[toc]
Design
This stage involves the development of the potential collaboration and agreement on the parameters of the collaborative project. This may include defining methods, outcomes and timeframes.
The Chief Knowledge Officers Network
This is a proposal from the 2013 workshop. Chief knowledge officers were intended to provide a means of clarifying and disseminating research engagement mandates and auditing existing capacity. Chief knowledge officers could be appointed in each department, to be responsible for managing the relationship between that department and the research community. This would involve creating networks, and assisting departmental business units with research brokering, and capability building. This was based on the idea that most departments already have research expertise, but don’t have a clear mandate for engaging with research across the entire organisation. The aim of this possible mechanism is collaboratively shaping shared agendas and mutual cultural understanding.
Knowledge Broker Hub
A knowledge brokers hub that builds on the learnings from Open Innovation UK and other university initiated public sector translation programmes, could be tested to facilitate stronger relationships between the APS and the academic sector.
A hub could pilot a series of relationship management approaches and knowledge broker functions (some discussed in this paper) to identify researchers with an APS-relevant focus and facilitate pathways to connect researchers and public servants. Knowledge brokers connect researchers and practitioners and help them better understand one another to identify shared objectives and promote knowledge exchange. A hub mechanism could provide a whole-of-service offering for the APS, enabling policy officers to identify research partners in their field. A hub could also provide a location to host researcher fellowships for academics with topics of APS significance, be a platform for APS staff conducting other relevant research, to maintain their links to the APS and establish new links for the service in new academic institutions and fields, and a base for continuing engagement with SRW Scholars throughout the duration of their PhD.
Project-focused fellowship program
This mechanism would involve a fellowship program for academics to join a department for a short term secondment and work collaboratively with a policy team on a particular policy topic. The hosting department will benefit from the fellows research capability and contribution to policy solutions. This would also benefit academics researching policy or public administration, as they gain an understanding of the practicalities of the policy development process.
Secondments
A secondment model which can go both ways is worth exploring. Researchers may work within a department or agency for a period of time, such as in the University College of London’s policy secondment scheme (Government Office for Science, 2013), or members of the public sector can be seconded into an academic environment such as in the National Security College at ANU. This could also be aligned with the PhD internships mentioned above. A key part of this mechanism would include establishing formal rules and explicitly outlining expectations – as they are shown to be less likely to be effectively utilised when left to be arranged by individuals (Sasse & Haddon, 2018). It has been shown that secondments with clear outcomes are most effective - even though the actual impact of the secondments may be more relational (O’Donoughue Jenkins & Anstey, 2017).
Training
This possible model would give APS staff access to training in how to design and manage collaborative projects. This training would align with the strong focus in the Independent Review of the APS on partnership, with academic partners, industry, states and territories and beyond. This could be aligned with existing project management training – noting that there are unique characteristics within a public sector and external partner collaborative project that would need to be explored. These include the risks highlighted in the Independent Review of the APS, such as the inclination to manage stakeholders rather than collaborate with them, and “on the APS’s own terms —often after decisions have been made” (117). These require new ways of designing partnerships, and training that goes beyond standard project management.
The University sector has invested in providing training and upskilling in how to generate impact or broker knowledge with the public sector, but also has limited training on the specifics of designing and delivering a collaborative project. This is a worthwhile avenue to explore, if only because these skills would also be useful for the design and delivery of existing grants such as the ARC Linkage project program as well as the new Industry Linkage Fellowships scheme.
Delivery
This stage represents the core of the collaboration, the delivery of the project itself. Appendix A: Further reading and research demonstrates the importance of building a strong relationship, and part of this involves both partners understanding the contextual, contingent and negotiated nature of knowledge. Moving away from a transmission model of knowledge requires us to think more about how knowledge sharing and learning can be achieved practically. This may mean sharing information more regularly in ‘bite-sized’ format or it may require building more easily searchable and usable databases. It will also mean a greater focus on building trust and communicating honestly – something which is best established during the design phase above, but will need to be regularly revisited.
