As the leading publisher in Social and Public Policy, we publish in the core social sciences to highlight social issues, advance debate and positively influence policy and practice.
Our list leads the way on conversations around inequality and social injustice featuring authors such as Peter Townsend, Kayleigh Garthwaite, Danny Dorling, Pete Alcock, John Hills and Bob Jessop. Series including the International Library of Policy Analysis and Research in Comparative and Global Social Policy bring international, high-quality scholarship together in order to address global social challenges.
Our key journals in this field are the Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, an internationally unique forum for leading research on the themes of poverty and social justice, Policy & Politics, a world-leading journal that is committed to advancing our understanding of the dynamics of policy making and implementation, and Evidence & Policy, dedicated to comprehensive and critical assessment of the relationship between researchers and the evidence they produce and the concerns of policy makers and practitioners.
Social and Public Policy
Background:
Our interdisciplinary team initiated a project to inform the COVID-19 vaccination programme. We developed a novel research co-creation approach to share emerging findings with government.
Aims and objectives:
We critically assess the ‘Functional Dialogue’ (FD) programme for future research translation practices in time-limited policy-making scenarios. We identify what factors helped us to put the FDs together and consider their effects on all aspects of the research programme. We draw out key moments of impact, weaknesses and challenges and identify how future FDs might be enhanced.
Methods:
Between January 2021 and June 2022, we conducted 14 FDs with state and federal government, exploring attendees’ attitudes, beliefs, experiences, roles and observations regarding our research. FDs and research team debriefs were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.
Findings:
FD processes proved invaluable to the timeliness, impact and flow of our research project by creating systems that helped to bridge the evidence–policy gap. Relationships and reciprocity helped, but other professional commitments of our government partners posed challenges and produced fluctuating engagement. FDs built the capacity of the research team, strengthening communication skills and creating opportunities to contribute to pandemic policies.
Discussion and conclusion:
We struggled to quantify the impact of FDs on policy decisions due to the ethical requirements of academic research, barriers for policy makers in isolating and/or acknowledging impact, and the collaborative nature of dialogue. Nevertheless, the structures of knowledge transfer that we foresaw as necessary to ensure impact became the central plank of the project’s broader success.
This practice piece will present a comparative reflection of how the use of evidence in policy looks when viewed from the outside, as a researcher, with how evidence use is experienced when working as a policy maker. The three authors are unusual in sharing an experience of studying evidence use in policy before becoming elected politicians who are involved in policy making and who have therefore gained a very different, more direct experience of how evidence is used in policy-making settings. Synhaeve has studied evidence use in secure youth care and is an elected councillor and was elected national member of parliament for the Democrats 66 Party in the Netherlands, McMahon has studied evidence use in public health and is an elected councillor for the Labour Party in England, while Heap has studied evidence use in social security policy and is an elected councillor for the Green Party in Scotland. The practice piece will consider to what extent their perspectives on evidence use in policy have shifted as they have moved from researcher to political representative and policy maker, and will consider to what extent these experiences have been shaped by their substantive policy interests and the political systems in which each is operating. It will conclude by summarising the collective insights that have emerged for the three authors as they have shifted to viewing evidence use from the perspective of an insider, who is using evidence in making policy, rather than an outsider, producing evidence with a view to influencing policy.
Background:
The 2018 Declaration of Astana acknowledges the need to include traditional, complementary and integrative health care (TCIH) knowledge and technologies within primary health care. The World Health Assembly has also called member states to integrate TCIH into national healthcare systems. However, little attention has been given to developing supportive resources for this process in practice, policy, research and education.
Methods:
This study employed Delphi methodology to refine a framework for the evaluation and implementation of text-based traditional knowledge in contemporary health contexts. An international sample was recruited of expert participants with experience in a diversity of settings and disciplines. Framework items were retained, removed or modified based on participant consensus agreement on the importance of each item (consensus set at ≥75 per cent agreement), and mapped for comprehensiveness against an implementation framework.
