Communicating with policy makers

By Michael Collyer, University of Sussex

 

An interest in producing research which has a direct impact on the world, including through the policy-making process, has been a significant priority for geographers. The understanding of policymakers goes beyond those involved in formulating national government policy to include other tiers of government (local or supranational) as well as civil society organisations or private companies; both sectors may develop their own policies that are relevant to the research but also have an indirect influence on government policymaking.

Much applied research has the potential to make a positive change in the world, particularly if this is managed well and prepared for carefully. The idea that policy is the end point of a process in which a problem is identified, potential solutions are evaluated through research and policy is formulated to implement the best solution still reflects some elements of policy-making, particularly in more technocratic areas, but these are largely the exception. It is more common for policy to arise from trade-offs between different interest groups, sometimes these trade-offs are explicitly acknowledged, but often they are not. In such cases policy is not a reflection of the best evidence, but a result of a much messier process involving the lobbying power of different interest groups, perceptions of wider public opinion or the ideological viewpoints of policy makers.

The recognition of the messiness of the policy making process does not mean that evidence cannot inform policy, but it requires a shift in approach. Researchers must start with a relatively clear idea of what the key issues are and how competing interest groups are positioned in relation to them. Expertise may be marshalled by different sides of a political debate to gain legitimacy. It may even be delegitimised entirely if the weight of the apparent evidence suggests a solution that is viewed as unacceptable by one side or another. The danger here is that any pretence of objectivity fades and rather than evidence-based policy, the result is policy-based evidence; evidence that is produced purely for the purpose of supporting a pre-determined policy solution.

Engagement with policymakers in the research process is essential. Effective communication is more likely to result if policy makers are given the opportunity to influence elements of the research process, though this must be managed carefully to ensure this does not skew the research.

Policymakers are unlikely to read classic academic outputs, such as journal articles and are more likely to pick up on blogs or specially produced concise policy briefs. Early engagement will also encourage early interest in the research and improve the likelihood that dissemination will find an audience and research outputs will at least be read. Where research is conducted alongside civil society organisations, it may feed into the organisations own campaigning or advocacy work, which may help the research to develop a more indirect influence. Engagement is not the same as research impact, which requires some kind of change, but it is very difficult for impact to occur without effective communication with policy makers.

  

The Migrants on the Margins project and communication with policy audiences

The Migrants on the Margins project investigated migration into low-income neighbourhoods in the cities of Colombo, Dhaka, Harare and Hargeisa. In city stakeholder groups were formed very early in the project and met at least annually. Policy engagement has been very effective: key policy makers in both government and civil society helped shape research results and were very receptive to attending meetings and discussing results. Yet in most cases it is difficult to highlight clear examples of policy change. The policy influence that has occurred happened for two clear reasons: working with partners and longevity of research.

The first reason for policy influence that the project has achieved is the excellent partners that we worked with. It was not the Migrants on the Margins project alone that produced results but research aligned with broader policy objectives of these organisations. In Bangladesh, for example, the International Centre on Climate Change and Development has had considerable success with Bangladeshi government adoption of a policy called ‘Climate Resilient, Migrant Friendly Cities’ which has resulted in sustained attention to migration into smaller cities in the country. Migrants on the Margins was able to contribute to the understanding of impacts of migration into low-income neighbourhoods of Dhaka, which provided further justification for this approach.

The second lesson for policy influence is the need for longer term approaches. Most research is financed in project time frames of three years, or even shorter. This is too brief a period to develop any significant engagement. With the Migrants on the Margins project, thanks to RGS-IBG support, we were able to link different sources of finance over a period of five years. We have also been successful in securing follow-on funding with the same partners, for a further three years. In some cases, this has allowed us to deepen relationships with policy makers: for example, the Ministry of Planning of Somaliland became a partner in the follow-on research thanks in part to relationships developed through Migrants on the Margins. This means that channels of communication with this important actor are more easily available. In other cases, we have been able to shift focus. A long-standing relationship with the Zimbabwean organisation Dialogue on Shelter allowed the follow-on project to expand beyond Harare, where policy making in this field is blocked for various reasons, to a smaller Zimbabwean city where policy is much more open.

 

How to cite

Collyer, M. (2023) Communicating with policy makers. Communicating research beyond the academy. Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) Guide. Available at: https://doi.org/10.55203/TAGH4604