Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 72, Issue 7, April 2011, Pages 1047-1055
Social Science & Medicine

From “our world” to the “real world”: Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Research and researchers influence the genesis and development of public health policy in limited but essential ways. Surveys and interviews with 36 peer-nominated “highly influential” Australian public health researchers found they engaged in a breadth of strategies that included rigorous but targeted research design, multilateral collaboration, multiple methods of research dissemination and promotion (including tactical use of the media), and purposeful development of bridging relationships. Researchers’ ability to understand the worlds of research, policy and the media and to speak their languages (or to work with others who fulfilled this role) was a key factor. Advocacy was seen as fundamental by some but was disparaged by others. Influential behaviours were guided by values and beliefs about the principles underlying traditional science and the contrasting ethos of contemporary research. This study may help researchers consider their own policy-related roles, strategies and relationships in the context of increasing calls for research that serves economic and/or social goals.

Highlights

►Surveys and interviews were conducted with 36 peer-nominated “highly influential” Australian public health researchers. ►Findings showed that influential researchers were policy strategists who facilitated research utilisation in multiple ways. ►Behaviours were guided by values and beliefs about the principles underlying traditional science and contemporary research. ►Academic awards and incentives need to recognise and support policy-influential behaviours.

Introduction

‘Evidence-based policy’ appears to have as many critics as supporters (Greenhalgh and Russell, 2009, Kemm, 2006) but many researchers share a belief that research can, does and should have some influence on the process of policy development (Head, 2008, Nutbeam and Boxall, 2008). The literature on research utilisation illustrates the complexity of the relationship between research and policy. Linear, rational depictions of the ‘the policy cycle’ are increasingly viewed as idealised normative models that poorly describe a far messier social process (Greenhalgh, 2006, Hanney et al., 2003, Lewis, 2006). The more interpretive literature regards policymaking as a “dance” (Edwards, 2001) in which research and researchers play diverse, contextually contingent roles (Nutley, Walter, & Davies, 2007). In these models research findings are not a transferable, factual product, but a contested bundle of concepts subject to interpretation and tactical use, with the potential to influence policy through multiple pathways: as data used instrumentally to inform policy decisions; as argument used strategically to address values and interests, or symbolically to support, justify or refute predetermined positions; or as ideas that influence the policy climate and agenda-setting by illuminating, supporting and challenging existing paradigms (Weiss, 1991).

Policy decision-making is said to occur in a “garbage can” in which the streams of problems, policy and politics co-exist. These streams converge when events such as budgets, electioneering or social crises create a policy opportunity (Kingdon, 2003). Thus timing, chance, advocacy by special interest groups and public opinion are critical factors. Some argue that policymakers exploit, ignore or suppress research in response to these pressures (Hall, 2006, Yazahmeidi and Holman, 2007). From this perspective research is “the six-stone weakling of the policy world” in competition with a “four-hundred-pound brute called politics” (Pawson, 2006 p. viii) and is often “supplanted by the powerful political forces of inertia, expediency, ideology and finance” (Walker, 2000 in Sanderson, 2009 p. 703). Other authors highlight the multifaceted, interdependent context of policymaking in which many legitimate imperatives—economic considerations, social equity, democratic values, infrastructure practicalities, opposing stakeholder views, and the need to weigh up alternatives—compete with research findings (Banks, 2009, Sanderson, 2009). These perspectives remind us that policy is informed by many types of ‘evidence’ and that research is only one component in the manifold information portfolio that policymakers draw on; one piece in the “policy puzzle” (Head, 2008 p. 3).

Nevertheless, research can inform policy (Banks, 2009, Bowen et al., 2009, Kingdon, 2003) and there are strategies that increase its influence (Nutbeam and Boxall, 2008, Nutley et al., 2007). The literature focuses on three broad issues: the nature of the research (e.g., relevance, utility, timeliness), the way that it is presented or disseminated (e.g., accessibility, narrative pull, producer-push activities) and the communicative relationship between policymakers and researchers as they struggle to bridge the their ‘different worlds’ (Caplan, 1979, Innvaer et al., 2002, Lomas, 2000).

Researchers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate the economic and/or social benefits of their work (Frank & Nason, 2009), requiring many to recalibrate their relationship with policymakers. This paper seeks to contribute by examining the strategies that influential researchers use to advance public health policy, and the considerations that guide their policy-related research and relationships. We augment existing Australian and international studies (e.g., Bowen et al., 2009, Campbell et al., 2009, Kothari et al., 2009, Lewis, 2006, Whitehead et al., 2004), by focusing on 36 researchers who were identified as highly influential. We assessed their views using multiple domains of enquiry via in-depth interviews that invited reflection on their own experiences and their observations of influential peers. This qualitative data was then supplemented by a quantitative survey of the same researchers that tested the strength of their endorsement of key concepts identified in the interviews.

Section snippets

Methods

The study was approved by the Behavioural and Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee of the University of Queensland in accordance with National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines.

