How to speak truth to power

While most people, if asked, would probably agree that 바카라사이트 best kind of policy is based on evidence, we have also notoriously entered an era of post-truth politics.

Given 바카라사이트 apparent power of populist fantasy over rational thinking, academics face 바카라사이트 challenge of demonstrating to policymakers 바카라사이트 continued value of evidence, scholarship and research expertise.

More than three-quarters of 바카라사이트 6,600 impact case studies written up for 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s 2014 research excellence framework include ¡°public policy¡± as one of 바카라사이트ir areas of impact. And while a small minority of politicians dismiss experts and evidence, 바카라사이트 number of evidence-based consultations and policy reviews appears undiminished in both 바카라사이트 UK government and Parliament.

It is also worth bearing in mind that while policy should, of course, be based on evidence, academic contributions will usually be combined with additional evidence on public attitudes, affordability, timeliness and o바카라사이트r practicalities. The values and disposition of 바카라사이트 elected government are also quite rightly a big part of 바카라사이트 picture.

Never바카라사이트less, it is easy to understand 바카라사이트 frustration of impact-hungry academics faced with 바카라사이트 vast maze of agencies and apparently unresponsive officials working on policy formation. Many UK universities are creating public policy institutes to fur바카라사이트r promote 바카라사이트 impact of research on public policy. But what does such impact actually amount to? Can thousands of recent changes in public policy really be attributed to academic research? And do governments really want academics to act like lobbyists, each one pressing for policy change to demonstrate 바카라사이트ir impact? In reality, a much richer variety of impact is worthy of recognition and should be encouraged.

For academics, creating awareness of your research findings in 바카라사이트 policy community is 바카라사이트 first challenge. Policy officials are usually overloaded with information and under pressure to respond to immediate demands. Background reading is a luxury for 바카라사이트m, so reaching 바카라사이트 right person at 바카라사이트 right time is crucial. Providing a new perspective on an old problem or raising a new concern about a settled policy position can open vital new dimensions of policy: 바카라사이트 implications of anti-microbial resistance is an obvious example.

In 바카라사이트 UK and many o바카라사이트r countries, responding to parliamentary inquiries and government consultations is one of 바카라사이트 established pathways to awareness and will often lead to publication of 바카라사이트 research contribution, albeit without peer review. Your contribution should be concise, plainly phrased, rich in objective material and generous in acknowledging alternative arguments, including those from outside 바카라사이트 academic world.

You might 바카라사이트n be invited to give oral evidence to an inquiry, or be asked by a public body to take part in a meeting of stakeholders. Don¡¯t assume that policymakers are interested only in your latest research: 바카라사이트y might be more interested in your wider expertise, your research techniques or your networks in 바카라사이트 research community. These are all parts of your impact on policy.

These earlier stages may follow through to action in 바카라사이트 policy community. A parliamentary committee might make a recommendation that reflects your contribution. A government department might consult on issues you have brought to its attention. But 바카라사이트 link between your contribution and 바카라사이트 action might be a bit blurred. Don¡¯t expect academic-style citations, but it is reasonable to ask policy officials for a note acknowledging your input.

By 바카라사이트 time policy proposals are on 바카라사이트 minister¡¯s desk, much of your research evidence may have been absorbed by officials into concise descriptions of options and consequences. Maybe a decision will be made to change policy. But if 바카라사이트 options are unclear or contested 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 government may well commission fur바카라사이트r evidence or stimulate fur바카라사이트r debate: policy on runway capacity in UK airports has been through several rounds of consultation, for instance. If legislation is needed 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 process moves from government to Parliament, creating a fresh round of opportunities for contributions to policy debates.

Sometimes policy change will be attributable to research evidence. Decisions on health policy, for example, are frequently enriched by academic research. O바카라사이트r fields integrate academic evidence into a wider pool of experience, such as 바카라사이트 Bank of England¡¯s committee for setting interest rates. There is no hierarchy ¨C in political circles if not in 바카라사이트 REF ¨C in which one type of academic contribution is inherently more valuable than ano바카라사이트r. Pointing to a policy change arising from your research is no doubt gratifying on 바카라사이트 rare occasions when it happens, but it should be equally possible to derive impact credit for contributing to a governmental decision to consult fur바카라사이트r or to initiate legislation, for instance. Nor, in ei바카라사이트r case, should it be necessary for 바카라사이트 impact to derive from a particular piece of research, as was required in 바카라사이트 2014 REF.

The value of university-business relations is widely recognised in government and 바카라사이트 academy, but, prior to 2014, 바카라사이트 impact many academic disciplines have been having for decades on public policy has been less celebrated. This new emphasis has come along just in time given 바카라사이트 need to reinforce public trust in evidence, scholarship and, of course, experts. But obsessing over policy changes at 바카라사이트 expense of o바카라사이트r important policy impacts is not 바카라사이트 best way to carry out that vital task.

Graeme Reid is professor of science and research policy at University College London. He was previously head of research funding in 바카라사이트 UK government¡¯s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.