From “sciencespeak” to “policyspeak” – an evaluation of the
communication channels supporting policymakers’ collaboration with
academic researchers
Georgiana-Simona Baciu – 11862894
Master’s thesis – Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme: Communication Science
-
Supervisor: Andreas Schuck
1 Abstract
This paper takes an interview-based approach to evaluating the communication channels that support the collaboration between academic researchers and policymakers. Using elements of interdisciplinary collaboration theory and rooted in previous communication science research, it surfaces insights from policymakers within the European Parliament and science
communication workers about the interdependency and interactions between academia and lawmakers. The results support the claim that the collaboration between the two groups is dysfunctional due to unstructured communication, while highlighting the importance of third-party mediators in ensuring the effective transfer of scientific expertise for policymaking. In addition to the scarcity of dedicated communication channels and agreed processes, the issues identified also include a lack of shared goals.
Introduction
Soon after the field of science communication had started developing in the mid-twentieth century, the relevance of science for policy became undisputable. Policymakers increasingly looked towards researchers for guidance, support and validation. As such, expertise – defined as a form through which scientific knowledge and actors enter the public domain – is to this day one of the many themes around which the science communication literature is centred (Bucchi & Trench, 2014). This paper will zoom in on the collaboration between academic researchers and policymakers, attempting to explore the extent to which effective channels exist for researchers to provide their expertise by communicating scientific findings to EU policymakers, including formal channels such as the European Parliament’s research services. The evaluation of this interaction will be rooted in the theories of interdisciplinary
collaboration (Bronstein, 2003) and various texts from communication science (Bucchi, 2008; Evans & Cvitanovic, 2018; McCombs, 2005; Peters, 2014).
2
This study arrives at a time when the productive collaboration between academia and policy is under threat. Despite high levels of public trust in science (Wellcome Trust, 2018), science communicators are under attack by various politicians. One of them was the President of the United States (Usher, 2018), who systematically blocked scientists from communicating their findings, generating concern among academics (Merino, Jha, Loder, & Abbasi, 2017). The aim of this paper is to shed light on the issues preventing the collaboration between
policymakers and researchers in creating evidence-based policies, while also enriching the existing literature on science communication and interdisciplinary collaboration by bringing in the policymaker’s perspective. As such, I took an interview-based approach to understand the existing expertise-sharing channels for researchers who wish to reach policymakers, mainly Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), and the role third-parties such as science journalists or science communication organizations play in mediating the relationship. The main research question is centred around identifying the communication issues causing a lack of a proper collaboration, where that is the case.
Science communication for policymaking – main issues
Science is known to be valuable for decision-making as it generates insights into what are the most likely outcomes of specific actions. It can surface issues and provide clues about how a particular policy might impact citizens (Wesselink, Buchanan, Georgiadou, & Turnhout, 2013). However, the process of facilitating the uptake of scientific evidence for lawmaking is hardly (if at all) understood by either researchers or policymakers (Strydom, Funke, Nienaber, Nortje, & Steyn, 2010). It is rarely the case that clear ways of working have been agreed upon between the two groups, and their direct contact seems to be minimal. This does not change
3
the fact that policymakers do need scientific expertise for their activity. Due to their lack of direct communication channels with researchers, mediators (or “brokers”) have a key role in the interaction. Their increased importance illustrates the shift “from ‘Science Push’ to ‘Policy Pull” (Bielak, Campbell, Pope, Schaefer, & Shaxson, 2008), meaning that
policymakers are now active in requesting scientific expertise, while scientists are passive in communicating their findings and feel that their power to influence policy is limited (Ion, Stîngu, & Marin, 2019). In this paper I present further arguments that this lack of structured collaboration between researchers and policymakers is caused by poor communication channels, and that policymakers have the power to improve them.
Key actors and dynamics in science communication for policymaking
Before evaluating the strength of the collaboration between policymakers and researchers, it is important to understand who are the key actors influencing this interaction and what are their individual roles. Peters (2014) distinguishes between scientists as public communicators and scientists as policy advisers. Policy advisers are seen as being a constant and integrated part of the policymaking process, acting as sounding boards for policy ideas rather than proactively sharing new insights into particular topics. Public communicators are researchers who are actively involved in the construction of a social reality within the public sphere, raising awareness of issues of public interest. However, the two groups are not mutually exclusive. Scientific expertise can enter the realm of policymaking through the public sphere, especially when amplified by the mass media (Petersen, Heinrichs, & Peters, 2010). In other words, if a researcher’s point of view is highlighted in the news, this can draw the attention of
policymakers who are likely to respond. This can be explained using agenda-setting theories, which claim that the news media is highly influential of the public agenda, making
4
policymakers more likely to address issues highlighted in the press over those with less media visibility (McCombs, 2005; Protess & McCombs, 1991).
In fact, journalists have traditionally filled in as science communicators to the wider society and so indirectly also to policymakers (Nisbet & Fahy, 2015). If the news media influence the agenda of policymakers, then they can also be effective channels to amplify the voice of researchers and spark political debate. This paper will partially address whether this has happened in practice, and more importantly, will expand on what other communication channels have been effective at improving the collaboration between policymakers and scientific researchers, topics which will be addressed in the interview sections related to the role of mediators (research question 3) and communication channels (research question 2 and research question 4). There are other issues with having journalists replace the voice of researchers in the public sphere. Firstly, a journalist’s goal is to keep or increase their viewership. In this sense, the temptation to misinterpret the results and frame any scientific news as “sensational” is very high (Ransohoff & Pract, 2001), as was the case when global warming was framed in a dramatic way, leaving no room for doubt that action was absolutely necessary (Olausson, 2009). Scientists themselves have acknowledged this issue and spoken openly about it. A researcher went as far as creating a Twitter account that calls out headlines which present scientific “breakthroughs” without mentioning that the results applied to mice, not humans (Heathers, 2016).
