translational issues.

While the issue of research translation is minimal, this research reveals a lack of understanding of the research process on the part of policy makers. As one interviewee suggests:

The problem is not between research and policy makers. It is between research bureaucrats and policy bureaucrats within a department. Research bureaucrats, more often tend to be lower down the hierarchy and who are not very senior have the difficult job of selling the research within the department. There are challenges associated with it as policy bureaucrats higher in the chain of command see research very differently. They have a concrete view―I have this problem and I need an answer in two weeks. Sometimes we get research requests that are not research. It’s more intelligence-gathering to take stock of what’s happening at different levels of government and in the community.

In addition, the view expressed by the Centre was that policy makers are seldom able to keep up or get access to the academic research work that is most often published in academic journals. It is easier for them to get access to publications related to business and other magazine-type material, which provides a diverse range of views and opinions, but not much hard evidence. Researchers acknowledge that, over the recent

decade, with technological developments and increasing levels of policy complexity, policy makers have become even more time-constrained, reducing their ability to keep up with literature. Policy makers can misinterpret technical information, such as statistical evidence, even where they do have access to research-intense publications. This emerged as one avenue where researchers could do more and fill the gap for policy makers. This could take the form of shorter briefings or literature reviews. At present, the incentive for researchers to undertake such responsibility is absent within the system. Researchers are charged with the task of undertaking research and publishing their findings and not with ensuring the uptake of such findings within government.

In addition, new ways of thinking and innovative ideas are beginning to take shape at the Centre. One idea that emerged was to undertake and update literature reviews on the completion of research projects and re-present this to the policy makers. This is useful because the researcher works through the specific problem, understands the intricacies better and is exposed to new literature. This helps the researcher develop a much better appreciation of the literature from multiple perspectives, thus making sure that, at the conclusion of a particular project, researchers and policy makers have a clear understanding of the scope of research that was undertaken. This subsequently helps develop better understanding among policy makers about the strengths and limitations of research.

Public Discourse and Awareness

The issue of research influencing policy emerged as a strong theme from the interviews. Not all researchers saw their role as being critical or influential in the policy process. Some identified their role as influencing public debate on specific issues. As one

interviewee commented, the absence of a government policy can be considered a policy in itself (e.g., a government’s decision not to place major constraints on smoking or the consumption of alcohol because these are seen as involving individual choice). But it is not the same for research. Stakeholders from business, government and other sectors expect research on policy issues to be pursued, despite the importance government may or may not place on them (e.g., smoking). Thus, it is important for researchers to continue their efforts to influence public debate by bringing research evidence to bear and influencing the wider community’s understanding of specific issues.

Moving into the future, researchers consider this an important aspect. Over time, scholars have tried to establish a nexus between research and policy, but very little attention has been paid to research influencing public debate and opinion. In today’s policy landscape, it is believed that public opinion occupies a very critical space, one that has the power to influence not only politics through public opinion polls, but also, from time to time, policy processes. Just as public opinion can put pressure on party politics, it can force governments to undertake certain courses of action as a response to policy problems. For instance, the introduction of a carbon pricing mechanism and minerals rent resource tax in Australia brought with it a public backlash, underpinned by well-designed advertising campaigns from big businesses, significantly slowing down the introduction and implementation of the policy. Governments cannot afford to ignore public opinion. Subsequently, research will find its way to policy makers. While this is not the focus of this research, it is important to recognise that such channels will be a crucial new mode of policy influence in the future. Acknowledging that research is only one factor that influences the policy cycle, albeit a critical one, one interviewee commented on the experience of the US, where some of the world’s best research in

social policy is undertaken, but some of the poorest policy alternatives have been put into action.

Citing and Public Statements

Researchers expressed concern about having a limited understanding of the policy process, not because they did not have an interest in having such an understanding, but because of the lack of transparency on the government’s part. As one interviewee commented,

It is difficult to know how exactly a piece of research is used towards informing policy. As researchers we don’t have a full picture of the policy agenda because this is often discussed within government departments... we don’t know how influential a piece of work is unless there’s a public statement about it. There are always trade-offs between policy and other factors in policy making. We don’t have any indication of what these trade- offs may be.

Thus, good research does not necessarily lead to good policy outcomes in all instances, even when research finds its way to policy makers. As this study shows, there are various factors, such as lobbying, political ideology, etc., that are not research related, but still have an impact on the political process of policy making.

The research also identified evidence to suggest that, in many instances, researchers have avoided incorporating policy level recommendations into reports to government. The inclusion of recommendations in a report to government means that a government response is almost required. Some researchers refrain from making any policy recommendation on programs or policy changes in order to avoid political complexities, hence remaining non-partisan. In a way, this has reduced the ability of researchers to influence policy directly. This suggests that there may be a need for an intermediary or

an entity which could independently offer up such policy level recommendations based on research evidence, to help ensure that research becomes more effective in informing policy makers.

