Learning from failures in knowledge exchange: how hard can it be?

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Peter van der Graaf, Ien van de Goor and Amanda Drake Purington

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Learning from failures in knowledge exchange and turning them into successes’, which introduces the Special Issue: ‘Learning from Failures in Knowledge Exchange’.

We don’t like talking about failures, as it signals loss of time, resources and reputation, but failures present opportunities for learning in knowledge exchange. However, this requires a ‘failure culture’ in academia and policy, in which failures are no longer avoided but actively encouraged. To learn how to turn failures into successes, we need to share and publish our failures, have early engagement with all stakeholders in the knowledge exchange process, and make more use of boundary spanners.

There are plenty of papers celebrating successes in knowledge exchange, but not many researchers and policy makers talk openly about their failures. However, learning from failures is just as important, if not more crucial, than celebrating successes. Allowing partners to reflect in a safe space on knowledge exchange practices and research projects gone wrong, in which communication broke down, partners did not engage or dropped out, and evidence was not taken up or ignored, will provide important lessons on how knowledge exchange practices and research can be improved.

At the 5th Fuse conference on knowledge exchange in public health, held in Newcastle, UK on 15-16 June 2022, we created such a space by bringing together over 100 academic researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and community members to share and reflect on thier failures and how to turn them into success. Our special issue brings together selected papers from the conference and papers that were submitted in response to an open call afterwards. From 23 original submissions from 14 different countries (including the UK, USA, Cananda, Norway, Switzerland, Kenya, Chile, South Korea, Canada and Portugal) and from a range of disciplines and areas of focus (Public Health, Primary Care, Oral Health, Sociology, Anthropology, Public Management, Policy-Making, and Community and Voluntary Sector), we invited four research papers and three practice papers for full submissions.

Continue reading →

Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Matthew Johnson, Elliott Johnson, Irene Hardill and Daniel Nettle

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production’

Co-production has emerged as one of the key concepts in understanding knowledge-policy interactions and is associated with involvement of users of public services in their design and delivery. At a time of permacrisis, in which ever increasing numbers of Britons are exposed to financial insecurity, the need for transformative evidence-based policymaking is urgent and great. This is particularly important in highly distressed ‘left-behind’ communities targeted by the UK Government for Levelling Up, which constitutes an attempt to improve the infrastructural, economic, social and health environments of less affluent parts of the UK.

Often, policymakers regard the transformative policies capable of addressing these crises as beyond the ‘Overton Window’, which describes a range of policies in the political centre that are acceptable to the public. This window of opportunity can shift to encompass different policies, but movement is slow and policymakers generally believe that significant change lies outside it. This creates an Overton Window-based roadblock in evidence-based policymaking.

Continue reading →

Science communication poses barriers in Congress for evidence-based policymaking, but less so for science and engineering fellows

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


K. L. Akerlof, Maria Carmen Lemos, Emily T. Cloyd, Erin Heath, Selena Nelson, Julia Hathaway and Kristin M. F. Timm

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Science communication in Congress: for what use?’

A new model published in Evidence & Policy explains the factors that enable and constrain science communication in the U.S. Congress. We depict how the use of scientific information is most often called upon to support established positions, as opposed to formulating new policies, and that this changes the nature of the barriers to science communication. We studied this in the context of two types of Congressional staff: 1) science and engineering fellows who spend a year serving primarily in the personal offices of members (hereafter referred to as fellows), and 2) the legislative staff with whom they work. We found that fellows serving on the Hill experience fewer barriers to use of scientific information than legislative staff, which suggests the importance of scientific fluency for building congressional capacity.

Continue reading →

Putting meat on the bones of data – how legislators define research evidence

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Elizabeth Day

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘How legislators define research evidence’.

When people ask about my research area, I answer that I study how policymakers use research evidence. Their response always follows a similar thread: ‘That sounds hard’ and ‘Ha! Do they even know what research is?’ These reactions align with a broader opinion in the United States that elected officials are clueless when it comes to using research evidence in the decision-making process.

Yet there are plenty of examples in research, legislation, and regulations where policymakers do use research in their work. My colleague Karen Bogenschneider and I wondered if this mismatch – assuming policymakers don’t use research when there are examples that they do – might have to do with a jingle-jangle problem: Do researchers and legislators actually mean the same thing when they say ‘research evidence’?

Continue reading →

How to do knowledge mobilisation? What we know, and what we don’t

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Hannah Durrant, Rosie Havers, James Downe and Steve Martin

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Improving evidence use: a systematic scoping review of local models of knowledge mobilisation’.

