It has long been recognized that research information does not always translate directly into policy (Gluckman, et al., 2021). Linking research and policy making is an essential step in ensuring effective, evidence-informed policy outcomes. One of the ways this can be achieved is by encouraging stakeholders who are involved in the process of knowledge generation to help foster connections that span the research-policy interface. Universities are well-positioned to play this role but are often hampered by an expectation to maintain neutrality in political debates. Universities can continue to improve their role at the research-policy interface by participating in community advocacy and building relationships with decision-makers. Scientists can also help to bridge the gap between research and policy making by engaging diverse stakeholders in research mobilization and advocacy. Everyday citizens can also be encouraged to participate in addressing the gap by interacting with and translating science in their activities. In operating at the interface of research and policy, all of these actors have come to be known as “knowledge brokers.” Typically, to effectively bridge the gap between research and policy knowledge brokers adopt multiple approaches to participation and relationship building, to ensure decision-makers can access, understand, and apply information that results in impactful outcomes.
Reframing the Relationship between Academia and Policy Making
The scientific method is guided by the principle of objectivity. Researchers are supposed to remain unbiased in their work, to not intentionally or unintentionally embed their own biases into their conclusions. For this reason, academia often places value on remaining separate from how research is utilized, especially when it comes to engaging with advocacy and activism. In abdicating responsibility for how research is utilized, the current academic model assumes that when institutions generate information, elected leaders will use that information to make wise decisions that promote the public good (Gardner et al., 2021). This assumption, and the academic culture that results from it, reinforces a hypercompetitive academic environment where hiring and promotions are based on high-impact publications in research contexts and little merit is given to other forms of impact like political change (Gardner et al., 2021). In fact, to maintain the image of scientific credibility through objectivity and neutrality, many academics are required to engage with advocacy and activism only as private citizens in their personal lives (Gardner et al., 2021). These self-imposed limits on how academics should or could contribute towards the public good keep academic institutions isolated from forming relationships with those working towards creating change. A reframing of how universities could contribute to society beyond research production provides the power to create an academic culture that encourages advocacy in work models, provides training about strategies for making change, encourages connections with policymakers, and reduces the stigma associated with advocacy practices (Gardner et al., 2021). While neutrality and objectivity are noble pursuits, engaging in bridge building with policy makers does not necessarily threaten those scientific values. In fact, in evidence-based policy making there are few better to help with knowledge translation and problem-solving than those most familiar with and passionate about the intricacies of the issues that policy aims to address.
Diversifying Science Mobilization to Encourage Policy Making
Another essential element in connecting research and policy is encouragement of scientists to participate effectively in science advocacy and mobilization. Advocacy for use of science in policy making is incredibly important, because this action can ensure policies are backed by scientific evidence before they are implemented. Scientists can take various steps to address the research-to-policy gap, such as participating as advisors to governments, writing opinion pieces published in public media sources, or becoming guest advisors (Tormos-Aponte et al., 2023). These activities are known as science mobilization.
While these steps may be efficient strategies to mobilize the scientific community to action, scientists must also diversify their advocacy practices by including marginalized communities, which may not have been acknowledged previously. When scientists diversify their advocacy and knowledge mobilization work, new connections develop that have rarely been achieved and the outcome can increase the size and structure of these activities for the better (Tormos-Aponte et al., 2023).
This diversification can best be achieved when scientists acknowledge the past harms that some in the scientific community have imposed on particular groups and ensure their future methods of scientific data collection will not negatively impact these groups (Tormos-Aponte et al., 2023). Other strategies to diversify science mobilization include building coalitions with communities, which need to be accomplished early in relationships to ensure that the views of both scientists and communities are equally representative (Tormos-Aponte et al., 2023). Another key strategy to diversify science mobilization is to designate leaders, particularly young adults, such as, Greta Thunberg, who may best fit the role (Tormos-Aponte et al., 2023). These individuals can help present scientific information in a manner accessible to broad audiences, which for some scientists is difficult to achieve (Tormos-Aponte et al., 2023). An additional strategy is ensuring transparency of data among scientists and collaborating communities. Historically, some scientists have not disclosed or have not been transparent about where data were collected or used. Thus, ensuring data justice is important in new research mobilization movements and partnerships (Tormos-Aponte et al., 2023).
