For a trained researcher, the world of ‘policy’ offers an opportunity to make a contribution to knowledge in the public sphere. Researchers trained in the social sciences who are comfortable with large datasets and/or working to understand human perceptions and beliefs should be able to transition into public policy very comfortably. For those coming from other subjects like myself – my PhD was in English Literature – the transition is bumpier but still very possible.
Like academic research, policy jobs can be as much about dissemination, raising your own profile and that of your organisation, and supporting others to understand your findings, as actually doing the research.
But there are a number of core differences, and because neither type of researcher thoroughly understands the other, it is easy for myths and stereotypes to grow and crystallise.
At one end of the scale there is the academic researcher: pedantic, process-obsessed, making a contingent and heavily problematised contribution in an academic subject area no one has heard of. At the other end there is the policy researcher: slapdash and politicised, only asking the questions that will generate the data to prove the point s/he wants to make and create a media splash.
Even if we do not apply such extreme thinking when engaging with individual researchers, myths can be influential in shaping how the two knowledge arenas interact with each other, and can create barriers to ease of transition between the two. But by breaking down some of these myths and winnowing out the grain of truth at the heart of them, we can understand better the purpose and value of each mode of research.
Speedy Policy research projects take a few months whereas academic research projects can take several years. Policy officers need to gather as much data as is available to them within a short timeframe – the length of a government consultation, say. Public debate, of course, moves faster than much academic debate, and there is no use in a policy officer who cannot make a timely, informed contribution to the public conversation. But speed does not equal slapdash – like any researcher the policy researcher must be scrupulous about information sources, data limitations and highlighting where trends or indicative results are observed. We call it ‘evidence’ but we never claim it is conclusive. The media, of course, may present things rather differently. We do have to accept, however, that public policy decisions are rarely made with all the evidence available and all the questions answered.
Action-focused When we undertake policy research, the question we are usually trying to answer is ‘what should government, organisations, or individuals DO about this situation?’ At NUS, we conduct research to understand aspects of specific student experiences, but we also present recommendations for action. This of course requires us to start from the assumption that there are problems to be solved, and we rely on our membership to drive the process of identifying problems and issues that need improving.
Where possible we try to build suggestions for improvement and action into the research. For example, when conducting a focus group where individuals are highlighting problems or challenges they experience we always ask what would help. Often what seems like the obvious answer is the wrong one, so it’s really important to ask the question.
Intent to influence. As a policy researcher, something being interesting is not enough of a reason to research it. The need to influence public narrative, and create an evidence-based position from which to argue on matters of public policy, as well as the political position of your organisation, shapes what is investigated, as well as how the results are reported and positioned. Likewise, for policy officers working in a membership organisation, policy research can be undertaken to help members understand and be influential on a specific issue. So the questions that are asked have to be relevant to members, and the way the results are reported comprehensible and interesting to non-experts.
Perhaps the main difference between academic research and policy research is that policy research must serve the needs of the wider political environment; it must inform the public, members or other stakeholders and it must present evidence that can lead to action through, for example, supporting a campaign for change.
In order for this to happen, a level of detail and depth must be sacrificed, but not the ethics or robustness of the research process itself. Some academic researchers would find this environment intolerable; others are excited by being so immersed in the public conversation and by being able to see immediate results of the thinking and work that has been put in.
Dr Debbie McVitty, Research and Policy Officer (HE), National Union of Students