Knowledge management tools
In the UK a number of departments are reported to hold databases of stakeholders and academics and some have a database of reports they have produced. As noted by the Government Office for Science (2013), “the ideal would be to have these databases not only accessible between departments, but also easy to search, although this is probably some way off… social media may have an increasing role to play here” (25). It is a behavioural challenge that more information is rarely the best way to address a lack of knowledge (Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government (BETA), 2018; Behavioural Insights Team, 2018). It is beneficial to provide access to reports and information but the biggest challenge is generally accessibility and usability. Any resource developed should be useful for either the public sector or researchers. This will be important to take into consideration with this mechanism.
Training and mentoring in communication skills
In addition to the project management and partnership training mentioned above under design, there is also value in exploring specific training in how to deliver and communicate research results in a way that allows for more effective policy learning and translation to occur. This could take the form of additional training for academic partners, or it could also be supported by ensuring additional funding is provided in projects for the purposes of producing regular blogs, short policy briefs, podcasts, and other forms of media engagement. These activities are not currently well-supported as an academic output by the University sector and the amount of labour involved is often underestimated. Producing policy-relevant content also requires a specific set of skills not always well aligned with the skills of an academic researcher. Training could be provided either by the University, the relevant government agency or through a knowledge broker.
Review
This is the stage where collaborators should evaluate or review the processes, practices and outcomes of the collaboration to see what worked, and what lessons were learned. Given the renewed focus on evaluation in the APS, it would be equally important to begin building in reflective, formative evaluation which can help us better understand what works to best support the use of research in policy.
Sharing lessons learned
Formative, process focused evaluations provide valuable lessons. Ideally, learning can be published broadly, for departments, governments and the public to learn from and to improve transparency and trust.
There are many ways this could be achieved. Some examples are provided in Appendix A: Further reading and research and summarised below:
- Critical-incident/near-miss reporting systems
- Adopting ‘whole system in the room’ debriefs
- ‘Learning from our stakeholders’ exercises
- Training evaluators across the APS in the methodology and tools of positive policy evaluation
Many examples of best practice exist but these cases are not generally shared broadly. Case studies and research on the broad processes of collaboration, learning and policy design will be an important way to support the development of better practice in future. An example is provided in the below case study which highlights some key points that we have covered in this discussion paper. Ball (2023) was invited to undertake an ethnographic study of how the Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government worked with its partners to develop policy. The book was the result of 6 months of embedded research and helped develop theories about how new ideas are translated into policy practice. This project offered a highly valuable opportunity for an academic to engage with practice.
Another possibility is using PhD internships or research secondments for this purpose.
Example Case Study: BETA
An interesting case for consideration is that of the Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government (BETA), established in 2016. BETA’s primary role is to work in partnership with government departments to design and develop projects which apply behavioural insights (BI) to public policy.
The team has a 4 step process to designing a project – discovery, diagnosis, design, and delivery (similar to the stages explored in this discussion paper). While each stage has a different focus, the process is not expected to be linear. The team acknowledge that it is important to be thinking about how to evaluate from the beginning and be open to reconsidering the problem definition during the design phase.
BETA have also used academic advisory models – both secondments and an external brokerage model. For an example see: https://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/blog/strengthening-links-academia
BETA provided specialised training in BI for the public sector. This helped to define key terms and to speak the same language when developing projects. They also occasionally partnered with academics, and had seconded PhD students, when developing projects. These two strategies allowed BETA to build stronger engagement between research and the public sector.
In the early stages of BETA’s establishment, some conflict remained between academic and public sector timelines and priorities. BETA was able to educate the public sector about BI by focusing on BI training and expertise but partnership challenges can still create friction (Ball, 2023).
Rewarding impact
Oliver et al (2022) found over 60 prizes or rewards for impact, knowledge exchange, or ‘best use of evidence’ in the UK. These are often run by journals (Evidence & Policy’s Carol Weiss Prize); Policy Institutes (the King’s Policy Idol Competition); universities (Nottingham Universities’ Keystone Award for non-academic members of staff); research networks (AusPSA’s Marian Simms Award, Life Sciences Research Network Wales’ Research Impact Awards); and societies (for example the UK Political Studies Association’s ‘Best Use of Evidence’ Award); as well as funding bodies (the ESRC’s ‘Impact Prize’). Prizes may be perceived as attempting to incentivise academic-policy engagement, although none have a clearly articulated theory of change, strategy or evaluation in the public domain.