Knowledge mobilisation (KM) describes a process for enabling the use of research evidence in policymaking and public service design and delivery. Approaches to KM have evolved over the last two decades – away from one-directional efforts to push research out to decision makers towards a kaleidoscope of research-policy-practice engagement across overlapping phases of knowledge production and policy action. These processes are generally poorly understood at local levels of decision-making, where the specificities of policy and public service context can undermine generic ‘what works’ claims.

Our recent Evidence & Policy article, ‘Improving evidence use: a systematic scoping review of local models of knowledge mobilisation’, identifies three key features of local KM as well as highlighting the gaps in our understanding of how KM is done and with what effect. 

Our aim was to determine how KM is done ‘on-the-ground’, which can get obscured in frameworks that emphasise complexity while simplifying process. We argue that more detail is needed on these practices of KM to inform and improve process. Equally, attention is also needed on demand for and impact of evidence on policy and practice decisions.

Continue reading →

Engaged scholarship entrepreneurship and policy impact

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Kiran Trehan

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Compatible bedfellows? Engaged scholarship entrepreneurship and policy impact’.

In a rapidly evolving world, the role of entrepreneurship research and its impact on policy is more critical than ever. In this blog, I expand on my commentary on Johnson (2023) by exploring the intricate relationship between theory and its real-world application, shedding light on the uncertainty that has long surrounded entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) research. For years, the debate on how research can truly impact practice has been at the forefront of social science discussions (Beyer & Trice, 1982; Starkey and Tempest, 2005; Rynes, 2007; Trehan et al., 2018, 2022). This debate has emphasized the need for applied research in entrepreneurial scholarship that reflects the actual experiences of businesses.

Recognizing and appreciating the importance of research impact is not just a strategic concern for university business schools; it’s a measure of research’s real-world value. The gap between researchers and practitioners has significantly influenced how research is perceived, with academics focusing on ‘rigor’ and practitioners on ‘relevance’. Striking a balance between these expectations is crucial for both communities (Trehan, 2022). Edwards (2018) asserts that achieving policy impact is not only desirable but feasible, despite challenges such as engaging small business owners and the requirement for sustained interaction over time. Policy impact is attainable, but significant challenges persist, particularly in catering to the needs of small business owners and maintaining prolonged engagement.

Continue reading →

What can we learn from local government research systems?

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Andrew Booth, Emma Hock and Alison Scope

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review’.

Local government has been unfairly characterised as a black hole when it comes to getting evidence into practice. While it is true that work remains to be done to cultivate interest in research across local government, our recent review found plenty of evidence of academia, local officials and other partners collaborating to make a difference around the generation and use of locally-meaningful research.  

What seems to be less common, however, are coordinated approaches to organising research activity within and across an entire local government system. What can we learn from diverse approaches that harness mechanisms across different local government systems?

Continue reading →

Exploring evidence use in an Irish health service context

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Susan Calnan

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study.’

How do senior health service decision makers use evidence to inform their work and decision-making and what types of evidence do they use? What are the potential barriers and facilitators to research use by health service decision makers and are there ways to improve its usage?

We wanted to explore these questions in our qualitative study published in Evidence & Policy, which was conducted in Ireland’s national health service, the Health Service Executive (HSE). Our focus was on senior decision makers working in the organisation’s Healthcare Strategy, Clinical and Operations divisions, where evidence use has the potential to inform the quality and delivery of health services and workforce planning.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 participants between August 2021 and January 2022.

Continue reading →

What knowledge informs policy decisions? And how can we measure it?

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Jonas Videbæk Jørgensen

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Knowledge Utilisation Analysis: measuring the utilisation of knowledge sources in policy decisions.’

Using research-based knowledge to inform policy decisions constitutes a key ambition in most modern democracies. As such, enhancing the utilisation and impact of research has gained widespread attention among scholars and policymakers, with a range of initiatives to promote it. But how often is research-based knowledge used in policy decisions? And what kinds of knowledge have the strongest impact? Despite years of scholarship on the topic, measuring knowledge utilisation remains a significant challenge. In a new Evidence & Policy article, I discuss existing measures of knowledge utilisation and present a new approach called ‘Knowledge Utilisation Analysis’ (KUA).

Continue reading →

Four approaches to navigating boundaries in co-produced health research

evidencepolicyblogLeave a comment


Chris Ackerley and Ellen Balka

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Navigating boundaries in coproduced research: a situational analysis of researchers’ experiences within integrated knowledge translation projects.’

Increasingly, researchers are collaborating with partners outside of academia – including patients, practitioners and policymakers – to create evidence that aims to be more useful and usable in practice. In the Canadian health sector, this kind of research coproduction is often called integrated knowledge translation (IKT).

A central idea in research coproduction is that bringing together people with different expertise is more likely create impactful evidence. Yet, collaborators’ differences can also present practical challenges for research projects.

Continue reading →