Secondly, previous research has shown that scientists perceive the effect of their visibility in the media as positively impacting their careers (Tsfati, Cohen, & Gunther, 2011). This can create a destructive environment of competition in which the most media-friendly research
5
“wins” visibility, as opposed to the most sound and trustworthy. Furthermore, when a
researcher’s point of view receives substantial news coverage, this is sometimes perceived as “unfair” by other scientists, who have the tendency to accept overstatements of opposite findings in order to balance out the apparent damage. Such a phenomenon was often noticed in the case of news about climate change (Post & Ramirez, 2018). This can be misleading for both the larger public and policymakers.
A good example of a well-managed mediation process for science communication comes from the European Commission’s Joint Research Center (JRC). The JRC employs researchers to provide advice for EU policymakers while creating and managing communities of science-assistants. Furthermore, its Communications department works closely with scientists to ensure that the reports presenting their findings are easy to read and understand by
policymakers who are not experts in the field (Topp, Mair, Smillie, & Cairney, 2018). This case shows that the power dynamics can be balanced by turning funders into supporters and communication facilitators who provide resources while working together with researchers to bring scientific findings into society in a responsible way. Furthermore, it proves that the administrative determinants of collaboration between researchers and policymakers – power, leadership and resources – can be used to support and create opportunities for researchers (Jansen, De Vries, Kok, & Van Oers, 2008). The European Parliament has a similar service called the European Parliament Research Service (EPRS), though the publicly available information about how it works is very scarce (European Parliament, 2020). This study will also attempt to understand how policymakers use the EPRS as a channel for reaching out to and interacting with researchers.
6 Theoretical framework
The ingredients of an effective collaboration
The current study builds on existing literature to understand the effectiveness of the communication channels used to foster collaboration between academic researchers and policymakers. The evidence presented so far indicates that academia and politics are two distinct fields, whose actors struggle to collaborate effectively with each other. Notably, the transfer of expertise from researchers to policymakers is slow and often unstructured. Bronstein’s model for evaluating Interdisciplinary Collaboration (Bronstein, 2003) will be used to draw conclusions from existing research about the strength of the collaboration, while identifying gaps and explaining the extent to which this paper will attempt to address those gaps.
According to Bronstein, five components make up the collaborative interaction between two groups belonging to different disciplines: (1) interdependence, (2) newly created
professional activities, (3) flexibility, (4) collective ownership of goals, and (5) reflection on process. The more prominent the presence of these elements within the collaboration, the more likely it is that the collaboration is functional. Encouraged by evidence that
collaboration between policymakers and researchers leads to better outcomes for both sides (Jansen et al., 2008), I will further apply the model to the collaboration between researchers and policymakers, discussing each element.
Interdependence
Interdependence implies that the work of one part could not happen without the other and vice-versa. Existing literature has offered some clues to whether academia is dependent on
7
policy. Resource dependence theory reveals that researchers are depending on policymakers for funding (Fowles, 2014). A large part of the funding for academic research comes from national Research and Development budgets. In 2017, academic institutions received on average 22% of the R&D budgets of the EU Member States (Eurostat, 2019). Furthermore, policymakers set the structures in which research institutions can function, regulate their activity, and decide how much public funding is allocated for research activities (Ryan, 2015). Therefore, the activity of researchers affiliated with state-funded institutions is highly
dependent on decisions made by policymakers. While this study will not further investigate other aspects in which academia relies on policy, the above-mentioned evidence is sufficient to conclude that, in most cases, at a European level researchers do depend on lawmakers for their work, for lawmakers allocate resources and shape the legal framework in which academia functions.
From a lawmaker perspective, practical examples show that scientific papers are useful as foundation to argue for or against policy proposals. While it is not clear – based on existing literature – exactly how often policymakers use scientific research in their work, the evidence that this dependency exists cannot be ignored. The existence of JRC and the European
Parliament Research Service clearly shows that scientific research is needed in the
policymaking process. This study will further explore why institutions such as the EPRS exist in the first place, and what other channels are used by policymakers to interact with
researchers and get expertise, especially through the interview sections focused on answering research question number 2.
8
Having scientists on their side is also beneficial to policymakers due to the positive reputation of the former in the public sphere (Wellcome Trust, 2018), compared to the low public trust levels in government, which sit at only 43% in OECD countries (OECD, 2019).
Consequently, the partnership between researchers and policymakers is beneficial for creating evidence-based policies, as well as for improving their image. However, researchers are not implicitly involved in policymaking; power dynamics can make or break their willingness and ability to collaborate with lawmakers in order to produce knowledge (Twalo, 2019). It may be the case that researchers take on studies commissioned by policymakers for financial reasons and to increase their reputation. While this study will not focus on the motives of researchers, it will shed light on the strength of the interdependency from a policymaker perspective, through the parts of the interview looking at the extent to which MEPs depend on academic research for their work (research question 1).
Newly created professional activities
As explained in the “Interdependence” paragraph, it is clear from existing literature that policymakers are actively involved in funding of research institutions, meaning that new professional opportunities are being generated through their activity. Institutions such as the JRC are hiring researchers to offer expertise and solutions for policymakers (Topp et al., 2018). This example is proof that the collaboration between the two groups can indeed create new professional activities. However, it is not clear from existing research whether this is always the case. There may be occasions when policymakers make use of the expertise of researchers, without the latter receiving any rewards or career-boosting
opportunities/recognition. This study will attempt to shed some light on whether that is indeed the case, using the interview sections focused on researchers’ reward systems (research
9
The rise of issue-based campaigning at a European level points to a different aspect:
policymakers also need research to get elected; adding scientific expertise to policy programs gives them credibility. Furthermore, if the proposal of an MEP is voted into law, their list of achievements grows. It can then be hypothesised that, if MEPs use research to improve their proposals, this can lead to career growth. One of the key goals of this study is to understand at which level in the EU policymaking process is research needed to advance the political goals of MEPs. This will shed light on how much of an impact researchers have (indirectly) on the success of a political career.
