Whose side are we on and for whom do we write? Notes on issues and challenges facing those researching and evaluating public policy

Abstract

2015) 'Whose side are we on and for whom do we write? Notes on issues and challenges facing those researching and evaluating public policy.', Evidence policy : a journal of research, debate and practice., 11 (2). pp. 225-237. Further information on publisher's website: Author's post-print not to be cited. Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractHoward Becker (1967) posed the question "Whose side are we on?", a question which has become an enduring part of discussions within social scientific methodology. This paper explores the key issues in Becker's argument and considers its relevance to researchers today, locating this within a consideration of evaluation based research and policy. Many of the issues Becker discusses remain relevant, yet what has changed radically is the context within which academics operate. In an era where academics and their research are becoming increasingly commodified, this paper contends that the question of who the academic serves and writes for is increasingly important.

We Need to Talk about Impact: Why Social Policy Academics need to Engage with the UK's Research Impact Agenda

“…Yet, if research results suggest that current policy approaches are significantly flawed, researchers may find it extremely difficult to maintain strong relationships with potential policy users whilst clearly articulating what they believe to be the implications of their research for policy. In other words, as around a third of the academic interviewees suggested, close relationships to policymakers may compromise (rather than aid) researchers' ability to independently assess and critically analyse policy: The interview data also suggests that academics who wanted to remain research active did not, in the context of the 'impact agenda', feel able to work entirely independently of policymakers (see Warren and Garthwaite, 2015). Instead, the most common response to this dilemma was for interviewees to describe making their policy recommendations deliberately vague with the purpose of ensuring they were not perceived to be being too critical of policy audiences.…”

Concepts and practices for the democratisation of knowledge generation in research partnerships for sustainable development

“…In such systems, '… reflection moves from issues of philosophic grounding to social utility' (Gergen, 2015, 4). By contrast, in collaborative processes or action research, evidence is reconceptualised as it acquires meaning in the communicative process and is constantly applied and reassessed in varying contexts (Kemp et al, 2007;Spruijt et al, 2014;Warren and Garthwaite, 2015). As Higgins and colleagues (2014, 492) put it: 'The reality… is that all evidence will be somehow partial, provisional and contingent and thus needs to be used as part of an ongoing process of evaluation, learning, adaption and adoption'.…”

“…In other words, we have to clarify the normative position we hold as knowledge producers, as it also defines what knowledge we produce, how we produce it, and to whom we are accountable (Biermann and Gupta, 2011;Waas et al, 2011;Wiesmann et al, 2011a). In fact, such clarification is becoming even more crucial in view of the increasing commodification of research and the growing pressure for academics to prove their efficiency, impact, and societal relevance (Warren and Garthwaite, 2015;Stewart, 2015). Clarifying our normative position will help identify new roles for scientists in organising the science-policy interface and enhancing evidence-informed decision making for a sustainability transformation (van den Hove, 2007;Jäger, 2009;Naustdalslid, 2011;WBGU, 2012;Gergen, 2015;Spruijt et al, 2014).…”

Enabling Transformative Research: Lessons from the Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1999–2015)

“…Not only natural resources but also social capital and knowledge must be distributed equally [23,[44][45][46]. This requires us to rethink our understanding of knowledge and expertise, and to revise our traditional role and (self-)conception as researchers [47][48][49]. Normative, democratic and procedural principles are at the core of transdisciplinary practice, in which scholars attempt to link science and civil society in joint reflexive or learning processes [17,18,26,38,40].…”

“…But this paradigm causes misunderstandings, resistance, and conflicts because actors in science, governmental and non-governmental institutions, business, and communities relate to different systems of reference. The concept of science-society interaction remains vague; criteria and measures of evidence and success depend on the different actors' negotiation power; and power disparities increase the commodification and economic evaluation of research [49]. By contrast, an innovation paradigm that takes sustainable development as its overarching emancipatory frame of reference-as applied in ESAPP-opens ways out of the confusion that characterizes the post-Brundtland world.…”