A pragmatic, mixed methods approach (Morgan, 2007) was adopted. The four domains of Buse, Mays, and Walt’s (2005) health policy framework—context, content, process and actors—were expanded to encompass key themes from the research utilisation literature (Hanney et al., 2003, Kothari et al., 2009, Lomas,

Results

The results are organised according to the top level thematic categories outlined in Table 1. Interview and follow-up survey data are presented in parallel.

Role, identity and practice

When describing themselves and their peers, many interviewees used terms such as “traditional scientist”, “classic academic” or “old style researcher”, apparently referring to a professional ideal type which is epitomised by impartiality, detachment and rigorous scientific methodology. This concept was used as a baseline from which to position activities and roles that related to aspects of policy or media engagement—for example, “He’s not so much a classic researcher as a translator”—and to

Designing, conducting and presenting research

Although some interviewees stressed that their research was curiosity-driven, most were targeting policy goals to some degree. The majority (82.9%) of survey respondents said they tried to identify and respond to emerging policy opportunities. Strategies included addressing gaps in the evidence-base, engaging with community groups to monitor emerging needs, and targeting “the big questions of the moment” and research areas that seemed likely to become important in the future: “Choose topics

Publishing

Over two thirds of survey respondents (68.6%) agreed that Publishing in high impact journals increases my policy influence; 22.9% were neutral and 8.6% disagreed. Most interviewees supported this view:

I’ve never understood the stupidity of people who do projects and then think some limited circulation technical report which they and their co-authors read is sufficient…. If you’re not in the literature you’re not talking to anybody, and if you’re not talking to anybody I don’t know why you

Intersecting worlds

The notion of intersecting worlds was evident, evoking Caplan’s (1979) 2-Communities of research utilisation: researchers and policymakers. However, interviewees identified a significant third player: the media. The predominant view was that the worlds of research, policy and the media are characterised by different norms, practices and agendas, yet share some common territory.

Relationships

Despite the cross-world challenges, most interviewees had formed friendly and trusting relationships with some policymakers and journalists, and saw these as critical for advancing research-informed policy.

When interviewees were asked what made their nominated colleagues influential, a common response was: they are well connected with policymakers. A few admitted they had insufficient interpersonal skills or policy understanding to develop these relationships, but they worked in teams with

Values

Although most interviewees placed their professional identity at various degrees of remove from the “traditional scientist”, all were committed to conducting rigorous research or research syntheses that would contribute to the evidence-base in their field. The majority of survey respondents (85.7%) agreed with the statement: My most important task is to produce research which contributes to the growth of scientific knowledge, while 14.3% were neutral. The same proportion regarded utility as

Discussion

Using peers to nominate influential researchers was an effective way of identifying key players in the relatively small and interconnected community of Australian public health researchers. The experience of individuals with recognised success in policy influence was considered to have ‘real world’ validity, while the large sample of nominators and 100% interview participation rate of invited researchers across six public health fields gave greater dependability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

The

Conclusion

Our findings strongly suggest that influential public health researchers are rarely just curiosity-driven producers of research that “speaks for itself”. Rather, they are strategists with a keen awareness of the applied nature of public health who have moved beyond a scientific modus operandi towards a more contemporary research paradigm. Although the enlightenment model (Weiss, 1986) of research influence was often evoked in interviews—“Good ideas will have their day”—all participants accepted

Acknowledgements

The authors warmly thank the researchers who participated in this research, and those who gave their time and advice during piloting. This study was funded by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council.

References (41)

  • N. Caplan

    2-Communities theory and knowledge utilization

    American Behavioral Scientist

    (1979)
  • K. Charmaz

    Constructing grounded theory

    (2006)
  • J. Corbin et al.

    Basics of qualitative research

    (2008)
  • Derrick, G. E., Hall, W. D., Haynes, A. S., Chapman, S., Redman, S., Leeder, S., et al. (2010). Challenges in assessing...
  • M. Edwards

    Social policy, public policy: From problems to practice

    (2001)
  • E. Erno-Kjolhede

    Scientific norms as (dis)integrators of scientists?

    (2000)
  • C. Frank et al.

    Health research: measuring the social, health and economic benefits

    Canadian Medical Association Journal

    (2009)
  • M. Gibbons

    Science’s new social contract with society

    Nature

    (1999)
  • T. Greenhalgh

    Reframing evidence synthesis as rhetorical action in the policy making drama

    Healthcare Policy

    (2006)
  • T. Greenhalgh et al.

    Evidence-based policy making: a critique

    Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

    (2009)
  • Cited by (72)

    • Framing climate change as a human health issue: enough to tip the scale in climate policy?

      2021, The Lancet Planetary Health
      Citation Excerpt :

      And yet, academics who engage in activities such as civil disobedience run the risk of being ousted from their academic community. They are often seen as problematic and are met with depreciation, if not hostility, among colleagues.76 These professional and personal risks might be further magnified for those with minoritised identities in academia.77

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text