Flexibility and collective ownership of goals
Existing academic literature shows that the primary goal of researchers is to get published (Jørgensen & Hanssen, 2018), while the main priority of policymakers is to create and vote for policies that benefit their constituency in order to get re-elected (Bowler & Farrell, 1993). On the one hand, it cannot be contested that both professions have the potential to improve lives. For example, researchers can find solutions for health conditions such as the
coronavirus, while policymakers can create laws that make life easier for disadvantaged groups such as the elderly, for whom funding public transport would inrease their levels of independence and make other services more affordable. On the other hand, whether this work for the greater good can be considered a common goal is debatable.
For researchers, having their paper published and their career grow does not depend on whether the results are helpful in practice, let alone whether they can be used for
10
of scientists might not be the most popular one with the electorate, meaning that advice from scientists can often be ignored despite the fact that it would improve people’s lives. Some examples include legislation around tobacco (Bertollini, Ribeiro, Mauer-Stender, & Galea, 2016) and gun control (Devi, 2012), where the voice of lobbyists has overpowered those of health practitioners and scientists.
All things considered, it is safe to say that the goals of scientific researchers and those of policymakers do not always overlap. The idea of flexibility can thus be considered – are researchers and policymakers willing to spend time understanding each other’s goals and find ways of working together that benefit both parts? This study will attempt to answer this question by understanding the perspective of the lawmakers. A plausible hypothesis would be that policymakers are more likely to compromise and spend some resources to reach out to researchers and even commission/fund research due to the urgency of the need for expertise, as suggested by the “Policy Pull” phrase (Bielak et al., 2008), while academic researchers lack the resources and the opportunity to learn about how EU policymaking works and when/how they can intervene.
Reflection on process
Even in an ideal world where policymaking is based on evidence from scientific research, the collaboration between the two groups may not be easy to maintain in practice. As Bucchi and Trench observed, in policymaking, “scientific expertise may be scrutinised in contexts and by criteria very different from those of the scientific community” (Bucchi & Trench, 2014, p. 7). The frameworks for research assessment in scientific communities are often different than those in policy arenas. Therefore, the difference of rewards systems and evaluation criteria is
11
an important topic of this paper, essential to understanding the collaboration between researchers and policymakers. The existing academic literature fails to give answers as to whether the actors in academia and in the policy arena are aware of each other’s rewards systems and try to accommodate them to reach common goals. As this is a necessary
condition for an effective collaboration which can have implicit effects on the communication channels between the two groups, the topic of awareness of rewards systems was included in this study (research question 5).
To further expand on the implications for communication, a good example of a practical consequence of the rewards system that researchers are bound to can be seen in the language of scientific papers, which is also tailored for a specialized researcher-audience.
Communicating to non-specialized audiences, including policymakers, involves additional time and effort for researchers, with a return on investment that, while possible (Leahey, 2007), cannot be guaranteed. Being relevant and comprehensible to a wide, non-researcher audience is challenging (Peters, 2014). At the same time, it is safe to hypothesise that policymakers themselves also lack the time and resources to navigate through the large amount of existing scientific papers, and the expertise to “translate” them into layman language and verify their applicability. An effective partnership between researchers and policymakers would thus involve effective transmission of information in formats and through channels that are useful to the latter and not too resource-consuming for the former.
12
The study used a qualitative, explorative research design. The research design and interview guideline were based on the existing literature, and the data stem from 10 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with policymakers and science communication professionals (one journalist, two representatives from NGOs specialized in science engagement at an EU level, and one official from an European Parliament’s research services) which produced cross-sectional data. The choice to include the three science communication specialists in the study was based on the repeated mentions of such actors in the scientific literature as important mediators (Bucchi, 2008; Osmond et al., 2010), as well as the desire to include a detached perspective from individuals working closely with both policymakers and researchers while being independent of any financial ties to either political parties or research institutions.
The sample for policymakers was made up of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), and policy assistants working directly, full-time for an MEP in the case where the MEP was not available. The European Parliament was chosen as subject due to its high transparency levels at a policymaking process, the large pool of citizens it represents, as well as the public nature of to the contact details of MEPs (listed on the official EU website). One of the criteria for selecting lawmakers as interviewees was their experience. Less than six months before the interviews were conducted, the membership of the European Parliament had changed,
following an election that forced some members out of office while renewing the term for others. It was considered that only the MEPs that had served in the previous term (2014-2019) and been re-elected in the 2019 elections for the European Parliament had enough/recent experience to be representative for the larger dynamics within the institution. This reduced the population size to 276 MEPs out of the over 700 in office. Due to such a relatively small population size and the public nature of the information about MEPs who got re-elected (age,
13
party and political group affiliation etc.), only the role (MEP or policy assistant) and gender of the interviewees was recorded, in order to protect their identity.
The MEPs were contacted by e-mail, and their e-mail addresses were retrieved from the MEP online search engine1. It was often the case that, when the MEP was not available, one of their policy assistants agreed to be interviewed. This option was a positive solution, due to the fact that much of the work of reaching out to researchers and managing communication channels is done by policy assistants rather than by the MEPs themselves. If an MEP was interviewed, none of their policy assistants were interviewed. No two policy assistants interviewed worked for the same MEP at the time when the study was conducted.
