Can research ever get into the policy-making machine ?

Although evidence-based policy remains an acknowledged goal at European level, it rarely occurs. The policy environment is characterised by tight timeframes, engagement by stakeholders with vested interests or ideological positions, as well as, political and economic considerations by the decision-makers.

The aim of this workshop was to explore the challenges of getting research into the policy process and the role that health advocacy can play to increase the understanding and use evidence-based research.

It provided an opportunity for the exchanges of ideas, experiences and best practices on getting research into the policy-making process and highlighted the difficulty of bridging the gap between the careful language of robust science and the rhetoric of politics.

Tamsin Rose, Health Activist, facilitated the session and was accompanied by speakers Morag Mackay from the European Child Safety Alliance and Viviane Willis-Mazzichi from DG Research, European Commission.

Presentation - Morag Mackay, the European Child Safety Alliance

Presentation - Viviane Willis-Mazzichi, DG Research European Commission

Issues that were highlighted in the discussion included:
 the role of political filters in the decision making process;
 the need for awareness of when windows of opportunity to engage at the European level are open;
 the need for political will for change to take place; and
 the extent to which individual researchers may be comfortable in engaging with advocates.

The full report from the workshop is available below.

Workshop: Can research ever get into the policy making machine? Andels Hotel, Łódź, Poland

Friday 27 November 2009 13:00 – 14:30

Facilitator: Ms. Tamsin Rose, Health Advocate

Speakers: Ms. Morag Mackay, European Child Safety Alliance and Ms. Viviane Willis-Mazzichi, DG Research, European Commission

All of the participants had an opportunity to introduce themselves, their organisation and the reason why they chose to attend the workshop. A number of those present work at the interface between science and policy, seeking to build bridges between the academic world and the political environment.

Ms Tamsin Rose introduced the session by noting that the session title presumes that it is appropriate for research to get into the policy process, which is an issue that could be debated. For example, in democratic political systems, governments aim to be transparent, accountable, open and responsive to citizens. There are regular opportunities for engagement and public authorities act for the public interest in full recognition of the impacts, benefits and costs of their activities. An emphasis on evidence based policy could reduce the breadth of debate, delegating responsibility for policy choices to academics and elevating ’science’ above the voices of communities and stakeholders. There is a risk that this generates a war of evidence with competing interests presenting the science that suits their own viewpoint which can paralyse the policy-making process.

Public health is an an area where there have been some notable successes in getting research evidence into policy as well as some key failures. All participants were asked to identify for themselves:

1) An immediate issue where they would like to see research being used in policy-making

2) An example of where they had achieved a success in translating research into policy.

3) An example of where despite the evidence being provided; policy was not adopted or changed.

Presentation by Ms. Morag Mackay, European Child Safety Alliance

Morag Mackay gave a presentation entitled ‘Why isn’t more injury prevention evidence-based?’ which highlighted the following key points:

• There is an extremely large difference both within and between Member States with regards to child injuries.

• Available funds for injury prevention are scarce and they must be invested in actions that are effective. There are proven solutions and evidence of what works to reduce child injury.

• Unfortunately, advances in science do not always lead to advances in action - the divide needs to be bridged. The setting, people and context of the issue is just as important as the interventions themselves. Case studies should be developed for all interventions which address the context and background.

• Researchers should gain skills on policy development processes as part of their training and similarly policy makers should be exposed to the basic building blocks of research methodologies.

• Evidence is not necessarily useful for policy makers and research does not necessarily help a policy maker to make better decisions. Research often does not deliver information in digestible formats that are understandable for policy makers.

• There needs to be an understanding that policy making is complicated involving competing priorities and views. In trying to please everyone, messages and actions may end up being diluted.

• Those making decisions often have out of date information. The challenge is to make sure that the most up-to-date evidence is brought into the discussion.Of course, better data is always needed.

• Communication is undervalued and is critical.

She illustrated her presentation with two success stories of how research results were taken up by policy-makers - child resistant lighters and fire-safe cigarettes. In both cases, a broad coalition brought together scientists, advocates, professionals and practitioners to provide coherent messages.

Presentation by Ms. Viviane Willis-Mazzichi, DG Research, European Commission

Viviane Willis-Mazzichi gave a presentation focussed on the relationship between science, research and policy-making processes. The key points from the presentation were:

• The debate on getting research into the policy making machine can be viewed from many perspectives.

• A linear model of decision making is a familiar concept but has had to be revised and augmented due to the complexity of the European decision making process.