Findings:
The initial survey round was completed by 19 participants and the second round by 15 participants. Most participants (n=15) held TCIH qualifications, representing six TCIH professions in total (naturopathy, Western herbal medicine, osteopathy, traditional Chinese and Oriental medicine, Ayurveda, and homeopathy). Participants typically had experience in multiple contexts across clinical practice, research, education and policy development. Consensus was achieved after two rounds and the resulting framework included three sections comprising guiding principles (five items), critical appraisal criteria (three items) and application criteria (eight items).
Conclusions:
As the international health community increasingly recognised the potential value and importance of TCIH knowledge and technologies, this Contemporary Implementation of Traditional knowledge and Evidence (CITE) Framework provides a timely and much-needed practical guide to rigorous and respectful traditional knowledge implementation.
The first section of the landmark Equality Act 2010 has been lying dormant for 14 years. The ‘public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequalities’ – passed by the Labour government in 2010 – was never brought into force in England by the Conservative-led coalition that replaced them. The new Labour government has committed to its resurrection. Drawing on evidence from Scotland and Wales, where the ‘socio-economic duty’ has been in force since April 2018 and March 2021 respectively, this article offers three reflections for policy makers and those who will be tasked with its implementation in England: the promise of its ‘holistic’ incorporation into the Equality Act 2010 of impact assessment processes; the ongoing necessity for support with evidence collection and data sharing; and the duty’s potential as a catalyst for broader organisational change far beyond a strict interpretation of its legal remit. Although (very) far from a panacea, if coupled with well-executed guidance, training and oversight, its commencement could help to encourage greater consideration and transparency of evidence on socio-economic inequalities in key areas of public sector decision making.
Background:
Knowledge brokering is suggested as an instrument to improve productive use of research in policy organisations. Previous research asserted that research utilisation is dependent on dynamics of knowledge exchange in institutional settings, but these claims have not received substantial empirical attention (Saarela et al, 2015; Akerlof et al, 2019; MacKillop et al, 2020). Viewing knowledge brokering as the involved role, three specific challenges are identified: high legitimacy requirements for the brokered knowledge and the broker; the need to cater for a wide range of topics, audiences and uses; and the need to compete with other evidence suppliers.
Aims and objectives:
The research question of the article is: how do legislative knowledge brokers navigate context-specific knowledge transfer challenges presented by their institutional context?
Methods:
An in-depth interpretive case study of the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. The analysis includes interviews with parliamentary actors, shadowing and participant observation.
Findings:
The results substantiate the challenges of legislative knowledge brokering in the UK context and inductively identify a further challenge of demonstrating impact. Legislative knowledge brokers employ multiple strategies to navigate the challenges: co-shape and adhere to the norms of impartiality, mobilise external expertise, collaborate with in-house and external research support actors, employ anticipation techniques, build broker chains, seek understanding of own role and impact.
Discussion and conclusion:
The article contributes to the understanding of knowledge brokering as a context-dependent role. The conclusions discuss influence of knowledge brokers’ work remit and positionality in deploying strategies to overcome the legislative challenges.
Background:
The academic impact agenda and evidence-informed policy movement have formed dynamic incentives for engagement between universities and local authorities. Yet, in the competitive higher education landscape, research-intensive universities frequently gravitate towards global rather than local impacts, while local government resources are diminished. In this context, how can universities and councils collaborate effectively to inform solutions to complex policy issues?
Aims and objectives:
This paper draws on data from a Review of Collaboration between researchers at the University of Leeds and officers at Leeds City Council, which explored factors that enable and constrain research–policy engagement. Where limitations of linear models of research–policy interaction are well documented, we consider how a ‘community of practice’ (CoP) approach might offer insights for accelerating civic knowledge exchange.
Methods:
A CoP lens was applied in analysing data from a mapping exercise, survey and semi-structured interviews involving academics and council officers.