Considering the lack of comparative academic literature analysing the collaboration between researchers and policymakers in different countries, a decision was made to focus on Western Europe, based on the assumption that countries that spend more on Research and
Development might treat this relationship differently than those who do not. Therefore, Member States who dedicate more of their GDP to Research and Development such as Germany, Netherlands, Belgium etc. (Eurostat, 2019) were particularly targeted for this purpose, although all re-elected MEPs were contacted initially, regardless of their region. The final policymaker sample was made up of two MEPs (one male and one female) and four policy assistants (one female and three male).
1
14
All interviews were conducted by phone between December 1st, 2019 and January 10th, 2020. There were 276 MEPs contacted, and the response rate was of approximately 35%, meeting expectations considering the difficult interviewing period (near the Christmas holiday as well as preceding a summit attended by all MEPs and a vote on Brexit). Most of the responses were received from MEPs in Western Europe, which worked in favour of the sampling since this was the desired group. A number of British MEPs rejected the invitation on the reason of Brexit, stating that their role in the Parliament over the past two years had been different than most MEPs and fearing that their input would not be representative. In the end, no MEPs and/or policy assistants from the United Kingdom were interviewed. Nine MEPs and/or policy assistants responded positively, out of which three cancelled the call due to unforeseen circumstances. The six who were available during this period were all interviewed. An additional MEP offered to send responses via e-mail, but due to the nature of the interviews, this was not considered appropriate. Regardless of their availability, almost all responses mentioned a high interest in the topic and requested that a copy of the thesis be made available for them.
In order to understand the relationship between academic researchers and EU lawmakers, it was helpful to get insights from “third party” science communication mediators who were both familiar with the topic and involved to bridge the collaboration gap. These were: one journalist (male, over 30 years work experience), two representatives of science engagement organizations working at an EU level (both female), and one employee of the European Parliament’s research services (male). The existing literature has demonstrated that their role cannot be ignored, for they often act as an interface for the collaboration between researchers and policymakers (Bielak et al., 2008).
15
The duration of the interviews with policymakers was between 25 and 45 minutes, while that of those with science communication mediators was between 45 minutes and one hour and 15 minutes. All interviewees consented to being audio recorded, on the condition that the
recordings be used only for transcribing purposes and that the transcript be not made available in full form. The recordings were transcribed using the online tool www.otter.ai and later corrected manually. The transcripts were safely stored in OneDrive as Microsoft Word files, and no other content analysis software was used for the analysis. While the full texts were not attached to the thesis, the most important quotes and ideas belonging to each interviewee can be found in the interview grids in Appendix 2.
Interview guidelines, research questions, and analysis
The interviews with policymakers/assistants were based on the key elements of Bronstein’s interdisciplinary collaboration model, as introduced above, with the purpose of understanding the nature and strength of the relationship between academic researchers and policymakers, as well as which communication channels are the most efficient. They were structured in a way that would make it possible to answer research questions based on Bronstein’s collaboration model (Bronstein, 2003). The first question gave the interviewees the chance to explain how they worked with/advice on policy, and the extent to which they used academic research in their work. To understand whether Bronstein’s condition for interdependency was met, the question of dependency was asked directly – “To what extent are you dependent on scientific research to do your job?”. The rest of the elements in Bronstein’s framework were
operationalized using concepts such as rewards systems (via questions meant to reveal whether the collaboration benefitted the careers of both parts), awareness of goals (via
16
questions verifying whether common goals were co-owned and discussed) and the availability and efficiency of communication channels, to shed light on the extent to which researchers and policymakers reflect on their collaboration and refine it based on mutual agreement.
The interviews with science communication mediators were less structured and aimed to reveal this group’s role in the communication process more inductively, as well as to confirm whether some of the claims made by the policymakers interviewed can be generalized. The questions were centred around the interviewees’ general view of the dynamics between policymakers and researchers, sharing collaboration anecdotes and, based on those,
concluding whether Bronstein’s elements for interdisciplinary collaboration were present. The interview with the employee of the European Parliament research services in particular was used to give clarity on the formal ways in which MEPs can ask for expertise from researchers using the Parliament’s resources. Due to its informational purpose and structure rather than it being a request for subjective opinions, the quotes from this final interview were not included in the interview grid.
The analysis of the data was based on techniques to develop grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). No clear hypotheses were set out beforehand, but the research questions, listed in the Results section, were formulated in such a way that the answers would shed light on the key concepts outlined by Bronstein (2003), highlighting their importance and prevalence in the collaboration between researchers and policymakers. This made it possible to then draw conclusions about the strength of the collaboration at the level of the European Parliament.
17 Results
Despite belonging to different parties and countries, the interviews with MEPs and/or policy assistants produced surprisingly similar results, with very few exceptions. The findings were further confirmed by the science engagement organizations as being aligned with their own experience with the European Parliament. One organization in particular had surveyed MEPs on the same topic in the past, drawing similar conclusions. The findings have been outlined below, grouped by research question.
A note on the EPRS
The European Parliament’s Research Service (EPRS) was mentioned by each interviewee working on policy. The information received from them was complemented by an interview with an employee of the European Parliament Research Services. The data from these sources as well as the European Parliament’s website described the EPRS as European Parliament’s formal channel for communication between MEPs and researchers, being the fastest way for MEPs to ask for scientific expertise. Through the EPRS, MEPs can request information from or a meeting with researchers, as well as commission research on different topics. Researchers working for or contracted by the EPRS are compensated for their contribution and selected either through a tender or, for smaller projects, from a list of contacts in an open and
transparent manner. Researchers can make themselves available for the EPRS by responding to a call posted regularly on the EPRS website. The outputs of the research done through the EPRS are always presented in layman’s language, and are often communicated externally through conferences, events, and the EPRS website.
