Guidance on planning and demonstrating effective policy engagement

Acknowledgements

This Framework was developed by Dr Stevie Upton during a secondment to the AHRC from the Institute of Welsh Affairs.

The logic model in the diagram on page 3 is adapted from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s logic model (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Logic Model Development Guide, 2004) and is published with the permission of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

Right-hand cover image

The golden dome on the Sri Guru Singh Sabha Gurdwara in Southall, London

1|

What do we mean by ‘policy engagement’?

Research in the arts and humanities can inform the design and implementation of public policy, both directly and indirectly.

Direct effects are felt through evidence-based contributions to:

• consultations,• formulation of new policy, and • guidelines for those delivering it.

Indirect effects operate through:

• the evaluation of the effects of existing legislation, • historical perspectives on current policy debates, and

• the interrogation of the principles and premises that underpin areas of policy.

All of these ultimately help to shape policy and practice.

Public policy engagement can thus encompass interaction with policy-makers, practitioners and members of the public. It covers a spectrum from new insights generated by collaborative research, conferences and seminars, to briefing and advisory activities, public debate of policy questions, and commissioned research.

Framework for policy engagement

The Framework set out below has been designed to assist researchers who are engaged, or anticipate engaging, in research with a potential policy relevance. It can be used to help you:

1. Plan your engagement

• Engaging policy-makers, practitioners and the public in your research, rather than simply disseminating to them, can enrich both your own experience and your findings.

• Incorporating suitable activities throughout the course of your research can serve to make policy-makers more engaged with your work, and hence more likely to take findings and recommendations on board.

• Where policy engagement is a clear goal, early contact with policy-makers or with media outlets will increase the likelihood that your intended audience will be receptive when you are ready to engage with them.

• Equally, if potential policy relevance becomes apparent during the course of your research, the Framework can be used to shape an appropriate response.

• A strong narrative that highlights those activities which, in concert, might reasonably be expected to precipitate policy change can form the basis of a valid Pathway to Impact.

2. Demonstrate the extent of your engagement

• The Framework can be used to structure a logical explanation of your activities, supported by evidence. This approach can be applied to your entries on the Research Outcomes System.

• Collectively, this robust evidence of systematic policy engagement will contribute to the AHRC’s ongoing advocacy of arts and humanities research.

|2

Planning your engagement

Arts and humanities researchers can produce research with potential policy impact on topics as diverse as foreign policy and security, human rights, community relations and cultural diversity, and constitutional matters.

At its best, engagement with policy-makers can lead to important developments in policy and practice.

Nevertheless, we recognise that not all policy-relevant research will result in an observable policy impact – whether because policy-makers choose not to adopt a recommendation or because multiple (often un-cited) sources contribute to a policy decision.

Even where it is not possible to prove a direct policy impact, academics engaged in policy-relevant research can

plan to engage with policy-makers, practitioners or the public in a systematic and active way.

The diagram on the following page demonstrates how opportunities to engage are inherent in all stages of a research project:

• The lower half of the diagram describes the sequence of events involved in conducting a research project. Read from left to right, it underscores the relationship between the resources required for, activities undertaken during, and outcomes desired from a research project.

• At the top of the diagram are examples of the types of interaction with policy-makers and practitioners that are possible at each stage.

At whatever stage you begin to consider engaging with policy-makers, practitioners or the public (for it might not be immediately apparent that your chosen research path will generate policy-relevant research), the Framework should form the basis for planning quality engagements.

Making an initial approach to beneficiaries at the earliest possible opportunity can help to secure a more prolonged, varied and, all other things being equal, effective engagement. More important still is ensuring that any engagement you have in the policy field is appropriately tailored to your audience. Information on increasing your likely impact is given on pages 6-7.

From left to right: Professor Maleiha Malik, Professor Peter Jones, Professor Linda Woodhead, the Rt Hon Charles Clarke, Baroness Julia Neuberger, the Rt Revd Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali and Lisa Appignanesi at the ‘What Limits to Religious Freedom?’ debate.

3|

Resources, inputs and planning Activities OutcomesOutputs Policy impact

UNIVERSITYBASED RESEARCH PROJECT

GOVERNMENT AND OTHER POLICYMAKING BODIES

Academic – Policy-Maker Engagement

Certain resources are needed to undertake your research and policy engagement

eg.

• commissioned evaluations

• in-kind resources

• shared definition of research topic

eg.

• co-production of knowledge

• meetings with civil servants

• joint evaluation of outputs

eg.

• conferences or seminars targeted at policy-makers

• briefing papers

• advisory group membership or secondment

eg.

• improved understanding of policy issues

• new policy recommendations

• ongoing relationships with new contacts

Only certain engagements will result in direct, observable policy impact, often due to circumstances beyond an academic’s control

eg.• changes to policy wording

• new ways of implementing policy

If you have access to resources, thenyou can use them to accomplish your planned activities

If you accomplish your planned activities, then you will be able to deliver a series of outputs

If you accomplish your planned activities to the extent you intended, then your participants will benefit in certain ways

If these benefits to participants are achieved, then certain changes in policy, organisations, communities or systems might be expected to occur

understanding of

Plan to engage with policy-makers, practitioners or the public in a systematic and active way.

|4

Demonstrating the extent of your engagement

Even where it is not possible to prove a direct policy impact, what academics engaged in policy-relevant research can do is to demonstrate engagement with policy-makers, practitioners or the public that lays the groundwork for future policy impact.