• Research is increasingly involved in a growing number of policy processes and controversies i.e. more complex issues, more uncertainties, more actors involved and a greater need to evaluate effects.

• The Science in Society (SiS) Work Plan began as part as FP7 in 2007. It is a rather new area concerned with, amongst other things, making knowledge more accessible and engage community groups and the public in scientific research.

• An example of the type of research being funded is a project to map controversies to identify where ideas or rumours originate and how they are disseminated, promoted or challenged. The online tool (www.macospol.com) will be available next year.

• Partnerships are crucial to co-generation of new knowledge and the value of partnerships should be a constant theme in research activities. • There is currently a call for proposals related to mobilisation and mutual learning. Partnerships will have to involve research organisations and other actors. The partners will set identify a theme and develop activities for a period of 4 years, raising questions at core of the relationship between science and society.

• The future of the European Research area is currently being discussed and this is an excellent opportunity new ideas about how the future EU research funding could facilitate closer dialogue between researchers, community organisations and policy-makers.

Debate:

Researchers often do not have the time to invest significantly in analysis of the political environment and complex interplay of stakeholders. The amount of time devoted to this depends on the size of organisation and the quality of its relationships. Sometimes organisations have specific people with responsibility to identify the potential impacts, both positive and negative. Sometimes the environment can get more ferocious when you ‘’get your foot in door’’ which is not necessarily a bad thing as it can keep one focused. You need partners to help you advocate and make sure that change happens.

The discussion explored what happens when a researcher becomes actively engaged in policy debates, there is a risk that they are no longer perceived as independent which may endanger future research funding. This acts as a barrier for many academics to more full engagement with the consultation opportunities from the European Commission and other institutions. The role of advocates therefore becomes more critical, because they can bridge the gap from the research environment to the political arena.

It is important to understand that there is a reputational risk for a researcher if they decide to be vocal on an issue. However, making change happen involves risks - particularly for policy-makers. Successful advocacy seeks to reduce this risk by providing the clear evidence for action. This is an important message for researchers. Policy-makers have to leave their comfort zone in order to take new research into account. For scientists, engaging with advocates and decision-makers may be outside of their comfort zone but they should explore investigate how far beyond their comfort zone they are willing to go in order to get their research into the political domain.

Comments from the debate

• Policy making usually has short timeframes and opportunities to influence the process. Windows of opportunity can opened and closed rapidly. Researchers need to be aware of when these windows are open/ going to open.

When an issue is being discussed in Brussels it has already entered the policy making machine. The debate often polarises around disputing evidence. In the area of public health particularly, there are various actors putting science and evidence on the table as support for their positions. In addition, political or ideological filters play a role in which science and evidence is taken into account. Decisions are not necessarily transparent, open and objective as they are often coloured and shaped by views and ideologies. It is important to ask ‘What are the values of the parties involved?’ as the filters may not be explicit.

• Policy making is often done for ‘them’ i.e. the target audience for an action. One of the biggest challenges when speaking to a policy-maker is that you may also be perceived as another ‘them’, i.e. a voice among the background noise. To be effective, researchers need to be considered as one of ‘us’, meaning the team of decision-making actors. Since researchers often come from outside the political environment, this mindset needs to be considered which can be very challenging • The European School Fruit Scheme was mentioned as an example of success. There was a large amount of evidence which was transposed into easy messages and heavily marketed to politicians. Leading experts from around world were used to communicate these key messages. Without political champions to support the work at all levels, the campaign would not have been so successful. The lesson is that political will is essential for change to happen and political will can be generated.

• One measure of success is when the policy maker ’pulls’ data from the research community rather than researchers having to actively ’push’ their results. In addition, this process usually allows researchers sufficient time to carry out a study and report on it. Health technology assessments as well as health impact assessment were acknowledged as useful entry points to the policy environment.

• The role of the next generation of researchers was highlighted. They have a responsibility to be a partner in policy-making. As advocacy groups are pushed to be more empirical in their approach and to demonstrate value and effectiveness this may reduce their openness to testing new ideas and tools. If NGOs start to engage only on issues that they feel they can ’win’ or achieve an immediate result, then this reduces the space for experimentation and trying new approaches. It is important that relationships between researchers and advocates are encouraged as a means of supporting innovative thinking and methodologies.

Workshop minutes taken by Tina Blain, European Public Health Alliance.

---

EPHA Realated articles

2nd European Public Health Conference - EPHA holds three workshops

article 3272

New Website for Research in the Field of Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities