Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

Abstract

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) employs over 2000 scientists and seeks to maximise the value and impact of research in the EU policy process. To that end, its Knowledge management for policy (KMP) initiative synthesised the insights of a large amount of interdisciplinary work on the 'evidence-policy interface' to promote a new skills and training agenda. It developed this training initially for Commission staff, but many of its insights are relevant to organisations which try to combine research, policymaking, management, and communication skills to improve the value and use of research in policy. We recommend that such organisations should develop teams of researchers, policymakers, and 'knowledge brokers' to produce eight key practices: (1) research synthesis, to generate 'state of the art' knowledge on a policy problem; (2) management of expert communities, to maximise collaboration; (3) understanding policymaking, to know when and how to present evidence; (4) interpersonal skills, to focus on relationships and interaction; (5) engagement, to include citizens and stakeholders; (6) effective communication of knowledge; (7) monitoring and evaluation, to identify the impact of evidence on policy; and (8) policy advice, to know how to present knowledge effectively and ethically. No one possesses all skills relevant to all these practices. Rather, we recommend that organisations at the evidence-policy interface produce teams of people with different backgrounds, perspectives, and complementary skills.

The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics

“…Researchers are advised to conduct high-quality, robust research (Boyd, 2013;Whitty, 2015;Docquier, 2017;Eisenstein, 2017) and provide it in a way that is timely, policy relevant, and easy to understand, but not at the expense of accuracy (Havens, 1992;Norse, 2005;Simera et al, 2010;Bilotta et al, 2015;Kerr et al, 2015;Olander et al 2017;POST, 2017). Specific research methods, metrics and/or models should be used (Aguinis et al 2010), with systematic reviews/ evidence synthesis considered particularly useful for policymakers (Lavis et al, 2003;Sutherland, 2013;Caird et al, 2015;Andermann et al, 2016;Donnelly et al, 2018;Topp et al, 2018), and often also randomised controlled trials, properly piloted and evaluated (Walley et al, 2018). Truly interdisciplinary research is required to identify new perspectives (Chapman et al, 2015;Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017) and explore the "practical significance" of research for policy and practice (Aguinis et al 2010).…”

“…Be 'policy-relevant' (NCCPE, 2018;Maddox, 1996;Green et al, 2009;Farmer, 2010;Kerr et al, 2015;Colglazier, 2016;Tesar et al, 2016;Echt, 2017b;Fleming and Pyenson, 2017;Olander et al, 2017; POST, 2017) (although this is rarely defined). Two exceptions include the advice for research programmes to be embedded within national and regional governmental programmes (Walley et al, 2018) and for researchers to provide policymakers with models estimating the harms and benefits of different policy options (Basbøll, 2018) (Topp et al, 2018).…”

“…Therefore, build routine engagement on authentic relationships, developing a genuine rapport by listening and responding (Goodwin, 2013;Jo Clift Consulting, 2016;Petes and Meyer, 2018). Some suggest developing leadership and communication skills, but with reference to listening and learning (Petes and Meyer, 2018;Topp et al, 2018); Adopting a respectful, helpful, and humble demeanour, recognising that while academics are authorities on the evidence, we may not be the appropriate people to describe or design policy options (Nichols, 1972;Knottnerus and Tugwell, 2017) (although many disagree (Morgan et al, 2001;Morandi, 2009)). Behave courteously by acting professionally (asking for feedback; responding promptly; following up meetings and conversations swiftly) (NCCPE, 2018;Goodwin, 2013;Jo Clift Consulting, 2016).…”

“…It is hard to know what our impact may be or how to sustain it (Reed and Evely, 2016). Therefore, academics who wish to engage must learn and reflect on the consequences of their actions (Datta, 2018;Topp et al, 2018).…”

Creating and communicating social research for policymakers in government

“…Hence, the construct relies on identifying gaps between policy and academia and assumes that the two communities have a 'lack of fit' (Wehrens, 2014). Furthermore, Topp et al (2018) suggests that the problems identified in the 'lack of fit' between the two communities exist even when the two communities belong to the same organisation and are located in the same building.…”