Social Science Research Use in Policy Penelope Carroll, SHORE Michael Blewden, SHORE Funded by BRCSS Network BRCSS Conference: Social Sciences Research: A Celebration Thursday 11th June, Wellington 2009

Overview Introduction to the Research Reflection on Research Use Findings Reflection on Case Study Method Direction from the Rich Dialogue Process

Introduction to the Research

The Study Objective – to examine the process of social science research use in policy and uncover barriers and enablers to use from the perspectives of researchers, policy advisors and politicians. Methodology –Literature review –Case studies 2004 Working for Families legislation budget allocations for insulating homes Recent Immigration policies

Assumptions Research competes with many other forms of evidence and influence in the policymaking process Policy is more likely to be evidence-informed, rather than evidence- based Policymaking is ‘messy, contested and non-linear There are many types of research ‘use’ Not all social science research is, or should be policy-driven

Methodology Literature review Environmental scan of case-study relevant documents Interviews with –14 researchers –14 policy advisors –3 politicians Thematic analysis of individual case studies Comparisons and general conclusions on research process teased out

Reflection on Research Use Findings

Key Findings on Research Use Use as ‘process’ Influence of context on use and influence Different use and influence through policy development

Use as Process Use not a one-off ‘event’ Multiple points of exchange A B

Use as ‘Process’ Relevance of more complex policy development models ‘Advocacy coalition’ framework ‘Argumentative discursive’ model e.g.

Research Use The user The research Linkages Influence of Context Policy Context Research Context Shaped by interests, ideology, information, institutions Shaped by imperatives, incentives, interests, infrastructure

Evolving Use and Influence Agenda Setting Policy Formation Decision Making ImplementationEvaluation Conceptual Use Knowledge driven use Instrumental use Consensual stance Policy development Problem identification Contentious stance Paradigm challenging stance Symbolic use Interactive use Conceptual Use

Reflections on Research Process

Reflections on the Case Study Approach Strengths –Allows for in-depth understanding of research-policy process –Clearly shows differing pathways, uses, influences –Highlights messy and contested nature of process Issues –Deciding on a time-frame for each case study –Identifying (and having access to) the ‘right’ participants –Differing perceptions of the research-to policy process –Not one, ‘definitive’ account

1980s -1990s Longitudinal studies Research outside government Research inside government Living standards NZPMP CPAG Incentive to work MSD taskforce Reduce child poverty Legislation Influences Strategic policy ref. group Other OECD Discourses Media Advocacy NGOs no poverty need to address child poverty work incentives Working for Families Case Study

Direction from RDP

Rich Dialogue Process (RDP) Method for facilitating discussion and improving understanding between stakeholders on issues of common interest Used in current study to enhance research utilisation

RDP Objectives Share/contrast research findings Share examples/lessons learnt from practice Identify/address barriers to research use Identify strategies for enhancing research use

The Process Three separate meetings Policy makers (17th February, n=8) Researchers (5th March, n= 18) Combined (20th March, n= 27) Selected participants Distribution of proceedings Individual and collective deliberation

Enhancing Research/Policy Interface Clarity and Transparency Respective factors shaping demand and supply of policy and research Better understanding of needs, expectations, constraints, risks, process etc Relationship Collaborative, diverse, bilateral, long term, persistent, sustainable Importance of engagement, ‘two-way’conversations Shared Knowledge, Understanding Of respective policy and research ‘worlds’ Bridging the ‘cultural divide’ Enhanced ability to set and meet expectations; work within barriers/constraints Supportive Infrastructure Diverse interface/transfer mechanisms Capability/capacity building Existing infrastructure e.g. SPEaR, BRCSS System and structural support which addresses barriers/disincentives *Acknowledgements to A/P Robin Peace, Massey University WhatWhy