Valuing Policy Oriented Research
Partnerships
John Shields
Dept. of Politics and Public Administration,
Ryerson University
Session: Sharing Knowledge in Immigration and
Settlement: Research, Policy, and Service
Community Perspectives
16th National Metropolis Conference Partnering
for Success: Facilitating Integration and Inclusion
March 12-15, 2014, Gatineau, Quebec
1
Introduction
• My own background and orientation to the
subject
• The value of research partnerships, why I am a
convert
2
The Challenge of KT/KM
• KT/KM is concerned with the problem of how to
bring relevant and useable knowledge/evidence
to end users so they are able to make better
informed decisions and improve policy,
programing and practice. The goal was to move
“knowledge into action” and to bridge the
“knowledge-to-action gap” (Graham, 2006, 1314).
3
• KT/KM are not static practices; they are
dynamic and involve multidimensional,
complex and long-term interactions rather
than earlier understandings that suggested “a
one directional and linear move from research
to practice”. Too many models of KT/KM give
“dominance to the work of researchers, with
everything else being organized around the
production of research” (Levin, 2008, 11, 13).
4
• Phipps and Shapson have recognized that
knowledge useful for “developing sustainable
solutions” to problems is best developed in
collaborations (2009, 212).
• Policy analysts and decision makers in
government are far more likely to give
attention to research and evidence that come
from known connections that they are linked
into (Levin 2013, 50).
5
• To address the KT ‘gap’ research needs to get a
better ‘social life’.
Research and Policymaking
• It is virtually impossible to draw a straight-line
link between research and policy decisions
(Campbell et al., 2007; Levin 2008, 8). But ongoing knowledge exchange is most likely to result
in the creation relevant knowledge and its actual
utilization in policymaking.
• Gov’t is something of a closed black box.
6
• The goal behind evidence-based policymaking is
the “attempt to enhance the possibility of policy
success by improving the amount and
type[/quality] of information processed in public
policy decision-making” (Howlett et al 2009,
157), and to make public policy both more
rational and pragmatic (Solesbury, 2001).
• But policymaking is not a science but a practice
and consequently evidence comes to be
“mediated through political processes” (Levin
2013, 62).
7
• Aside from research evidence policy makers are
informed by such sources as experience, anecdote and
public opinion (Campbell, et. al. 2007, 7; and Lomas
2000, 143). This is part of the ‘evidence’ world of
government.
• Of course if research is to have an impact Governments
must also be open to listening to evidence-based
knowledge.
• However, as the former head of the Canadian public
service Mel Cappe has observed, there have been
“governments that have privileged ideology and
doctrine over evidence” and their interest in evidence
rests in the direction of ‘policy-based evidence’, i.e.,
only the use of ‘evidence’ that supports their
predetermined ideologically-based decisions (2013, xi).
8
• Daniel Savoie has gone so far as to claim that:
“… the policy advisory role of public servants
… has been turned on its head. Multiple
sources of information and evidence-based
policy advice no longer matter as they once
did. Today, if policy-making in a postpositivism world is a matter of opinion, where
2 + 2 can equal 5, then Google searches, focus
groups, public opinion surveys and a wellconnected lobbyist can provide any policy
answer that politicians can wish to hear.” (as
quoted in Griffith, 2013)
9
• Is the Government in Ottawa committed to
“evidence-free policy” approach?
• Based on my own research public servants are
still very much interested in evidenceinformed policy even if elected officials are
sometimes less enthusiastic. Moreover, most
provinces have not followed the feds to
neglect an evidence-based approach and
value research. They are still keen on finding
out what works based on evidence.
• Moreover, evidence remains important at all
levels for informing programming.
10
The Role of Community Based Organizations in
Research Partnerships
• NGOs are in a unique position to assess the
effectiveness of policy and programming from the
vantage point of service impact and broader
community interests (NGOs are on the frontline).
• NGOs have long used research in policy advocacy
– the importance of ‘grey literature’.
• Also, as other forms of evidence become less
available and reliable (like the CENSUS) evidence
gathered from frontline nonprofit agencies take
on greater importance.
11
• NGOs are “physically, socially and emotionally
close to the communities they serve, and
there are generally high levels of trust
between them. … One of the strategic
advantages of academic and government
[partnerships with NGOs] is unprecedented
access to grassroots populations for in-depth
study. The ‘lived experience’ of these
populations can be accessed in a manner that
was rarely possible before” (Shields and Evans
2012, 262).
12
• A fundamental issue for the community sector
is the very limited resources and capacity that
they have to devote to research, in contrast
government departments and university
researchers. For community organizations,
research is most often done ‘out of the side of
the desk’ (Evans & Wellstead, 2013)
• NGOs are compelled to multitask and do ever
more with less due to serious funding
limitations (Shields, 2013).
13
• This places NGOs at a considerable
disadvantage in relation to other actors in the
research partnership. Structurally, in essence,
NGOs are positioned as junior partners.
• On the positive side NGOs have an interest in
raising the public profile of immigration and
settlement issues and research. Research
helps to legitimate many of the concerns long
expressed by the community sector as well as
confirm the value of their work with
newcomer populations.
14
• Research on immigration and settlement is often
useful to NGOs for grant and service contract
applications, as well as for community
educational initiatives and advocacy purposes.
• Partnering with academics in research projects
can also be beneficial in terms of knowledge
generation, resources (as limited as these may
be) brought to the community through research
grants, and the ability through research and
knowledge dissemination via conferences and
forums, for example, to build connections with
governments, academics and other communitybased organizations (and vice versa for academic
researchers).
15
• The involvement of community-based actors in
research partnerships helps to ensure that it is
not just narrowly conceived academic generated
evidence that becomes the dominant dialogue.
This is transforming such social science research
giving it more policy relevant orientation and
making it more grounded and rooted in the
community experience.
• If academic connections give ‘scientific’ credibility
to community involved research it is also the case
that community-based research involvement with
academics provide a grounded reality check to
the academic content of the research.
16
• NGOs are organizations with a mission to address the
needs of the communities that they serve. They do not
engage in evidence producing endeavors for its own
sake but do so in the service of its clients and with the
advantage of being in a position to understand the
grounded effects of policy and programming in the
community. NGOs have an ear on what their clients’
feelings, perspectives and needs are.
• NGOs are consequently engaged in what has been
referred to as the “symbolic use of evidence” (Levin
2013: 59) meaning that they have a point of view
which is based on a community perspective with a
broad social justice foundation. But it is important to
note that this perspective comes out of both a practice
and an evidence basis.
17
Concluding Thoughts
• Respect and Understanding: Research partnerships
can only be sustained if the different cultures and
interests of the partners are recognized and respected
and where trust and equitable relationships are built
into the partnering process from the beginning.
• Recognizing the Political Nature of Policymaking:
Political considerations are necessarily central to the
policy process but the promise of KM/KT is to ensure
that the best information and knowledge available on a
given issue of policy relevance can be presented and
evaluated within the political context.
18
• Some obstacles that can impede research partnerships and
the effectiveness of KT/KM:
• Time frame: the lag between problem identification and
completion of quality research on the problem;
• Resources: the lack of sufficient resources to effectively
research the problem area;
• Accessibility: research may focus on more obscure areas of
study. Also research may be inconclusive and/or
researchers may disagree on evidence and conclusions;
• Jargon: academic language and writing styles that are
inaccessible to non-academics; and,
• Resentment: practitioners may believe their knowledge
and contribution are not sufficiently valued by academics
thus hindering the development of trust in the relationship
between academic, community and government officials
(2006, 72-3).
19