Findings:
Examining research–policy engagement in terms of the ‘domain’, ‘community’ and ‘practice’ constituents of CoPs highlights the significance of interpersonal connections in forging ‘boundary-crossing’ collaborations that have spurred innovation in the city. Academics and officers commonly advocated enhanced inter-organisational processes whereby relationality is supported institutionally. Proposals are encapsulated in a model that conceptualises civic collaboration as a series of domain-specific CoPs supported by an inter-sectoral CoP performing vital ‘boundary bridging’ functions.
Discussion and conclusions:
Drawing on experiences from one English city, we advance a framework which offers promising insights into integration of organisational and relational facilitators of research–policy partnerships in responding to municipal policy challenges.
For the voluntary sector, economic turbulence often means having to sustain a growing demand on services with a decreasing income. Sharing back-office functions is sometimes suggested as a way in which charities can collaborate to meet this challenge. This study explores the claims made for back-office sharing and how these are borne out by the experiences of charities engaged in such collaborations. Drawing on data gathered through semi-structured interviews with chief executive officers and senior managers of 18 charities in the United Kingdom, the study finds that charities were largely unprepared for the challenges of such collaborations and that the dominant aim of cost savings was often not achieved. A focus on effectiveness seemed to provide better results. These findings challenge the cost-savings premise of back-office collaborations. They also highlight the need for more empirical evidence, and for closer links between theory and practice, to help charities make informed decisions.
The voluntary sector provides specialist services to survivors of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) though little research exists on how these organisations are funded. This research using a multi-method design explores the funding landscape of the CSA sector. Analysis of the financial returns of 48 charities supporting survivors was undertaken to ascertain income breakdown and to identify whether this has changed over time. Semi-structured interviews with ten organisations explore the attributes of the funding approaches taken. Findings highlight that funding has increased, and the sector, while providing a vital service, is dependent on the state to do so. Commissioning is inconsistent and is a relational process depending on the skills of and relationships between those involved, resulting in varying provision across the country. Findings contribute towards the growing knowledge base around funding of CSA charities and point towards the need for the state to improve its commissioning of such organisations.
An ageing population has placed strains on health and social care systems. Innovative solutions have been sought to inject capacity and capability in order to deliver services to older people more efficiently and effectively. Over the last two decades, governments have actively encouraged third sector organisations to deliver public services on the assumption that they exhibit higher levels of innovation, efficiency and responsiveness. The evidence base, particularly for whether they provide better value for money, remains poor. We present the results of a systematic literature review on the costs and outcomes of services for older people delivered by third sector organisations. We combine this evidence with a framework for analysing the benefits and costs of third sector-led initiatives, and test this out empirically with a group of initiatives delivered for older people in an urban context. We find that our method may hold considerable promise for the evaluation of third sector initiatives.
Background:
Local authorities (LA) are key in improving population health, and LA public health decision makers need support from appropriately organised research capacity; however, few models of LA research systems are known to exist.
Aims and objectives:
To explore potential and existing models of LA-based research systems.
Methods:
This mapping review and time-constrained systematic review synthesises conceptual and empirical literature from 12 health and social science databases, grey literature and reference/citation tracking. Three reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full texts of retrieved records, and extracted key data from included papers. Evidence was synthesised based on characteristics of research systems and quality-assessed for relevance, rigour and richness.
Findings:
Nine models were examined in depth. From these, we developed a typology of research systems. Few models were specifically designed for LA research activity; as a Whole System approach, the Local Authority Champions of Research model offers a potential blueprint. Useful lessons may be learned from UK Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research, Academic Collaborative Centres in the Netherlands, local Research and Development units in Sweden, and generic University-Community partnerships.
Discussion and conclusions:
An optimal research system requires the coexistence of multiple systems including Centre, Partnership, Collaboration, Network and Community types. The review is UK-focused, but the models appear to have wider relevance. Our classification offers those planning an LA research system the opportunity to choose an approach that meets their requirements and resources. A Whole System approach is optimal, with egalitarian input from the LA and academia.