Valuing Policy Oriented Research Partnerships

1. 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

2. Introduction • My own background and orientation to the subject • The value of research partnerships, why I am a convert

3. 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, 13-14).

4. 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).

5. 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).

6. 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 on-going 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.

7. 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).

8. 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).

9. 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 post-positivism world is a matter of opinion, where 2 + 2 can equal 5, then Google searches, focus groups, public opinion surveys and a well-connected lobbyist can provide any policy answer that politicians can wish to hear.” (as quoted in Griffith, 2013)

10. Is the Government in Ottawa committed to “evidence-free policy” approach? • Based on my own research public servants are still very much interested in evidence-informed 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.

11. 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.

12. 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).

13. 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).

14. 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.

15. 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 community-based organizations (and vice versa for academic researchers).

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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).