Forums to Present Research

The research has found that there is a need to construct forums that allow researchers to present research findings and interact with policy makers, creating an ongoing dialogue. The value of such interactions was evident in one instance when, on the issue of young carers, some of the Centre’s researchers were invited to speak to a large number of state government policy makers, including the Minister. This allowed researchers to create formal and informal networks with policy makers, through which further interaction and engagement was able to take place. Through such representation and network membership, knowledge is shared, information is exchanged, experience is leveraged and trust and rapport is established, all leading to the strengthening of the network, which helps create an environment for robust deliberation on the policy issues. Subsequently, a better understanding of the constraints that exist on the policy makers and researchers is also achieved.

Interactions with Policy Makers (Meetings, Committee Representation)

The research also examined how the researchers at the Centre have been working on government-appointed committees on specific policy matters, so having an influence on policy development. This can be considered a direct avenue for policy influence. This level of involvement and engagement has taken place at both the national and the international level. In one instance, the Centre responded to an international inquiry on the issue of pensions and provided advice to an international fact-finding committee on

their visit to the Centre. The final committee report explicitly referenced some of this activity and the advice provided by the Centre. This clearly indicates a level of policy influence.

Using Mediators in a Research−Policy Relationship

While the Centre has utilised multiple avenues and channels to inform policy makers and become part of the policy process, it is evident that the divide between research and policy still exists. Given this divide, the interviews explored whether the Centre considered there was any value in having a mediating or an integrating entity, such as a think tank, that could facilitate the creation of a tripartite network, bringing together researchers and policy makers. Where a strong relationship between researchers and policy makers exists, the value such an entity could offer would be minimal. There was broad consensus on this general statement. Nevertheless, in situations where resources (human, physical and funding) are constrained, could think tanks organise resources and improve the structure to boost research−policy engagements? Can think tanks take on a new role as an integrator, bringing in relevant non-state actors such as the community or businesses to deliberate over policy issues? Of course, for such tripartite or multipartite network relationships to be successful, individuals who work within integrating entities like think tanks would have to be strong negotiators, relationship managers and enthusiastic communicators, underpinned by a strong ethic of collaboration. The creation of an effective research−policy network within a policy context can only occur where collaborative relations between government and researchers exist.

Institutions such as non-governmental organisations have begun to increase their activities in the field of knowledge and research transfer. Although their interests may

be biased, they use research outputs to influence policy changes through the political process. While being keen to assist external organisations in understanding research and its findings, the Centre is clear about maintaining its objective position and hence remaining a non-partisan participant in the political process. As Katz (2011) suggested in his interview:

The role of the Centre and the researcher is to put information in the public domain which can further policy. The researcher cannot function as a lobbyist to influence policy makers to do certain things… researchers have to maintain integrity… The researcher’s responsibility is to see that research is not misused. I would get involved in the political process in so far as making a public comment (that is backed by research) if policy being developed is not evidence-based.

The Centre’s view on the viability of a mediating entity is mixed, as a number of issues remain unclear. Who would fund such an entity? On whose behalf would such an entity act―on that of government or of researchers? Some respondents suggested that there was definite value and a space for such entities to operate, but in order to influence policy significantly, such an entity would need to be situated closer to government and work more closely with policy makers than with academia. One interesting view put forward related to the lifespan of such entities; it was suggested that, if the entities functioned independently, and if they were to be funded by government, they would tend to last for very brief periods. This is because, if organisations operate at arm’s length from government, enjoying independence, governments over time realise that the independence is at a cost to them. This would consequently raise questions for government about the ‘return on investment,’ which might result in a withdrawal of support.

There was consensus from the Centre indicating that any mediating entity should not be positioned solely as a broker or just a linkage mechanism of the research−policy

relationship, as this would only add another layer of complexity between researchers and policy makers. The role of such an entity would have to be to facilitate closer network interactions. At the same time, in working with researchers, these entities would be responsible for undertaking translational research activities for policy purposes. For example, extensive literature reviews could be undertaken to help inform public policy issues. One aspect also suggested concerning mediating entities was that if they were to mediate a research policy network relationship effectively, they would have to be able to regularly bring together a cross-section of government, industry and community stakeholders, along with researchers, to deliberate over policy issues. Such an approach needs to incorporate a long-term focus that looks forward, rather than being caught up by questions of the here and now of policy and program constraints.

Thus,, the view on mediating or brokering institutions in clear. Research can inform policy through mediating entities which:

i) facilitate closer interactions between government policy and researchers; ii) undertake translational research for the government and policy translation for researchers to better inform both stakeholders;

iii) appropriately interpret research findings to address political contexts and the self-interest of interest groups, such as non-governmental organisation; and iv) bring together a wider cohort of stakeholders.