18
Findings
RQ1: To what extent are policymakers in the European Parliament dependent on academic research for their work?
Out of the six MEPs and policy assistants that were interviewed, five stated that they were heavily dependent on academic research for their work, with one of them showing hesitation. The five described scientific research as essential to their wrok, both for formulating policy proposals and for checking the validity of the data they are presented with from interest groups and even other colleagues in European institutions:
I cannot imagine my work without science. (…) My assistants will keep in contact with scientists, scientific institutions to verify the data that we get, not only from lobbyists and interest groups, but also from the Commission for instance. Don’t
always believe everything the Commission says, get your own data based on your own field work, where scientists are important to that part. (MEP)
The sixth interviewee who denied dependency explained that their office relies more on NGOs and advisers of the political group, explaining that representatives from academia are not part of the circle because they fail to reach out and make themselves visible: “My network in the end consists of whoever has reached out to us and showed interest to us to some extent (…) and it happens not to be academics.” (Policy assistant). This can suggest that there may be differences between political groups with regards to how much they rely on academic researchers.
Answers recorded from science engagement organizations have also confirmed that academic research is valuable for MEPs, echoing policymakers as to how published research is more reliable than information coming from interest groups: “MEPs are generally of the mind that
19
the more sources the better and the more independent information they can get, the better. They see the academic community as independent, whatever that means.” (Science communication professional)
RQ2: To what extent do effective channels through which researchers can proactively communicate their research to MEPs exist?
All MEPs and policy assistants that were interviewed have listed their e-mail addresses, which are publicly available on the European Parliament’s website, as the most direct channel of communication through which they can receive scientific expertise proactively from a researcher. Most of them described newsletters from various academic institutions and NGOs as helpful, pointing out that there is a clear need for systematic summaries of the research out there, which the EPRS is very helpful for: “I'm not going to find the time to read a lot of real life academic scientific research papers.” (Policy assistant)
Public hearings and events in the European Parliament were also mentioned, but while these are visible on the EP’s website, researchers will not be able to find them unless they
proactively look for them. The same goes for the e-mail addresses. As one of the science communication organizations confirmed, researchers are mostly unaware that MEPs would value their inputs or even that their contact details are publicly available:
Among researchers there is a whole lack of consciousness that this could be part of their worlds and practice their job. They haven't realised they have a role. It might be new information to them that they can talk to MEPs, never mind that the MEPs would actually listen. (Science communication professional)
20
On one hand, one MEP went so far as to say that researchers need “skills for self-marketing”, being of the opinion that "the best idea would be to avoid the interlocutors and go directly in direction of the of the politician. (...) Researchers need to get an idea how to market
themselves and know what [MEPs] are interested in”. However, not all interviewees agreed that researchers should be the ones reaching out to MEPs directly. One of the policy assistants claimed that he did not believe that it would “make sense for researchers to directly try to contact politicians, because here the challenge is really to filter all the information that we get”. This difference of opinion is likely caused by the fact that policy assistants manage the bulk of information coming through to the MEP, acting as a filter for all the information received through the official channels. Indeed, one of the science communication
professionals interviewed also pointed out that if, in the future, all researchers are aware of the communication channels available for reaching out to MEPs, assistants will be overwhelmed, and a mediator would need to be in place to manage the communication.
RQ3: What are the mediators of the interaction between researchers and policymakers?
While it became clear from the interviews that researchers rarely reach out directly to
policymakers, it was important to understand which intermediaries play a role in the transfer of expertise. All six interviewees working on policy have mentioned the EPRS as an
important and reliable source for scientific research, five of them confirming that they use it regularly for short projects or to request “crash-courses” on different scientific topics. Other intermediaries named were interest groups who bring researchers in to make their case for a policy change, as well as NGOs. Some of the interviewees noted that they had close ties with universities and research institutes in their home country, to whom they reach out in advance when they need support:
21
The most important things are actually the impact assessments (…). If you have good contacts with the universities, you have these facts and figures already coming up. And then you are just faster with the political side, and then you can gather majority even faster. (Policy assistant)
This points out that, in some cases, researchers and policymakers do keep each other’s goals in mind and manage to create ways of working through flexibility (by giving universities enough time to respond) and through collective ownership of goals (by relying on each other and working towards a clear outcome), thus suggesting that the collaboration can work well when it is properly managed. This however is not the case for everyone. If MEPs or their assistants do not have such a network and process built, it is not easy to know where to start. One policy assistant pointed out that navigating university websites to look for research outputs is too difficult: “I've tried to look at university pages myself (...) but that's just overload. So I wouldn't [look for research papers], I wouldn't do that. It can be really, really overwhelming.” (Policy assistant)
The science communication specialists interviewed also pointed out the hierarchies within universities as an issue that keeps researchers silent, especially for early career scientists. Without senior university staff as voice amplifiers and mediators, it can be difficult to become visible or even have the courage to speak up:
If a researcher has a good idea about a policy or whatever, and they approach the leadership in their institution, I think that they should be nominated and central discuss and allow to talk about it. (…) In the research community, there is no culture of
22
This younger generation suddenly has the tools of doing communication without the hierarchy of the institute, institute directors and so on. They go by themselves. And this is something very good because before in the old days communication was a top down communication. I mean, a young scientist wouldn’t dare do something without his boss knowing. And this has changed. (Science journalist)
Some policymakers also confirmed in the interviews that reputation matters, that being affiliated with an institution that is well-known in the field makes a researcher more likely to be taken seriously. This shows that there is a need for stronger collaboration within
universities, between senior staff and early-career researchers, with the purpose of increasing the visibility of academic research as potential expertise for policy.
