Tony Chapman, Professorial Fellow at St Chads, spoke to researchers in the School of Applied Social Sciences at Durham University on 3rd February on how to harness ideas and findings to shape the way policy makers make decisions. It was argued that while social scientific research was undertaken rigorously, it invariably stems from a position of ‘interest’, so there is always a risk of the accusation of bias. Consequently, researchers have to be particularly careful about how they present their findings to people of influence.
The audience were reminded of the satirical (but well founded) observations of Jonathan Lynn and Anthony Jay in Yes Minister in which Sir Humphrey Appleby rehearsed how to dispense with unwelcome research findings using arguments such as these ‘It leaves important questions unanswered’; ‘much of the evidence is inconclusive’; ‘the figures are open to other interpretations’; ‘certain findings are contradictory’; and, ‘some of the main conclusions have been questioned (and if they haven’t, question them yourself; then they have).’
While it was recognised that some researchers may be content with exploring social problems rigorously and allowing others to draw their own conclusions about their relevance, Professor Chapman asserted that most social scientists wanted to find ways in which their research might be used to make a positive difference to the world. This can only happen, though by persuading people, on the strength of ideas and evidence, to think about things in a different way.
There’s no point in waiting for people to beat a path to your door as an academic – it is necessary to get in and amongst it with policy makers. But of course, academics need to think carefully about how they convey their message to those people they intend to influence. This requires a good deal of empathy with the interests of those who make policy or influence professional practice. Consequently, it is vital to recognise the ‘level’ at which academics seek to influence; whether it is a local hospital or local authority, a regional entity, a practicing profession, a campaign group, national government, and so on. And it is vital to be respectful of and willing to learn from the knowledge that politicians and practitioners have.
In the seminar Professor Chapman argued that ‘facts’ or ‘findings’ rarely speak for themselves – they need to be clearly and succinctly translated into the kind of language that policy makers and practitioners can easily grasp, retain and be eager to communicate to others. Furthermore, because policy makers are rarely interested in exploring the intricacies of the research methodology, academics have to focus their minds on what they can offer in the way of concrete recommendations on what needs to be done. That requires an enthusiasm on the part of researchers to debate issues on policy makers’ own terms rather than those of the academy.
It can be an uphill struggle to make a difference with the Sir Humphries of the world who may say that there’s ‘not really a basis for long term decisions’; ‘not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment’; ‘no reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy’; and ‘broadly speaking, it endorses current practice’. So along with empathy and enthusiasm, courage and determination are required too.