Assessment of the (likely) effectiveness of policy engagements lends itself most readily to a narrative structure. The approach set out below should help you to structure submissions on the Research Outcomes System. It can also as readily be applied to generation of case studies from your work.

Your aim should be to develop a logical explanation, supported by evidence, of how you have sought to influence policy. In ROS, the “description” section for each outcome entered on the system should

be used to provide supporting evidence. The cumulative effect of these outcomes can be set out in the “potential use in non-academic contexts” section.

In providing evidence of your engagements, give thought to the following four questions:

1. When did these engagements take place? How often did they occur, over what time period and at what stage(s) of the research?

2. Who were the audiences addressed in the course of your research and dissemination – both directly and indirectly/as an unforeseen result?

3. How were these audiences engaged?

4. What evidence can you provide of active engagement with, rather than simply passive receipt of, your research?

The greater the evidence that you have achieved a high degree of active engagement, the stronger your case for having contributed to the public policy sphere will be.

Examples of indicators that can be used to support your claims of policy engagement are set out on the following page. This is not an exhaustive list. The most appropriate indicator to use will depend on context, but in every case its purpose is to provide corroboration for statements about the type and degree of your engagements.

Students from Chennai, India, looking at a touring exhibition from ‘Beyond the Frame: India in Britain, 1858-1950’

Chris Burgess, CDA student at the University of Nottingham, showing Times journalist Matthew Parris round his ‘Picturing Politics’ exhibition of political posters at the People’s Museum, Manchester.

5|5|

The greater the evidence that you have achieved a high degree of active engagement, the stronger your case for having contributed

to the public policy sphere will be.

RESOURCES, INPUTS AND PLANNING

Funding

• Amount• Source(s)

In-kind resources

• Type• Source(s)

Commissioning of research/events

Shared definition of research topic

• Highlight specific contributions by policy-makers or practitioners

• Identify any input from intermediary bodies (e.g. think tanks or NGOs)

ACTIVITIES

Co-production of knowledge

• Evidence iteration with stakeholders (policy-makers, practitioners, intermediaries) in development of ideas

• Identify how outcomes of discussions were taken into account

Meetings

• How many?• With whom?• For what purposes?

Event planning

• Joint definition of content/identification of speakers

• Joint identification of attendees

Joint evaluation of findings/outputs

• Evidence stakeholders’ assessment of success

Conferences and seminars

• Number/type of events held • Number/affiliation of attendees

Primary publications (produced by the research team)

• How tailored to recipients?• To whom sent? Why?• What follow-up?

Committee/inquiry evidence

• Written or oral?

Advisory group membership

• What input made?

Secondments

• What outcomes?

Media coverage

• At whose instigation?

• What programmes/publications?

• When broadcast/published?

• Audience/circulation/readership

OUTPUTS OUTCOMES

Evidence of positive reception

• Event feedback surveys

• Testimony from direct beneficiaries

• Testimony to consequent mobilisation of other activity in the field

Secondary publications (citing or incorporating the research)

• Identify extent of citation of the primary research

• What purpose does the publication have?

• What is its reach/audience?

New policy recommendations

• What were they?• How were they received?

Lasting/emerging relationships with new contacts

• With whom?• How maintained?

POLICY IMPACT

Changes to policy wording

• Provide documentary or testimonial evidence of incorporation of the research in question

New ways of implementing policy

• Provide documentary or testimonial evidence of impact of the research in question

|6

Increasing your likely impact

Different forms of engagement can be expected to have different probabilities of generating policy impact.

As your research unfolds you might therefore find it helpful to consider what activities are likely to result in the greatest benefits for your intended beneficiaries.

The matrix on the following page plots various research outputs based on the type and degree of engagement involved. The greater the number of engagements and/or number of people engaged, the higher the degree of engagement. The more tailored an output is to specific policy beneficiaries, the more active its type. Referring back to the four questions posed on page 4, we are effectively plotting “who” and “when” on the horizontal axis, against “how” on the vertical axis.

Thinking about your activities in this way can help to point you towards those activities that will maximise the likelihood of your work being taken on board by policy-makers.

Broadly speaking, you should be trying to achieve more in the upper two (“active”) quadrants. Making relatively minor changes to your activities can radically improve policy-maker engagement. A seminar series, for example, can be planned and delivered with or without the involvement of policy-makers and practitioners. The former is the more certain route to successful policy outcomes.

7|

Commissioned to deliver radio or television series on policy topic

Organised follow-up meeting to discuss briefing paper Approached by press to

discuss topic of policy relevance

Sent unsolicited copy of journal paper to government department

Held series of seminars of potential policy relevance without actively engaging policy-makers

Sent briefing paper to identified government contact

Held series of seminars with participation by policy-makers

Membership of government advisory panel

ACTIVE TYPE OF ENGAGEMENT

LOW DEGREE OF

ENGAGEMENT

HIGH DEGREE OF

ENGAGEMENT

PASSIVE TYPE OF ENGAGEMENT

Degree of engagementrefers to audience reached

(single engagement or small audience = low degree; multiple engagements or large audience = high degree)

Type of engagement refers to the extent to which the engagement (not the researcher) is active or passive

(collaborative activity or invited contributions = active; sending of unsolicited research reports = passive)

It can be relatively straightforward to increase the effectiveness of some forms of engagement

Published by Arts and Humanities Research CouncilPolaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN2 1FL www.ahrc.ac.uk

©Arts and Humanities Research Council 2013. Published July 2013Design by Rumba. Printed by JRS on paper containing 80% post consumer waste