RQ4: Through what indirect channels do policymakers receive scientific expertise?
All interviewees working on policy stated that the news media and science magazines are useful sources in their work, despite their limited time for reading. Some of them named podcasts and videos as helpful resources that they would prefer instead of long reports and papers. The role of science journalists as science communication mediators came through as important, together with an acknowledgement that researchers do not have the skills to communicate to a layperson audience, including policymakers. This was also acknowledged by one of the science communication specialists interviewed, who stated:
[Science] journalists’ role probably is flagging a great potential of any piece of the interesting research on these particular issues (…). There is no training for MEPs or
23
their staff on how judge gauge the reliability of a piece of research, that just doesn't exist."
Journalists are also used by different groups within EPRS for writing lay-summaries and blog posts. The experienced science journalist that was interviewed for this study highlighted a lack of common goals as the main issue in the interaction between researchers, policymakers and journalist-mediators:
Scientists (…) never cared about true communication to laymen. (…) Public
understanding of science for them is more like public acceptance of their own project. (…) As long as the grants are okay, the scientists are okay, and they’re not really interested in a broad communication with the layman. (…) The politician just wants to be elected. The journalist wants to have a programme or a magazine with high ratings or viewers. And the scientist basically just wants to have peace as long as you give him enough [grant] money.
The lack of alignment on goals was further explored through the fifth research question.
RQ5: How aware are policymakers of researchers’ rewards systems, and to what extent are these taken into account in their collaboration?
While interviewing policy workers, the topic of rewards systems for researchers seemed to be the most sensitive of all. Three of them (out of which one MEP) stated that they were not aware at all of how researchers get rewarded; the other two policy assistants were hesitant, assuming that it had to do with finding gaps, adding to more science-based policymaking and improving society, while the remaining MEP had a background in research and thus was the only one with extensive knowledge on the topic. With this in mind, it is no surprise that most policymakers find it inexplicable that their inboxes are filled by lobbyists instead of academic
24
researchers. When asked about how they reward researchers that do bring forward valuable insights directly to their ears (not through the EPRS), all policymakers stated that they do not give financial compensation but rather try, in most cases, to help the researchers gain
visibility and build their networks at hearings and events. One of the MEPs shared the opinion that financial rewards for societal impact should be given by universities and funding bodies rather than policymakers. As this is not currently the case, researchers need to balance out their time between applying for grants, conducting research, and increasing their visibility. Indeed, as representatives from science engagement organizations have observed, funding bodies are starting to require academics to prove that their results be communicated to layman audiences, though this is far from becoming the rule:
If there is no incentive for the researchers to do it, they're not going to do it if they can't see the reward, if they can't see the professional gains, they can't see what they would put on their CV for their next promotion or grant application. (…) A lot more early career researchers these days are aware that they should be doing more to make sure their research has a broader impact than just into scientific literature [to get grants]. Money is a great motivator and a great lever. (Science communication specialist)
The clash between the need for visibility and that for rewards was also noticed by the science journalist: “Scientists are humans. And humans normally have some ambitions to become visible and so on. And there need to be rewards as well and it's safe to say they're not rewarded for sharing the truth [but] rather for being published.” This can make researchers less likely to spend time working on increasing their visibility if they do not see a clear benefit for their career.
25
Discussion and conclusion
This study attempted to evaluate the communication channels through which policymakers can receive expertise from academic researchers. Based on the theory and qualitative data presented, the results indicate that the collaboration between researchers and policymakers is dysfunctional. While policymakers and researchers do depend on each other for their work, their ways of working with each other seem far from structured or effective, with few exceptions. This echoes previous research done on the topic, which advocated for
democratization of expertise and the development of guidelines on the collection and use of expertise (Liberatore & Funtowicz, 2003). Despite the common image of openness and transparency portrayed at the European level (Silvia, 2018), there are lots of barriers
preventing researchers from reaching out to policymakers – from having to keep up with their schedules and the topics being debated at each point in time, to the lack of awareness that they are open to receiving scientific input in the first place. There does not seem to be a clear responsible body for raising this awareness and improving the existing channels, which is why they are slow to be developed.
Furthermore, there is a lack of a discussion around and agreement on how and even whether researchers should work directly with policymakers or newly-established bodies should rather take on the role of listening to both sides and mediating the conversation instead (Dunwoody & Ryan, 1983; Monange, 2008). While mediators are useful and needed in the process, problems can arise when their main job is different than precisely helping researchers and policymakers reach common ground and work together effectively. For example, journalists caring about viewership might highlight the work of certain scientists over others due to personal preference or lack of time to hear more opinions. Even worse, corporate lobbyists can deliberately bring forward their preferred researchers to support biased arguments,
26
without presenting alternative views. Instead, non-profit, independent, taxpayer-funded science engagement organizations could play a great role in bridging the gap between
academia and policy (Osmond et al., 2010). Currently, however, their influence and visibility is limited, especially among researchers.
When it comes to creating professional opportunities for researchers, not all communication channels work perfectly. While the EPRS does help a handful of academics to get paid
projects, not all researchers are aware of this route, and the means to proactively reach out to a policymaker via the EPRS are unclear. At the same time, the most direct channels – e-mail, hearings etc. – do not guarantee career opportunities, and leave it up to the researcher to understand the policymaking process, find the contact details of the policymakers working on their topic, and make the most out of the visibility they receive if they manage to get in touch. It is safe to say that early career researchers are likely to be disadvantaged, for their reputation and resources are too limited to take the “gamble” of trying to reach out to a policymaker without a clear career-boosting reward at the other end. The evidence surfaced in this study points to the fact that mediators – such as science journalists, science engagement
organizations and institutions such as the EPRS – spend more time reflecting on how to improve the collaboration between researchers and policymakers than these groups do themselves. This creates confusion and false expectations on both sides, while putting the burden unevenly on different groups whose roles in the process are not clearly defined.
