Bridging Research & Policy (1. The Political Context, 2. The Actors, 3. The Message and Media) (complete reference list)

Traditionally, the link between research and policy has been viewed as a linear process, whereby a set of research findings is shifted from the ‘research sphere’ over to the ‘policy sphere’, and then has some impact on policy-makers’ decisions. At least three of the assumptions underpinning this traditional view are now being questioned. First, the assumption that research influences policy in a one-way process (the linear model); second, the assumption that there is a clear divide between researchers and policy-makers (the two communities model); and third, the assumption that the production of knowledge is confined to a set of specific findings (the positivistic model).

Literature on the research-policy link is now shifting away from these assumptions, towards a more dynamic and complex view that emphasises a two-way process between research and policy, shaped by multiple relations and reservoirs of knowledge (see e.g. Garrett & Islam 1998, RAWOO 2001). This shift reflects the fact that this subject area has generated greater interest in the past few years, and already a number of overviews over the research-policy linkage exist (e.g. Keeley & Scoones 1999, Lindquist forthcoming 2003, Neilson 2001, Nutley, Walter & Davies 2002, Stone, Maxwell & Keating 2001, Sutton 1999). However, there is still a limited number of case studies (but see for example Ryan 1999, Puchner 2001).

Following Carol Weiss (1977), it is widely recognised that although research may not have direct influence on specific policies, the production of research may still exert a powerful indirect influence through introducing new terms and shaping the policy discourse. Weiss describes this as a process of ‘percolation’, in which research findings and concepts circulate and are gradually filtered through various policy networks. Some of the current literature on the research-policy link therefore focuses explicitly on various types of networks, such as policy streams (Kingdon 1984), policy communities (Pross 1986), epistemic communities (Haas 1991), and advocacy coalitions (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith 1999). Another angle taken by the research-policy literature focuses on guiding researchers towards increasing the impact of their research (Coleman 1991, Porter & Prysor-Jones 1997, Ryan 2002).

The traditional question could be phrased ‘How can research be transported from the research to the policy sphere?’. Now, however, the question concerns research uptake pathways: ‘Why are some of the ideas that circulate in the research/policy networks picked up and acted on, while others are ignored and disappear?’. The answer to this seems to lie in a combination of several determining influences, which can broadly be divided into three areas: 1. The political context, 2. The actors (networks, organisations, individuals), 3. The message and media

1. The Political Context (Top, 1. The Political Context, 2. The Actors, 3. The Message and Media)

The research/policy link has effects on political decisions and actions. In turn, the research/policy link is shaped by the political context. Furthermore, the policy process and the production of research are in themselves political processes, from the initial agenda-setting exercise through to the final negotiation involved in implementation. In some cases the political strategies and power relations are obvious, and are tied to specific institutional pressures. For example, ideas may be picked up and used because those specific ideas are more likely to secure funding for a project. Similarly, ideas circulating in the research/policy networks may be discarded by the majority of staff in an organisation if those ideas elicit disapproval from the leadership.

The political context also consists of broader macro formations – ‘discourses’ or ‘paradigms’ – that may exert a powerful influence over which ideas are noticed and which are ignored. It may be helpful to view these formations as divided into three layers (following Raymond Williams): the dominant discourse, the residual discourse, and the emerging discourse. Ideas and concepts may be picked up and used because they are compatible with the dominant policy discourse, and therefore serve to confirm and support present approaches. Other ideas may be recognised as stemming from a residual discourse, and may therefore be used because of their familiarity, or dismissed as ‘old-fashioned’. Yet other ideas may be noticed because they shape an emerging and alternative discourse, and may thus be used by those who wish to challenge dominant ideas.

Other authors might be skeptical of the idea that there is only one ‘dominant discourse’, and might be more prone to focus on the interaction between several societal structures and human relationships, or the considerable ‘room for manoeuvre’ that exists both at a micro level (for example, at different moments of the policy process), and at a macro level (for example, in the present ‘information age’).

