Edited by Gabriele Bammer.
What do policy makers find useful or problematic about research and the way in which it is delivered? How would they like to see research presented to them?
In 2003 R. John Gregrich, then Chief of the Treatment Branch, Office of Demand Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, USA, laid out a number of suggestions for researchers about more effectively interacting with policy makers. The description here has been generalised beyond alcohol and other drugs policy.
Seven tips for the general presentation of research findings
1. Research is often inaccessible to policy makers.
Research findings can be both hard to find and hard to understand; in particular the language and format of peer-reviewed publications demand more effort than is warranted from policy makers.
2. Research findings are often equivocal with little impact on the state of knowledge in the field.
A lot of research is marginal in increasing understanding and does not warrant attention by policy makers.
3. Research processes that are open to bias need to be treated with caution.
Research where participant selection may be biased and where results rely only on self-report, with no corroborating measures, needs to be viewed with a degree of skepticism.
4. Research findings may not be presented in a timely manner and evaluation results are often out-of-date.
The presentation of research findings is seldom in line with when in the policy cycle they are most able to be taken into account, namely “the beginning of a legislative session [and] the beginning of the budget development cycle” (p. 234). In addition, evaluation research is often slow and may not account for changes, or even the demise, of the program being evaluated.
5. The recommendations of research findings rarely take into account the resources limitations confronting policy makers and practitioners.
When recommendations are overwhelming, rather than realistic, inaction is often the result.
6. Research often does not address the most pressing issues that policy makers face.
In particular, research often does not provide the specific information required by policy makers to craft effective policies.
7. Researchers are often indistinguishable from other advocates seeking a particular outcome.
This is a particular problem when researchers misrepresent the importance of marginal or inconclusive data.
A systemic approach
Gregrich also recognised that complex societal and environmental problems require a systemic approach that brings together multiple strands of research to inform change in multiple areas and at multiple levels of policy and practice. The challenge is to bring the manifold relevant policy and practice players together and to present the relevant range of research findings in a way that they can use.
Specific tips for communicating research findings
Gregrich suggested several tips for making effective contact, particularly:
- Mailing research findings to heads of relevant government and non-government agencies, ensuring that their names are correct and providing a cover letter summarizing the key findings and their relevance to current policy, as well as indicating willingness to discuss the findings. “Materials addressed to the heads of agencies virtually always enter a system of controlled correspondence, which means they are virtually always read and are generally answered” (p. 236).
- Building a mailing list of agencies and organizations likely to be interested in the research findings.
- Keeping track of responses and maintaining e-mail contact with those who are interested and supportive.
- Offering to meet informally with those interested to discuss the research.
- Making full use of opportunities for formal presentations, tailoring the presentation to the time available, leaving time for discussion, and making available slides and brief fact sheets.
- Using language that it accurate, understandable by those addressed and with metaphors that resonate.
- Recognising and referring to other researchers with expertise on the issue and therefore being “both a source of knowledge and a resource nominator” (p. 236-7).
- Not seeking funding at the same time as presenting findings, because the findings will have less impact. Seeking funding separately and later.
Tips were also suggested for writing to educate and influence in a way that respects the audience, namely:
- Focusing summaries on findings (not methods) and showing how they contribute to the existing body of knowledge
- Providing interim information when research is long-term
- Where possible, showing how “research findings can improve effectiveness without increasing cost” (p. 237)
- Recognizing that researchers, as well as policy makers and practitioners, have values that shape the way they approach the issue, and that all have valuable insights.
Conclusion
Effectively presenting research to inform policy and practice is a “balancing act” (p. 237) between the constraints of the research findings and offering value to policy and practice action.
How do these suggestions tally with your own experience? Given that they were written for a US context more than 20 years ago, what modifications would you make for your context now? Are there any new issues that you would put forward?
Reference:
Gregrich, RJ (2003) “A note to researchers: communicating science to policy makers and practitioners” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 25(3): 233-237. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-5472(03)00120-X
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)
A description of “Editor’s additions” is available in https://i2insights.org/index/integration-and-implementation-sciences-vocabulary/. This editor’s addition was produced by Gabriele Bammer using the reference above.
Gabriele Bammer PhD is Professor of Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at The Australian National University in Canberra. i2S provides theory and methods for tackling complex societal and environmental problems, especially for developing a more comprehensive understanding in order to generate fresh insights and ideas for action, supporting improved policy and practice responses by government, business and civil society, and effective interactions between disciplinary and stakeholder experts. She is the inaugural President of the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity (ITD-Alliance).
Dear Gabriele,
Thank you very much for your valuable text. I hope the following two points will also be useful in this regard:
First, artificial intelligence can support researchers in presenting their findings in a simple, accurate, and policy-relevant way. From summarizing content and generating accessible formats to identifying key audiences and timing communication appropriately, all of this—while maintaining scientific integrity—can enhance the effectiveness of research communication.
Second, preparing concise reports in 1-page, 3-page, and 25-page formats, along with a focused and well-crafted policy brief, can play an important role in effectively conveying research messages to policy makers. This approach enables policy makers with varying levels of time and interest to easily access and apply research findings in their decision-making.
Best regards,
Reza
Thanks Reza. Both are useful points. Do you have experience in using artificial intelligence in that way?
Thank you. I usually check the initial drafts of letters sent to policymakers with the help of artificial intelligence. Before that, I write a precise prompt to define the audience’s needs and give it to the AI. Recently, I translated a book into Persian aimed at promoting futures thinking among children. AI was very helpful in selecting child-friendly sentences to convey the concepts effectively.
Great – thanks!
I wonder whether the garbage can model of policy making could set a context for communicating research to policy makers. A systems mapping of the decision maker and their environment might reveal points of intervention – anything that furthered their agenda. It is assumed that the research communication would maintain integrity and not be biased 😉
Thanks Ian. Interested readers can find a description of the garbage can model at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_can_model. It is to John Gregrich’s credit that he recognised the importance of a systemic approach, even though he didn’t develop those ideas. Certainly more work is needed to develop systemic approaches to research communication to policy makers. One challenge is where you set the boundaries around the problem under investigation and, as Gerald Midgley tells us, that is influenced by values. That challenge also provides an opportunity, so that where the boundaries are set potentially provides a useful point of discussion between researchers and policy makers where they can explain and share their values. Thanks for raising this point.
This is useful. I would extend #4 somewhat.in two ways. First researchers too often take the time to make the perfect document – and the time has passed. Second in some.fields and areas of policy it is possible to anticipate what is likely coming up as an issue – so get the research done before the ask and then frame it (promptly) around their specific ask. (You won’t get the issue right everytime on the issues that emerge but it is usually worth the risk to be ready when the demand emerges.)
Many thanks, Fred. Both useful points that speak to the importance of timeliness.