Another conclusion to be drawn from the data is that policy workers are concerned about the poor quality of their collaboration with researchers, and are somewhat flexible in their approaches to reach out to them. Policy assistants in particular spend extensive amounts of
27
time analysing sources, contacting advisers and organizing events. While the process of requesting scientific information is somewhat streamlined through the EPRS, the “antenna” role of receiving information from the field does not seem to be fulfilled to the same extent. In other words, a researcher needs extensive knowledge about political processes, skills and resources to proactively and successfully share their expertise with an EU policymaker or even have a discussion on a topic that can benefit both sides. Furthermore, there is no universal procedure for a researcher to reach out to an EU policymaker via their affiliated university/research institute either. Therefore, a large amount of the collaboration
opportunities between the two groups are missed.
One hypothesis for further exploration is that the collaboration issues may be rooted in the lack of large community-style organizing forms for researchers. The most comparable groups to a researchers’ union or representative structure are topic-based societies and academies (Estes & Germain, 2016). However, neither of these two types of entities were mentioned by any of the policy workers interviewed. Moreover, thousands of such entities exist. This means that policymakers cannot find a small, democratically-chosen group of representatives for the majority of researchers, but rather have to rely on personal connections and trusted contacts that cover the topics they are working on. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that individual universities and national-based consortia of research institutions were often mentioned in the interviews as sources for academic research that policymakers have direct contact with, suggesting that this is the largest form of collective organization which policymakers recognize. Nevertheless, the small sample used in this study is not enough to suggest that this collaboration pattern can be generalized at a European, let alone global level. Further evidence is needed before pursuing research questions based on this assumption.
28 Word count: 7521
References
Bertollini, R., Ribeiro, S., Mauer-Stender, K., & Galea, G. (2016). Tobacco control in Europe: A policy review. European Respiratory Review, 25(140), 151–157.
https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0021-2016
Bielak, A. T., Campbell, A., Pope, S., Schaefer, K., & Shaxson, L. (2008). From Science Communication to Knowledge Brokering: the Shift from `Science Push’ to `Policy Pull’. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 201–226). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_12
Bowler, S., & Farrell, D. (1993). Legislator Shirking and Voter Monitoring: Impacts of European Parliament Electoral Systems upon Legislator - Voter Relationships. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(1), 45–69.
Bronstein, L. R. (2003). A Model for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Social Work, 48(3), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/48.3.297
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: theories of public communication of science. Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, (December 1919), 57–76. Retrieved from
https://moodle.ufsc.br/pluginfile.php/1485212/mod_resource/content/1/Handbook-of-Public-Communication-of-Science-and-Technology.pdf
29
Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, Second Edition, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203483794
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (Fourth). SAGE Publications.
Devi, S. (2012). Researchers call for reform of US gun control policies. The Lancet, 380(9853), 1545. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61865-0
Dunwoody, S., & Ryan, M. (1983). Public Information Persons as Mediators between Scientists and Journalists. Journalism Quarterly, 60(4), 647–656.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908306000410
Estes, S. G., & Germain, J. (2016). Professional Academic Societies: Stewards of the Future. Quest, 68(3), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1190940
European Parliament. (2020). At your service European Parliamentary Research Service EPRS. Retrieved January 19, 2020, from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/stay-informed/research-and-analysis
Eurostat. (2019). First estimates of Research & Development expenditure.
Evans, M. C., & Cvitanovic, C. (2018). An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Communications, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0144-2
Fowles, J. (2014). Funding and Focus: Resource Dependence in Public Higher Education. Research in Higher Education, 55(3), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9311-x
Heathers, J. (2016). Justsayinmice. Retrieved January 15, 2020, from Twitter website: https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice?lang=en
30
Ion, G., Stîngu, M., & Marin, E. (2019). How can researchers facilitate the utilisation of research by policy-makers and practitioners in education? Research Papers in Education, 34(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1452965
Jansen, M. W. J., De Vries, N. K., Kok, G., & Van Oers, H. A. M. (2008). Collaboration between practice, policy and research in local public health in the Netherlands. Health Policy, 86(2–3), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.11.005
Jørgensen, F., & Hanssen, T. E. S. (2018). Research incentives and research output. Higher Education, 76(6), 1029–1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0238-1
Leahey, E. (2007). Not by productivity alone: How visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. American Sociological Review, 72(4), 533–561.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200403
Liberatore, A., & Funtowicz, S. (2003). “Democratising” expertise, “expertising” democracy: What does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 146–150. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780551
McCombs, M. (2005). A Look at Agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6(4), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700500250438
Merino, J. G., Jha, A., Loder, E., & Abbasi, K. (2017). Standing up for science in the era of Trump. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 356, j775. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j775
Monange, B. F. (2008). Social science expertise and policymaking. Comparing U.S., French, and EU think tanks: Similar model different paths. PS - Political Science and Politics, 41(4), 909. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096508321271
Nisbet, M. C., & Fahy, D. (2015). The Need for Knowledge-Based Journalism in Politicized Science Debates. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
31
658(1), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559887
OECD. (2019). Trust in Government. Retrieved January 15, 2020, from Directorate for Public Governance website: https://www.oecd.org/gov/trust-in-government.htm
Olausson, U. (2009). Global warming - global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507081242
Osmond, D. L., Nadkarni, N. M., Driscoll, C. T., Andrews, E., Gold, A. J., Broussard Allred, S. R., … Groffman, P. M. (2010). The role of interface organizations in science
communication and understanding. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1890/090145
Peters, H. P. (2014). Scientists as public experts: Expectations and responsibilities. Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, Second Edition, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203483794
Petersen, I., Heinrichs, H., & Peters, H. P. (2010). Mass-Mediated Expertise as Informal Policy Advice. Science Technology and Human Values, 35(6), 865–887.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909357914
Post, S., & Ramirez, N. (2018). Politicized Science Communication : Predicting Scientists ’ Acceptance of Overstatements by Their Knowledge Certainty , Media Perceptions , and Presumed Media Effects. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018769668
Protess, D. L., & McCombs, M. E. (1991). Agenda setting: readings on media, public opinion, and policymaking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Ransohoff, R. M., & Pract, E. C. (2001). Sensationalism in the Media : When Scientists and Journalists May Be. 185–188.