1.1 The policy process (complete reference list)

The idea of a coherent ‘policy process’ provides a useful narrative for anyone involved in producing or attempting to influence policies. The notion of a linear policy process is perhaps the easiest to conceptualise and act on, and also the most amenable to providing explanations for policy failures (Clay & Schaffer 1984). However, the recent theme within social science of ‘who is telling the story, and why’ has also filtered through to the literature on the policy process, and the story of a linear policy process is increasingly seen to serve certain interests, and is further discredited as one of the less realistic narratives (see overviews by Sutton 1999, Keeley & Scoones 1999). Counter-narratives are more prone to stress the political nature of the implicit assumptions and discourses embodied in policy (Roe 1991, Wood 1985); the unpredictable and experimental life of policies (Clay & Schaffer 1984, Rondinelli 1993); and the sometimes weak link between policy-making and practice (Lipsky 1979, Mosse, in van Ufford & Giri, forthcoming).

1.2 The current policy discourse (complete reference list)

There are several ways of analysing a strong policy consensus and possibilities for voicing alternative views. A few of the more frequently cited authors on this topic are Gasper & Apthorpe (1996) on ‘discourse analysis’, Hirschman (1970) on ‘exit, voice and loyalty’, Williams (1973) on ‘dominant, residual and emergent formations’, Lukes (1974) on the ‘three dimensions of power’, and Chomsky (1987) on the ‘framework of possible thought’. These provide a few of the possible approaches that can be taken to develop an understanding of the current policy discourse.

The post Cold War-order has produced a remarkably consensual policy discourse within development. The fall of the Soviet Union meant that liberal democracy and neo-liberal economics became seen as the only realistic options for macro policy. At the same time the 1990s saw a reaction against SAPs and the purely economic agenda of the Washington Consensus, and as a result the Post-Washington Consensus emerged, emphasising the social aspects of development, the political environment, and the role of institutions. This led to policies concerning good governance, civil society and social capital, all of which fit well with the broader aims of liberal democracy and neo-liberal market policies (Leftwich 1994; Mosley, Harrigan & Toe 1995; Stern & Ferreira in Kapur et al 1997).

The rise and rise of NGOs in this period has brought a strong focus on participation, empowerment and partnership (Henkel & Stirrat, in Cooke & Kothari 2001). Although many NGOs may have a different rationale and motivation from the Bretton Woods institutions, their practical recommendations to a large extent mirror the macro policy discourse in areas such as building local institutions, supporting civil society, and strengthening social capital.

1.3 The information age (complete reference list)

The information age is variously described as a globalisation process that is inclusionary and democratising (Giddens 1990) or, alternatively, as an exclusionary dynamic that reinforces unequal global power structures (Castells, in Carnoy et al 1993).

Within this context, the production of research in itself becomes a political process, which can potentially serve the interests of Western positions (Mohanty 1988), or contribute to the privatisation of information and the erosion of the public sphere (Elliot, in Boyd-Barrett & Newbold 1995). This does not only apply to research originating in the West but also to the political strategies and relations surrounding the ‘Third World intelligentsia’ (Franco, in Williams & Chrisman 1994).

The effect of globalisation can also be seen in relation to the emphasis on transnational nature of development policy co-ordination reflected also in the changes in form and structure of advocacy networks attempting to influence policy in relation to the debate of an emerging ‘global civil society (Anheimer, Glasius & Kaldor 2002).

Part 2: The Actors (networks, organisations, individuals)
(Top, 1. The Political Context, 2. The Actors, 3. The Message and Media)

The research/policy link is played out in the interface between the surrounding (political) structure and the actors involved: networks, organisations/institutions, and individuals. Actors perceive and remember circulating ideas in different ways, and choose to use, to store or to discard ideas on the basis of various criteria. One of the first theories about such criteria was the rational economistic model, or cost/benefit analysis. Another early theory was behaviourism’s stimulus-response model.

Since then several other approaches have emerged, providing different explanations as to why some ideas are accepted, embraced and internalised instead of others. Although the explanations vary, many of them in some way touch on the importance of elements previously ignored or labelled ‘irrational’, such as cultural values and understandings (both of organisations and of individuals), the part played by informal and ‘non-linear’ decision-making processes, and the role of emotional dynamics such as anxiety and memory (again, both in organisations and individuals).

The response to new ideas is also determined by existing views. It may be relatively easy for networks, organisations and individuals to pay attention to research and ideas that conform to their current views and approaches. Usually, it is more difficult to respond to new alternative ideas, especially if these are in some way challenging and require some change. The change required may be divided into two types: core changes and secondary changes. Core changes affect an organisation or individual’s identity and values, and this kind of change is not likely to take place without a crisis or very strong pressure. Secondary changes affect operational procedures, practices and resource distribution, and are more likely to happen as a result of the influence of new ideas and research.

