How science thought leadership enhances knowledge exchange

By Stefan Kaufman and Anthony Boxshall

What is science thought leadership? What characterises science thought leadership and leaders? How does science thought leadership offer opportunities for researchers to participate in knowledge exchange?

Most examinations of knowledge exchange focus on the researchers and/or the decision makers, while the role of experts and intermediaries who are internal to the decision making process, but not the decision makers themselves, has largely been ignored. It is these internal experts and intermediaries that we refer to as science thought leaders.

Specifically, for us “science thought leadership” is “when people using, brokering or providing evidence are (simultaneously): influential, credible and valued in supporting decision making in their organization and its context” (Kaufman and Boxshall, 2023).

We found that science thought leadership has the following 11 characteristics, grouped into four categories:

Situational

1. It is an emergent capability involving multiple people, roles, functions and disciplines.
2. It is particularly needed when gaining agreement on problem definitions is challenging, amongst issues of legitimacy and competing values and interests.

Personal

3. Leaders apply reason and evidence to support decisions that balance competing interests to achieve the public good.
4. Leaders are persistent, positive and generous.
5. Leaders are valued for courageously reframing understanding of problems and solutions with reference to evidence and analysis.

Professional

6. Leaders are excellent in translation across disciplines, evidence, sectors and interests.
7. It depends on having, and valuing, expertise and knowledge.
8. It requires decisiveness in the face of uncertainty.

Organisational

9. It benefits from decision makers who value scientific insights while integrating them with other considerations.
10. It depends on mutual respect between people in expert and management roles.
11. It benefits from external accountability and transparency.

This is summarised in the figure below.

The eleven characteristics we identified provide some potential ‘ins’ for researchers aiming to bridge the gap between science and policy.

Researchers might seek out science thought leaders – successful science thought leaders are recognised as admirable people, with a strong sense of public service, and a positive and generous outlook, often taking mentoring and advising roles for those around them, especially in drawn-out processes.

Researchers should take into account that science thought leadership emerges with strong relationships. Building legitimacy – through peer recognition, transparent research methods and robust data analysis – gets a seat at the table. Fostering trust with decision makers requires open communication and collaborative engagement, strengthening the relationship. External accountability ensures decision makers use evidence, even when it would be easier to ignore, and when connected with internal expert advice within organisations, this leverages scientific expertise to inform decision making at all levels.

Creating meaningful connections and relationships can be aided by placements of researchers in policymaking environments. This can help them appreciate the very real time, resource, political and cognitive constraints government decision makers work within. Doing so may also facilitate developing decision support tools and other methods that bridge the gap between research and policy and can provide practical resources for informed decision making.

Ultimately, improving the use of research evidence in decision making requires that researchers conduct credible, relevant research on challenges faced by decision makers, plus effectively communicate their findings, and actively engage not just with policymakers, but their advisors and especially science thought leaders.

Our conclusions are based on examination of successful decision support in environmental regulation, but we expect they are more broadly relevant. What do you think? Do these ideas resonate with you? Are there other characteristics of science thought leadership that should be taken into account? Do you have other suggestions for how researchers can interact with science thought leadership to improve decision making?

To find out more:

Kaufman, S. and Boxshall, A. (2023). Eleven enablers of science thought leadership to facilitate knowledge exchange in environmental regulation. Environmental Science and Policy, 147: 336–348. (Online – open access) (DOI):  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.06.018

Biography: Stefan Kaufman PhD is an integration expert with a joint role across BehaviourWorks Australia and the Monash Sustainable Development Institute, both at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. He applies the lens of behaviour change to understanding and accelerating sustainability transitions. He engages with this empirically in the domains of circular economy, climate change and health system sustainability. He draws on over 24 years of experience in applied environmental behaviour change, including 10 years as an in-house expert and knowledge broker on social research and behaviour change for the Environment Protection Authority of Victoria, Australia.

Biography: Anthony Boxshall PhD is the Founder and Principal of Science into Action, a science impact practice focusing on growing public value by getting more out of science and research. He is an experienced executive and board level scientific leader, and a qualified board director. He is a marine ecologist by trade, and a current Melbourne Enterprise Fellow – Integrative Environmental Research, at the University of Melbourne in Australia. His research interests include environmental protection, coastal adaptation to climate change, citizen science and integrating this research into policy and practice.