Research impact in government – three crucial elements you will need for success

Community member post by Anthony Boxshall

Anthony Boxshall (biography)

What is the less visible ‘stuff’ that helps (or hinders) the uptake of research findings into government policy?

As a researcher it can be frustrating to have a great idea, connected to a seemingly important need, and even good networks, and yet still not be able to help your research have impact in the daily life of the relevant public sector decision-makers.

From more than 20 years of being involved in and with the senior decision-making levels of public sector environment agencies and running a business all about increasing the impact of science into public sector decision-making, I offer three insights that you should look for to see if the time and place are right for the uptake of your research. If these three elements exist, your research stands a good chance for uptake.

1. Look for the true priorities

As Mahatma Gandhi is claimed to have said “action expresses priorities”. Whether Gandhi really said this or not, it neatly sums up the reality of investment and priorities in the public sector. Despite the clearest annual and strategic plans, the day to day reality of the public sector is that priorities, rightly, shift. They shift based on new knowledge, new or different investment requirements, crises and, appropriately, according to the current politics. I say “appropriately” as I happen to believe in the sometimes-quaint notion that as we vote in our politicians, democracy means they have a say in priorities.

Knowing the above can help you. The best advice is not to look at what is online, or publicly stated to be the current priorities. Rather look at what the people in the public sector organisation are doing. What are they working on? What are they not working on? Where is the energy and effort going? Action expresses priorities. If your idea is not a current priority, or something that looks to be emerging as a priority, now is simply not the time to bring it forward.

2. Find the right people

During my time as a public servant, very smart and innovative people used to come to my office with excellent ideas that were not in my area, or in some cases not even my organisation. I tried as hard as I could to connect them to the right decision makers, but often it was not easy.

There is an onus on researchers to do some leg-work and find the right people. The right person may be defined simply as being in the right area. However, in public sector agencies the right people are also defined as those who are internally well-networked, internally well respected, innovative and in the right decision-making layer or location that fits with your research. It does mean having relationships across (and up and down) organisations so that you can build a strong link to a number of “right” people.

The wonderful secondary outcome of finding the right people, and listening to them, is that you will learn things about your research and the impact it can have that you did not conceive. And the right people will help make that impact happen.

3. Culture eats strategy for breakfast

This famous quotation by Peter Drucker was often cited by my Chair when I worked at the Victorian Environment Protection Authority. She helped me understand that while you can have the best possible strategy and vision for an organisation, it will not achieve all that it can unless the culture is right. Organisational culture is everything. It is the lifeblood of what motivates us at work, what helps us get out of bed every day, and what enables us to unlock our discretionary capacity in the workplace, which leads us to work more than what is required, and with increased creativity. When it is poor or flawed it leads to appalling decision-making by people able to hide behind the poor organisational culture.

So, what does culture have to do with getting impact out of your research? I have seen cultures across federal and state public sector agencies that are not conducive for getting uptake of new ideas, innovations or research. Often these cultures are deeply risk averse, passively aggressive, competitive or quite defensive. The cultures may be strongly reliant on following the rule books for the sake of it, rather than to achieve an outcome. You will feel it almost immediately when you try to engage with such a culture. Unfortunately for you, and your great research finding or idea, these cultures do not see the benefit of uptake of your research findings, nor do they wish to invest in you or your ideas without first going through such a tortured process that any sane cost-benefit analysis would stop you on day one.

On the upside, look for the public sector cultures focused on achieving something, those who use a strong culture of constructive feedback and accountability while actively supporting their staff to be and do better. These cultures exist and will openly work with you to get what impact can be had from your research. Don’t be put off. They are strong and self-confident cultures and the people there will not shrink from telling you frankly if they do not see a place for your idea. Importantly for you, you will know that the people living in these cultures will have worked hard and constructively to come to that decision.


When you find that your research is not getting picked up in the public sector, do look at the traditional elements of funding cycles, alignment and relevance, but also look for the three elements described above that are often less visible. Look around and check if you fit to a genuine priority, have found the right people and, most of all, if the culture of the organisation is open to embedding new research findings. In fact, save yourself some time, look for these three elements first and if you don’t find them, it tells you that that is not the place, and this is not the time, for your research to have an impact. However, do continue looking as there are excellent people in great public sector organisations crying out for good research that can influence their policy, regulatory and/or operational activities.

Do you have any experiences to share based on the elements described above? These lessons are drawn from experience in Australia, how well do they resonate with those of you living elsewhere?

Biography: Anthony Boxshall 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. His growing research areas include environmental impacts, coastal adaptation to climate change, citizen science and integrating research into practice.

Six strategies to ensure policies are backed by evidence

Community member post by Danielle Campbell and Gabriel Moore

Danielle Campbell (biography)

What is the best way to ensure that policies are informed by the most relevant research evidence?

Six promising strategies emerged from a rapid review of the literature (Campbell and Moore 2018). Although our focus was on health policies, the findings are likely to be more broadly applicable. An important caveat is that the number of studies to investigate these issues is small and most are descriptive rather than testing strategies. Continue reading

Four strategies for improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers

Community member post by Chris Cvitanovic

Chris Cvitanovic (biography)

How can we improve knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate evidence informed decision-making? Of course there is no one size fits all approach, but here I outline four strategies that could be adapted and implemented across different contexts: (i) knowledge co-production, (ii) embedding, (iii) knowledge brokers, and (iv) boundary organisations. These are illustrated in the figure below.

Knowledge co-production

Perhaps the most widely advocated approach to achieving improved knowledge exchange, knowledge co-production refers to the process whereby decision-makers actively participate in scientific research programs from the onset, collaborating with researchers throughout every aspect of the study including design, implementation and analysis. Continue reading

Twelve ways to kill research translation

Community member post by Lewis Atkinson

Lewis Atkinson (biography)

Want to reduce the likelihood that your research will produce policy and practice change? Here are 12 anti-rules to prevent research translation.

Anti-rule #1: ONLY FOCUS ON YOUR PART OF THE PROBLEM. Avoid seeing the problem as a whole to limit the intervention possibilities. Acknowledge the translational “gap” but be ambivalent about who owns it. Contest it with others and perpetuate confusion with a range of definitions for what research translation means.

Anti-rule #2: CLOSE OFF THE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE. Keep a tight lid on who is involved and what knowledge is seen to be relevant. Do not share your data or allow access to your sources of data. Minimise the rate of data exchange within and among various research and non-research partners. Continue reading

Maximizing use of research evidence – how can funders help?

Community member post by Bev Holmes

Bev Holmes (biography)

What is the role of funders in maximizing the use of research evidence?

The Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research is actively considering this question. An important influence on the Foundation’s thinking is the 2014 Lancet special issue Research: Increasing Value, Reducing Waste, which explores roles for funders, regulators, journals, academic institutions and researchers. Funders have a part to play in each of the five recommendations made in the special issue and these are reviewed first. Also examined is an additional area where funders have a role, namely creating the conditions for effective knowledge translation. Continue reading

When are scientists neutral experts or strategic policy makers?

Community member post by Karin Ingold

Karin Ingold (biography)

What roles can science and scientific experts adopt in policymaking? One way of examining this is through the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993). This framework highlights that policymaking and the negotiations regarding a political issue—such as reform of the health system, or the introduction of an energy tax on fossil fuels—is dominated by advocacy coalitions in opposition. Advocacy coalitions are groups of actors sharing the same opinion about how a policy should be designed and implemented. Each coalition has its own beliefs and ideologies and each wants to see its preferences translated into policies. Continue reading