2.1 Networks and inter-organisational linkages (complete reference list)

In the wider context of attempts to define the role of the state in neo-liberal economic theory, and the emphasis on good governance and sector-wide programmes, networks have established themselves as patterns of relations that are well suited to current policy processes (Keck & Sikkink 1998). They also relate well to the present ideas of partnership and trust. In the literature on network management, the starting point is often a view of policy-making as negotiation over ‘public action’. Networks are seen as a relatively efficient means of handling such negotiations, and keywords are therefore competition, coordination and cooperation (Kickert et al 1997, Robinson et al 1999). From a management perspective, the role of networks in responding to new ideas is largely a question of whether new ideas succeed in the official negotiation process or not. Thus, given the power relations involved in agenda-setting, networks can easily serve to reproduce already dominant ideas, and are therefore sometimes described as efficient means of ‘public management’ (see for example Kickert et al 1997) or means of ‘knowledge sharing’ (Struyk 2000).

An alternative stream of literature emphasise the informal nature of networks, arguing that networks are not a means of ‘public management’, but rather a potent means of challenging public management through generating multiple unofficial and creative policy ‘interpretations’ (Stacey, in Albert 1995). Over time these informal interpretations become institutionalised, but once they are recognised as official policy, the networks will already have started generating new unofficial ideas. This perspective – associated with chaos theory – is more prone to emphasise the informal and non-linear aspect of negotiation processes over ideas, rather than the official narratives of competition, coordination and cooperation.

2.2 Organisational management, learning and change (complete reference list)

Mary Douglas (1986) introduced the idea that every institution has its own ‘thought-world’ – its past experiences, symbols, trusted ideas, and ways of remembering and honouring these. This is worth bearing in mind when considering why some organisations are more able than others to pick up and use new ideas – for three reasons.

Firstly, it allows us to think of organisations as to some extent human in their decision-making processes (Levitt & March 1988). Organisational decisions are not automatically more rational than individual decisions, and organisations, like people, can act in seemingly irrational ways. In an attempt to capture this realisation, organisational literature has embraced the concept of organisational culture and identity (see for example Smircich 1983). It must be noted that Douglas has also been criticised for the perhaps facile conflation of individual and organisational dynamics.

Secondly, the notion of an institutional thought-world highlights the fact that there is more to organisations than meets the eye. Organisational change is not only an issue of changing the visible formal procedures, but is rather a complex dynamic between formal and informal processes (Hailey & Smillie 2001). Since informal processes are less visible and predictable, organisational change requires that the leadership is skilled both in observing organisational patterns, and in providing support for staff when change inflicts on informal systems.

Thirdly, the organisational thought-world neatly pinpoints the interaction between organisations and individuals. The institutional thought-world can have a strong consensual effect on the way its members perceive and react to new ideas, i.e. a consensus-generating function (Douglas 1986) and even a fashioning of individual identity (Carr 1998). The institutional thought-world can also provoke feelings of disempowerment and protest among its members, and can constitute ‘resistant subjects’ and saboteurs (chapters by Clegg and Lanuez & Jermier, in Jermier et al 1994).

2.3 Social psychology – perception and decision-making (complete reference list)

The link between research and policy is, at various stages of the process, shaped by individuals and the way in which they perceive new ideas and choose to react. There are several theories within social psychology that attempt to explain which factors determine individual perception and decision-making. Broadly speaking these theories can be divided into three main approaches, corresponding to the three views in the classic nature/nurture debate within psychology and sociology.

1. The first approach views ‘nurture’ as primary – or, using Tilly’s (2000) terms, the first approach stresses the importance of socially acquired ideas. People react to new ideas based on the beliefs, concepts, values and ideas that they have already acquired from their environment. The models for decision-making outlined by Beach (1997) largely fall into this category: the recognition model, the narrative model, the incremental model, and the moral/ethical model.
   
2. The second approach privileges ‘nature’. According to this perspective, people’s perception of new ideas, and their reactions and decisions, are for a large part determined by instinctive needs that all people are born with, e.g. needs for control and security. Several of the psychological theories of learning and development (as outlined by e.g. Collin, in Beardwell & Holden 2001) rest on the assumption that people – from a very early age – have different instinctive preferences for how they learn (activists, reflectors, theorists, and pragmatists).
   