32
Ryan, L. (2015). Governance of EU research policy: Charting forms of scientific democracy in the European research area. Science and Public Policy, 42(3), 300–314.
https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu047
Silvia, K. (2018). General revision of the European Parliament ’s Rules of Procedure Achieving greater transparency and efficiency as of January 2017. (January 2017). https://doi.org/10.2861/338993
Strydom, W. F., Funke, N., Nienaber, S., Nortje, K., & Steyn, M. (2010). Evidence-based policymaking: A review. South African Journal of Science, 106(5–6), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajs.v106i5/6.249
Topp, L., Mair, D., Smillie, L., & Cairney, P. (2018). Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Palgrave Communications, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0143-3
Tsfati, Y., Cohen, J., & Gunther, A. C. (2011). The Influence of Presumed Media Influence on News About Science and Scientists. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010380385
Twalo, T. (2019). Challenges of knowledge production and knowledge use among researchers and policy-makers. Educational Action Research, 27(2), 269–285.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1459763
Usher, N. (2018). Re-Thinking Trust in the News: A material approach through “Objects of Journalism.” Journalism Studies, 19(4), 564–578.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1375391
Wellcome Trust. (2018). Wellcome Global Monitor.
Wesselink, A., Buchanan, K. S., Georgiadou, Y., & Turnhout, E. (2013). Technical
33
Science and Policy, 30, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.008
Appendix 1
A. Interview guide for science communicators (e.g. journalists, communication professionals)
Offer to the interviewee details about the study
I am a Communication Science Master’s Student at the UvA, and science communication is my area of interest. I want to understand why policymakers and academic researchers are having such a hard time trying to speak the same language. My hypothesis is that this is caused by a lack of shared goals, which also affects the communication between the two groups. My goal is to investigate potential solutions for improving this communication by optimizing the content and the channels used. The interviews are anonymous, I will only share your profession when mentioning your input.
To make sure that I don’t miss any of your insights, I would like to record this session. Would that be ok?
Understand their background and involvement with the topic - Tell me a bit about yourself, what you do for living.
- Do you interact with researchers and policymakers? How? - Do you consider yourself a science communicator?
34
Use framework to understand their view of the topic
- Can you tell me a bit about your observations, from experience, of the interdependence of between researchers and policymakers? Does it exist or is it a one-sided relationship?
- How is this relationship beneficial for a researcher’s job/professional career? What about a policymaker?
- Do you believe that researchers and policymakers have shared goals? How do they collaborate to achieve them? Are they flexible in their approaches?
Channels
- From your experience, what has been the role of the news media as a channel of communication between researchers and policymakers? Is this an effective channel? Why? What other channels would be appropriate?
- Can you share with me some examples where science communicators have managed to reach and influence policymakers?
- What more do you think researchers should do to maximize their work’s impact on policy?
B. Interview guide for policymakers
Offer to the interviewee details about the study (2min)
I am a Communication Science Master’s Student at the University of Amsterdam, and science communication is my area of interest. I want to
35
understand to what extent policymakers and academic researchers are collaborating, as well as how to improve the communication between them. The interviews are anonymous – I am the only one who knows your identity and will not share it with anyone. I will only share your profession when mentioning your input.
To make sure that I don’t miss any of your insights, I would like to record this call. Would that be ok?
Housekeeping (1min)
We have about …min unless you have a bit more time to spare. The interview will be structured around 4 main questions. After five minutes of covering one topic, I will try to close and move to the next one. Apologies if I interrupt you at some point – I want to keep my promise of keeping this short.
Understand their background and involvement with the topic (4min)
- Let’s start! In just two or three phrases, can you please explain what is your job and how you advise/ work on policy?
- How useful (if at all) is scientific research in your work as a policymaker? There’s no need to go into a lot of detail yet.
Use framework to understand their view of the topic 1. Interdependence (3min)
36
- Describe in a few sentences your interaction with scientific researchers – if that exists.
2. Professional opportunities and reflection on the process (6min) - How can researchers share their insights with you? Have you
considered creating new opportunities for them to do so? Would you in any way reward researchers who gave you valuable insights?
3. Goals and flexibility (4min)
- Are you aware of the goals of scientific researchers? If you were to think of an ideal collaboration with them, what would that look like? Would you compromise to help them achieve their own goals?
- When researchers share valuable insights with you, how – if at all – do you reward them?
Channels (7min)
- Through what channels do scientific insights reach your ears? What other channels would be appropriate?
- If you hear “Research shows that…” on the news and the topic is relevant to your work, would you follow up on that to find out more? - Can you share with me some examples where science communicators
have managed to reach and influence your work?
- What more do you think researchers should do to maximize their work’s impact on policy?
