IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v5y2019i1d10.1057_s41599-019-0310-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creating and communicating social research for policymakers in government

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica H. Phoenix

    (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs)

  • Lucy G. Atkinson

    (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs)

  • Hannah Baker

    (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs)

Abstract

Many academics ask ‘How can I use my research to influence policy?’. In this paper, we draw on our first-hand experience as social researchers for the British Government to advise how academics can create and communicate research with policymakers. Specifically, we describe methods of communicating research to policymakers in relation to research we undertook to listen to farmers about their priorities for a new agricultural policy for England following the exit of the UK from the European Union. The main purpose of this research was to ensure farmers’ voices were included in policy development and therefore communication of the research to policymakers was key. We reflect on the effectiveness of the communication methods we employed and summarise our learnings into four practical recommendations: (1) make research relevant to policymakers; (2) invest time to develop and maintain relationships with policymakers; (3) utilise ‘windows of opportunity’; and (4) adapt presentation and communication styles to the audience. We consider that employing these recommendations will help to improve how evidence is communicated between academia and government and therefore the influence of evidence in decision-making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica H. Phoenix & Lucy G. Atkinson & Hannah Baker, 2019. "Creating and communicating social research for policymakers in government," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0310-1
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-019-0310-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-019-0310-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-019-0310-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua Newman & Brian Head, 2015. "Beyond the two communities: a reply to Mead’s “why government often ignores research”," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 383-393, September.
    2. Lene Topp & David Mair & Laura Smillie & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Antje Witting, 2017. "Insights from ‘policy learning’ on how to enhance the use of evidence by policymakers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Ian Sanderson, 2009. "Intelligent Policy Making for a Complex World: Pragmatism, Evidence and Learning," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57, pages 699-719, December.
    5. Adam CG Cooper, 2016. "Exploring the scope of science advice: social sciences in the UK government," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Ruth Mayne & Duncan Green & Irene Guijt & Martin Walsh & Richard English & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Lene Topp & David Mair & Laura Smillie & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Correction: Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-1, December.
    8. Paul Cairney & Richard Kwiatkowski, 2017. "How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-8, December.
    9. Megan C Evans & Christopher Cvitanovic, 2018. "An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Michael Jones & Deserai Crow, 2017. "How can we use the ‘science of stories’ to produce persuasive scientific stories?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Ian Sanderson, 2009. "Intelligent Policy Making for a Complex World: Pragmatism, Evidence and Learning," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(4), pages 699-719, December.
    12. Kathryn Oliver & Paul Cairney, 2019. "The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Steve Connelly & Dave Vanderhoven & Robert Rutherfoord & Liz Richardson & Peter Matthews, 2021. "Translating research for policy: the importance of equivalence, function, and loyalty," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Carol Morris & Beth F. T. Brockett & Sara Selwood & Victoria Carr & Jilly Hall & Joelene Hughes & Bianca Ambrose-Oji, 2024. "Mainstreaming social sciences expertise in UK environment policy and practice organisations: retrospect and prospect," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kathryn Oliver & Paul Cairney, 2019. "The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Ruth Mayne & Duncan Green & Irene Guijt & Martin Walsh & Richard English & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. O’Connor John, 2022. "Strengthening the science–policy interface in Ireland," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 70(4), pages 29-52, December.
    4. Temilade Sesan & Willie Siyanbola, 2021. "“These are the realities”: insights from facilitating researcher-policymaker engagement in Nigeria’s household energy sector," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Crabolu, Gloria & Font, Xavier & Eker, Sibel, 2023. "Evaluating policy complexity with Causal Loop Diagrams," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    6. Bruen, Carlos & Brugha, Ruairi, 2020. "“We’re not there to protect ourselves, we’re there to talk about workforce planning”: A qualitative study of policy dialogues as a mechanism to inform medical workforce planning," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(7), pages 736-742.
    7. Ansell, Christopher K. & Bartenberger, Martin, 2016. "Varieties of experimentalism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 64-73.
    8. Antonopoulou, Vivi & chadwick, paul & McGee, O & Sniehotta, Falko & Lorencatto, Fabiana & Meyer, Carly & O'Donnell, Amy & Lecouturier, Jan & Kelly, Michael P & Michie, Susan, 2021. "Research Engagement with Policy Makers: a practical guide to writing policy briefs," OSF Preprints m25qp, Center for Open Science.
    9. Claire A Dunlop, 2014. "The Possible Experts: How Epistemic Communities Negotiate Barriers to Knowledge Use in Ecosystems Services Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 208-228, April.
    10. Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi & Shona Hilton & Chris Bonell & Lyndal Bond, 2014. "Understanding the Development of Minimum Unit Pricing of Alcohol in Scotland: A Qualitative Study of the Policy Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10, March.
    11. Walton, Mat, 2014. "Applying complexity theory: A review to inform evaluation design," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 119-126.
    12. Greenhalgh, Trisha & Engebretsen, Eivind, 2022. "The science-policy relationship in times of crisis: An urgent call for a pragmatist turn," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    13. Stucki, Iris, 2018. "Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 148-156.
    14. Deas, L. & Mattu, L. & Gnich, W., 2013. "Intelligent policy making? Key actors' perspectives on the development and implementation of an early years' initiative in Scotland's public health arena," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 1-8.
    15. Peter D. Gluckman & Anne Bardsley & Matthias Kaiser, 2021. "Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Pierre-Olivier Bédard, 2015. "The Mobilization of Scientific Evidence by Public Policy Analysts," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    17. Gates, Emily F., 2016. "Making sense of the emerging conversation in evaluation about systems thinking and complexity science," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 62-73.
    18. Saba Hinrichs-Krapels & Jocelyn Bailey & Harriet Boulding & Bobby Duffy & Rachel Hesketh & Emma Kinloch & Alexandra Pollitt & Sarah Rawlings & Armida Rij & Benedict Wilkinson & Ross Pow & Jonathan Gra, 2020. "Using Policy Labs as a process to bring evidence closer to public policymaking: a guide to one approach," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    19. Nguyen, Sun V. & Langston, Nancy & Wellstead, Adam & Howlett, Michael, 2020. "Mining the evidence: Public comments and evidence-based policymaking in the controversial Minnesota PolyMet mining project," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    20. William Ascher, 2021. "Coping with intelligence deficits in poverty-alleviation policies in low-income countries," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 345-370, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0310-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.