Rethinking policy ‘impact’: four models of research-policy relations

Abstract

Political scientists are increasingly exhorted to ensure their research has policy 'impact', most notably via Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies, and 'pathways to impact' statements in UK Research Council funding applications. Yet the assumptions underpinning these frameworks often fail to reflect available evidence and theories. Notions of 'impact', 'engagement' and 'knowledge exchange' are typically premised on simplistic, linear models of the policy process, according to which policy-makers are keen to 'utilise' expertise to produce more 'effective' policies. Such accounts overlook the rich body of literature in political science, policy studies, and sociology of knowledge, which offer more complex and nuanced accounts. Drawing on this wider literature, this paper sets out four different approaches to theorising the relationship: (1) knowledge shapes policy; (2) politics shapes knowledge; (3) co-production; and (4) autonomous spheres. We consider what each of these four approaches suggests about approaches to incentivising and measuring research impact.

An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers

“…Achieving policy 'impact' is a difficult, long-term, often thankless endeavour; but one which offers both personal and professional rewards. Society increasingly demands that scientists demonstrate the positive impacts from their work, and the university sector is beginning to respond (Boswell and Smith, 2017;Sivertsen, 2017). It is, however, likely that scientists will need to balance the conflicting pressures of demonstrating impact and 'publish or perish' for the foreseeable future (Keeler et al, 2017;Tyler, 2017;Wittemyer et al, 2018).…”

“…Rather, our ability to successfully navigate contemporary issues and steer society towards a positive future is dependent on the ways in which scientific knowledge is applied in policy and practice (Cairney, 2016;Caplan, 1979;Evans et al, 2017;Shonkoff, 2000;Sutherland et al, 2004;Weiss, 1979). As a result scientists have come under greater societal and political pressure to more actively engage with decision-makers to facilitate knowledge exchange and the uptake of scientific knowledge into decision-making processes (Boswell and Smith, 2017;Lubchenco, 1998;Sivertsen, 2017;Stein, 2018). At the same time scientists are increasingly required to demonstrate the tangible and real-world impacts 1 arising from their research (Boswell and Smith, 2017;Sivertsen, 2017;Smith and Stewart, 2017;Stein, 2018).…”

“…As a result scientists have come under greater societal and political pressure to more actively engage with decision-makers to facilitate knowledge exchange and the uptake of scientific knowledge into decision-making processes (Boswell and Smith, 2017;Lubchenco, 1998;Sivertsen, 2017;Stein, 2018). At the same time scientists are increasingly required to demonstrate the tangible and real-world impacts 1 arising from their research (Boswell and Smith, 2017;Sivertsen, 2017;Smith and Stewart, 2017;Stein, 2018). …”

“…Indeed, some scholars may feel pressured to 'game' institutionalised impact frameworks (Murphy, 2017;Sivertsen, 2017;Smith and Stewart, 2017), or that current definitions and metrics of "impact" may not necessarily reflect the full scope of benefits derived from research (Stein, 2018). An in-depth exploration of these issues is outside of the scope of this article, but can be found elsewhere (Boswell and Smith, 2017;Marcella et al, 2017;Sivertsen, 2017;Smith and Stewart, 2017;Stein, 2018) Our intention for this manuscript is to offer practical guidance specifically for ECRs who are interested in engaging with policy and practice to achieve "impact". Existing literature has provided advice for ECRs on communication (Christian, 2018;Kuehne et al, 2014), stakeholder engagement (Duchelle et al, 2009), and diverse opportunities to engage with policy both inside and outside of academia (Bednarek et al, 2018;Petes and Meyer, 2018;Pietri et al, 2013).…”

“…Thus, in writing this manuscript it is first instructive to define policy and associated key terms, namely politics and management, to help ECRs understand the nuances between them, and where they are most likely to achieve impact. For further information and context, we point the reader to key texts (Cairney, 2012;Dovers and Hussey, 2013;Howlett et al, 2009), papers (Boswell and Smith, 2017;Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017;Weible et al, 2012) and online resources (e.g., https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/) Policy, politics and management. A policy can generally be thought of as a statement of intent made by a government body, often with the involvement of non-government individuals and organisations (collectively referred to as policy actors), that describes a problem and broadly outlines how the problem will be addressed (Dovers and Hussey, 2013;Howlett et al, 2009).…”