3. The third approach builds on a nature/nurture dialectic in which individuals both shape and are shaped by their environment. Tilly (2000) calls this the ‘relations’ approach because it sees individual perception and decisions as the outcome of interpersonal and inter-group dynamics. Beach’s (1997) discussion of how people attempt to align their frames of understanding with other people’s frames might be an example of a relations approach.

Part 3: The Message and Media (Top, 1. The Political Context, 2. The Actors, 3. The Message and Media)

The degree of attention paid to circulating ideas is also determined by the way that those ideas are presented. There are many academic fields that provide interesting contributions in this regard, including the literature on interpersonal communication, advocacy and marketing communication, media communication and IT, and knowledge management and research relevance. These fields have gradually shifted away from various linear theories of communication (sender – message – channel – recipient) towards more interactive models. The focus on interaction implies that there is no longer a hierarchical and clearly defined relationship between the ‘sender’ and ‘recipient’, but rather that both parties in a communication process occupy sender and receiver roles at different stages. Moreover, both parties contribute to the content and meaning of the message. In other words, the message is not fixed, but changes as it circulates between the different parties, since different actors will understand and respond to the message in different ways.

The shift in focus away from the primacy of the sender, towards the importance of the interactive response, has a lot to say for the research/policy link. Ideas may be picked up by actors precisely because the actors respond to some ideas rather than to others. Whether or not a circulating idea is able to elicit an engaged response from actors depends on a range of factors, such as the degree of actor identification with the idea, the associated meanings evoked by the idea, the reaction to the technological format of the idea, or the perceived credibility of the idea.

3.1 Knowledge management and research relevance (complete reference list)

As knowledge is increasingly seen as an asset in its own right, a new field of study has emerged on ‘knowledge management’, or even ‘information accounting’ (McPherson 1994), to complement the already established field of ‘innovation diffusion theory’ (Rogers 1995). Knowledge management often focuses on the way information is handled within an organisation or network. It offers recommendations on how researchers might disseminate their findings more effectively within policy networks (Saywell & Cotton 1999, NCDDR 1996), or how NGOs might use information as an important resource in advocacy work (Edwards 1994, Meyer 1997).

This literature can also be seen in relation to sociological and anthropological reflections on knowledge as a social process. Knowledge is not a fixed entity that is passed unscathed from one stage to the next, from researchers to policy-makers, or from NGOs to politicians. Instead knowledge is a site of contestation (Long & Long 1992), and knowledge management is embedded in various power relations (Agrawal 1995).

This has implications for research as a site for knowledge production. Research does not consist of a set of neutral and objective messages, but shapes and is shaped by the context and different power relations. Research becomes a site of contestation for example when different methods produce different stories about reality. This expands the horizon of knowledge management to include not only methodological concerns (which research methods and information systems are most appropriate in which contexts)(Bryman 2001), but also normative and ethical questions about who decides whether knowledge is ‘representative’, how can researchers remain accountable to the groups that they produce knowledge about, and whose interests do information systems serve (see chapters by Fine et al, and Kennis & McTaggart, in Denzin & Lincoln 2000).

3.2 Interpersonal communication and advocacy (complete reference list)

Although most ideas in the information age are communicated in written form, often electronically, the interpersonal aspect of communication is still extremely important. Firstly, face-to-face exchange of ideas has an influence both on the way we perceive the ideas (they may seem more, or less, credible depending on the way we perceive the other person) and on whether we remember the ideas and make use of them. Secondly, even electronic communication is based on the notion of interpersonal relations. When a person reads or receives a message, she or he will be influenced by either a real or imaginary image of the ‘other person’ who wrote or sent the message.

This personal aspect of communication means that a wide range of factors come into play in addition to the spoken or written words, and our understanding and evaluation of the message is duly influenced by these other factors. This is summed up in Watzlawick’s (1978) phrase ‘one cannot not communicate’; people, as opposed to machines, notice and respond to everything, ranging from the way the other person is dressed, to the tone of their voice, or the lay-out of the document they are reading. Moreover, people have ‘irrational’ emotions, and personal memories and experiences can play a large part in the way we respond to a new idea. Psychoanalytic theories explain this in terms of transference and projection (Chodorow 1999). Not only the perception of ideas, but also the ‘acting out’ of these ideas is shaped by interpersonal relations. Goffman (1990) introduced the concepts of front and back-stage performances to explain why people will voice slightly different opinions in different contexts, and present themselves and their ideas in different ways depending on the audience. ‘Official’ versions of ideas can differ substantially from the back-stage versions, and some groups will not have access back-stage.

