![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/business-school\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/620\/2018\/10\/Policymaking-graphic-1-1024x576.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
There\u2019s widespread and sustained interest in the role of evidence in policymaking. But because policymaking is inherently messy and complex, there\u2019s no catch-all way of making sure evidence gets used. In this context, \u201cknowledge brokers\u201d are increasingly being recognised as a potential way to improve evidence-informed policymaking.<\/p>\n
Knowledge brokers are individuals or organisations that bridge the gap between academic research and policymaking. They work to make sure that useful evidence arrives with the right people, in an appropriate format, at an opportune moment.<\/p>\n
\u201cSuccessful knowledge brokerage is based on building trusting relationships. This requires an intimate knowledge of both academia and policymaking, including their respective values, norms, and incentives.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There\u2019s a limited evidence base about knowledge brokers, but preliminary findings suggest that they do have the potential to improve the uptake of evidence.<\/p>\n
How does knowledge brokerage work in practice?<\/h3>\n
For the last six months, I\u2019ve been working as a Research Assistant at the Wales Centre for Public Policy, an independent research centre based at Cardiff University.<\/p>\n
The Centre opened in October 2017, building and expanding upon the work of its predecessor, the\u00a0Public Policy Institute for Wales<\/a><\/u>, and is a member of the UK-wide network of\u00a0What Works Centres<\/a><\/u>.<\/p>\n
We work closely with Welsh Government Ministers and public service leaders to help them identify their evidence needs and then facilitate the provision of evidence. In practice, this means guiding a series of projects, each relating to different policy or public service topics, from the initial ideas stage to delivering a final product.<\/p>\n
To take the example of the Welsh Government side of our work, projects usually begin by meeting up with Ministers, their special advisors and\/or policy officials (under the auspices of the Cabinet Office) to discuss potential areas of work.<\/p>\n
When we have agreed the kind of evidence they would find useful, we conduct a short review into what\u2019s already known about the topic. From here we can decide whether to do the research in-house, or to commission it out to an external expert. If we\u2019re outsourcing the project, we identify the most appropriate experts and liaise with them to see if they would be interested in working with us.<\/p>\n
Each project is different, but our work often involves facilitating and managing relationships between the experts and the Welsh Government, as well as ensuring effective communication so that the final product meets expectations.<\/p>\n
The form that the evidence produced takes depends on the specifics of each project. It may be a report (for example, see\u00a0here<\/a><\/u>), an\u00a0event<\/a><\/u>,\u00a0workshop<\/a><\/u>, or simply a series of structured conversations between the expert and the Welsh Government.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this way, we navigate the space between academic researchers and policymakers, who have long been thought of as separate communities.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Nathan Caplan\u2019s\u00a0\u201cTwo-Communities\u201d theory<\/a><\/u>\u00a0is still a useful tool for thinking about how to bridge the gap between academic research and policymaking. He suggests that the research and policymaking worlds operate according to such different value systems and timescales that it is as though they were speaking different languages.<\/p>\n
Policymakers face political pressures and public scrutiny, and are looking for timely, practical input into policy matters, whereas academics are more interested in longer-term, theory-driven research and are under pressure to publish in academic journals. Caplan pointed to the need for intermediaries who are sympathetic towards both cultures and can mediate to best effect.<\/p>\n
Why is it important?<\/h3>\n
Our work at the Centre puts into practice some of the latest research on encouraging evidence use in policymaking.<\/p>\n
A\u00a0recent study<\/a><\/u>\u00a0from the Alliance for Useful Evidence looked at what can be done to put policymakers in a position where they are both able and motivated to make use of evidence, and identified six \u201cmechanisms\u201d to improve evidence uptake. Our approach focuses on four of these: fostering mutual understanding of evidence needs and policy questions, facilitating communication and access to evidence, facilitating interaction between decision-makers and researchers, and building the skillset required to engage with research.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the way we operate is informed by a wide range of academic literature on policymaking. For example, we\u2019re currently exploring alternative approaches to presenting evidence.<\/p>\n
Research suggests that policy-makers often respond to narratives and case studies which show how policies affect individuals\u2019 every-day lives. Advocates of this line of thinking\u00a0claim<\/a><\/u>\u00a0that evidence presented in this way is far more likely to be used. The problem with this approach is that it has implications for the need for academic neutrality and we don\u2019t want to risk compromising the Centre\u2019s impartial status.<\/p>\n
\u201cKnowledge brokerage is a work in progress, but research\u00a0suggests<\/a><\/u>\u00a0that it\u2019s important that the early trial and error approach to facilitating the use of evidence in policymaking doesn\u2019t turn into an unsuitable longer-term strategy.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
For this reason, we\u2019re refining our \u2018theory of change\u2019, i.e. what we want to make happen, how we\u2019re going to do it, and how we\u2019re going to measure whether it\u2019s been done. Further down the line this will allow us to assess whether we have been effective, and what approaches have worked better or worse than others.<\/p>\n
We know that our model works in our context and have a lot of examples from our work with the Welsh Government to support this. But the challenge is to systematise ways of working and collect clear examples of where and why we have been able to have \u2018real-world\u2019 impact.<\/p>\n