The Who and How of Science to Policy Communication
While it is often assumed that the communication of science to policy makers is exclusively reserved for scientists and research institutions, as noted above, everyday citizens can also be important mediators between science and policy communities. Knowledge brokerage encompasses who, what, and how knowledge transfer occurs in science-policy interfaces. Who refers to the types of knowledge brokers, and how they function between knowledge producers and policy developers. A science to policy broker is a person who can translate science and policy interchangeably. These individuals or groups act as intermediaries and thus bridge the gap between those who generate knowledge and those who use it. In short, they are individuals who assist in informing, but not the creation of policy (Gluckman et al., 2021).
Five types of science-to-policy brokers can be found in the knowledge brokerage space. The first three can be framed as non-brokers due to their lack of personal engagement, or self-interest; these are known as science-arbiters, non-engagers, or stealth advocates. The remaining two are true knowledge brokers, namely, the issues advocate and honest broker. Issues advocates operate within their own field of expertise, and very rarely venture outside of it. They only provide evidence syntheses of topics within their field of expertise. Thus, other fields or niches may need to be filled by other knowledge brokers. Honest brokers operate within an unbiased framework. They take steps to not politicize knowledge, often identifying multiple options for the decision makers to choose from (Gluckman et al., 2021).
To be an effective knowledge broker, individuals must align themselves neutrally between the questions posed and answers presented. Some of the questions they must answer include: what is the demand for the issue? What evidence is needed to inform the answer? Is the evidence of good quality? Does everyone agree? And, do you (the knowledge broker) comprehend the knowledge you are synthesizing and presenting? These questions, and more, are key to effective and accurate science to policy brokerage (Gluckman et al., 2021) Anyone could be a knowledge broker, but by using these questions as a guide in the science-policy communication interface, an effective knowledge broker is made.
Concluding Thoughts
Many different forms of knowledge mobilization can help bridge the gap between research and policy, whether through academic researchers, other scientists, or everyday citizens. Academic institutions can build relationships with policy making communities by reconceptualizing their role in the research policy interface, to encourage more active engagement by academic staff to present their work to deal with real world issues. Scientists can also help bridge the gap by broadening their diversity in scientific advocacy and mobilization. The latter can be accomplished through fostering coalition building, trust, leadership, and transparency between research and policy communities. Further, everyday citizens can also help bridge the gap between research and policy by participating as active knowledge brokers. The outcomes will inspire stronger connections between knowledge generators and decision makers, to enable policy creation that is informed by relevant and credible scientific and community-led evidence.
References
Gardner, C. J., Thierry, A., Rowlandson, W., & Steinberger, J. K. (2021). From publications to public actions: The role of universities in facilitating academic advocacy and activism in the climate and ecological emergency. Frontiers in Sustainability, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2021.679019
Gluckman, P. D., Bardsley, A., & Kaiser, M. (2021). Brokerage at the science-policy interface: From conceptual framework to practical guidance. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00756-3
Tormos-Aponte, F., Brown, P., Dosemagen, S., Fisher, D. R., Frickel, S., MacKendrick, N., Meyer, D. S., & Parker, J. N. (2023). Pathways for diversifying and enhancing science advocacy. Science Advances, 9(20), eabq4899. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abq4899
Authors: Brenna Backman, Ian Logan, and Emma Sewell
This blog post is part of a series of posts authored by students in the graduate course “Information in Public Policy and Decision Making” offered at Dalhousie University.
Tags: Information Use & Influence; Science-Policy Interface; Scientific Communication; Student Submission