The literature charting NGOs’ increasing involvement in campaigning and advocacy work moves the analysis of interpersonal communication up to a macro level (see e.g. Chapman & Fisher 1999, Edwards & Gaventa 2001). This raises issues not only of how one presents oneself, but also of how one claims to represent others. Questions of legitimacy and downward accountability become important.

The research/policy link is in the advantageous position of being able to draw on both micro and macro perspectives of interpersonal communication and advocacy, as its field ranges from individual output and opinions to macro concerns for the distribution of ideas, power and resources on a global level (cf. Hudson, in Lewis & Wallace 2000).

3.3 Marketing communication (complete reference list)

Following the marketing assumption that products are bought on the basis that they provide solutions to problems (Lambin 1996), it might be suggested that ideas are often picked up and used because they too are seen to provide solutions to a particular problem at a particular time. This leads on to the question of why people perceive certain products/ideas as ‘solutions’ rather than others, and what makes information about a certain product/idea ‘stick’ in people’s minds (Gladwell, 2000, has termed this the ‘stickiness factor’).

The literature on marketing communication provides some interesting insights on this issue. One of the main principles of marketing is to get people to respond (Kotler et al 1999, Varey 2002). Once a person or group responds to a product/idea they are engaged in the communication process, and are far more likely to remember and potentially use the product/idea. There are several factors that elicit a response from people. Kotler et al (1999) divide these into rational (cost/benefit), emotional (stirring up positive or negative emotions), and moral factors (appealing to a sense of right and wrong). Importantly, a response – whether on rational, emotional or moral grounds – often refers to the associated meanings of the product/idea, rather than the product/idea in and of itself. As advertising experts realised a long time ago, people respond much more strongly to the associations of a product rather than the product itself, and therefore advertisements aim to sell associations, meanings, an image, and the identity that comes with it (Williamson, in Marris & Thornham 1996).

This has interesting implications for the question of why researchers and policy-makers pick up on certain ideas rather than others, since ideas are also ‘packaged’ in associated meanings, an image, identities, and normative ideals. Ideas may thus succeed in eliciting responses – or fail to elicit any response – precisely because of these factors rather than the content of the idea itself. These insights are also starting to be picked up in the literature on social and political marketing (Bedimo et al 2002, Buurma 2001, Lefebvre in Bloom & Gundlach 2001, Maarek 1995, Price 2001).

3.4 Media communication and IT (complete reference list)

Media studies has gradually moved away from a focus on cultural hegemony (how the media communicates dominant representations) to a more interactive model that emphasises the active role of the audience (Newbold in Boyd-Barrett & Newbold 1995). The interactive model rejects the view that the audience receives a message and understands it in the same way that the ‘sender’ intended it to be understood. Rather, every pronounced message is accompanied by a number of ‘silent messages’ (Mattelart & Mattelart 1998), and the audience actively interprets these and fills in the gaps. There are several theories about the influences on what the audience uses to fill the gaps and thus reconstruct the message. Some emphasise the process of identification as audience members seek to ‘find themselves’ in the message (see overview by Allor in Boyd-Barrett & Newbold 1995). Others underline the importance of the audience’s existing cultural and political beliefs, and past experiences (Philo in Marris & Thornham 1996).

There are also several ‘silent messages’ in the technological format of the messages. Technology is not a neutral tool that efficiently transmits information from one place to another. Bourdieu (1991) has long been recognized for his insight that all language and communication is inseparably tied up in power relations. Recent literature similarly emphasises that both media and information systems are embedded in cultural and social relations (Norris 2001, Volkow in Avgerou 1998), and that technology is ‘translated’ in different ways between contexts (see McMaster et al 1997 on actor-network theory). This means that the cultural surroundings and social relations – whether in an organisation, a network or in the wider society – will shape the way media technology and IT are perceived and used (or not used; cf Peterson [1998] on the failure of IT in public bureaucracies in Africa). In turn, this has profound effects on the way that communicated messages are perceived.