Interactive research

Some authors have concluded that in order to improve the knowledge flows from public sector research, 'policy should be geared to increasing the number of communication channels … rather than the number of formal linkages ... Because of the 'bitty' and coalescing nature of knowledge use in innovation, much of the contribution of public sector research is not plannable at the micro level; all one can hope to do is to set up structures and cultures for this to happen. We have suggested that 'dating agencies' provide a better model (of linkage) than 'marriage brokerage'!' (Faulkner 1995).

Similarly, others have highlighted the potential of interactive styles of research. The relevance of research can in some cases be improved by an 'interactive' style of working where researchers and practitioners jointly define and elaborate research strategies. And this insight has important implications for dissemination strategies and their relationship with the design of research. Huberman calls this 'sustained interactivity' where practitioners' 'frames are activated and coordinated with those of the researchers ... It is a good model of learning ... From that perspective, dissemination becomes less of a chore and more of conceptual stimulant ... It would be a small step from here to the thesis that 'sustained interactivity' is the vehicle of choice for combining the fruits of research with the understanding and skills of professional practitioners' (Huberman 1994: 28).

Some analysts have suggested another reason to support interactive styles of research: not simply to improve communication of research results by overcoming the weaknesses of linear communication, but to allow researchers to verify the quality of their research through interacting with decision-makers who may, after all, know a lot about the issue at hand (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1990; Funtowicz and Ravetz 1991; Funtowicz, Ravetz et al. 1998). This is particularly necessary where research is about issues characterised by high levels of complexity and uncertainty: what Ravetz and others have dubbed 'post-normal' knowledge production (Ravetz 1987).

These claims are based on the idea that to assure quality in the face of complexity and uncertainty, researchers need to consult decision-makers in order to ensure that they are: addressing the right questions; incorporating the knowledge of these actors in the analysis; and adequately testing the validity and workability of any policy recommendations they are proposing. This represents a move from 'substantive' to 'procedural' rationality, where the emphasis is on mutual and collective learning, and attention to the social context of the problem being addressed, even when the research itself is natural science work on issues such as environmental modelling (Faucheux and Gheorghe 1998).

The validity, and indeed the necessity, of this approach seems to be confirmed by some analysts who have studied the factors leading to successful research interventions in the development of policy around complex environmental areas (Alcamo, Kreileman et al. 1996; Jaeger 1998). For example, Alcamo and colleagues state: 'both improved scientific credibility and improved interaction between (environmental) modellers and policymakers are critical ingredients for enhancing the policy-relevance of global models' (Alcamo, Kreileman et al. 1996 - my brackets).

But interactive styles of research are not the only ones that can be useful in policy development: sometimes the most distant or 'irrelevant' research can be most useful, particularly where policy makers need independent and authoritative research to back proposals. As Huberman reminds us 'It was Lewin, you will recall, who coined the phrase that the best practice was a good theory': Lewin was one of the founders of the research utilization field in the US (Huberman 1994: 16). In these cases, research communication will again be required, either through traditional channels such as peer reviewed journals (a source of policy knowledge that must not be forgotten) or other more targeted channels, which may often involve the digestion and synthesis of research insights.

The literature also identifies a special role for organisations or people that occupy the space on the boundaries of both the policy and research worlds. These have variously been called intermediaries, knowledge brokers and boundary organisations (see Huberman 1994-95; Owens and Rayner 1999; Guston and Clark 2000 respectively).

Clark and colleagues have given a thorough review of the functions of such boundary organisations: 'The literature on boundary organizations suggests that they can provide an array of important functions. Among other things, they can: 1) 'translate' scientific information from scientists to policy makers; 2) communicate research needs from policy makers to scientists; 3) protect scientists on one side of the boundary from accusations of bias or illegitimacy, while protecting policy makers on the other side from (accusations of) technocratic intrusions; 4) provide neutral forums for debate; and 5) create a site for building long-term trust between the policy and scientific community. (Clark 1999)

In providing these services, the organization's boundaries are selectively porous, allowing some but not all information, people, or ideas to move across. The professionals in a boundary organization are primarily responsible for determining what can cross the boundary, when, and in what way, through a dynamic process of negotiation with scientists and policy makers. Researchers themselves can be such knowledge brokers or 'policy entrepreneurs', getting involved in the business of advocating particular recommendations to emerge from research. This role can be contentious and 'is always, even if unconsciously, political' (Owens and Rayner 1999)

A series of analysts have found that these boundaries between research and policy-making are often 'contested' and 'mutually constructed': further evidence that the links between researchers and decision-makers are not characterised by a simple 'linear' or 'enlightenment' relationship (Jasanoff 1987; Wynne 1992; Shackley and Wynne 1995; Pielke and Betsill 1997; Hunt and Shackley 1999?).

In making these claims, Shackley and Wynne cite the example of global climate change as an arena in which scientists and policy-makers have worked closely together in defining the knowledge needed to begin to develop policy in this complex area. This has implications not simply for the choice of the technical issues to be addressed, but also 'the kinds of knowledge and values allowed to come into play and to be acknowledged as legitimate in these areas' (Shackley and Wynne: 228). These issues are inherently moral and political, meaning that policy cannot simply rely on science and that 'a public discussion about the many other possible justifications for acting on the issue of climate change is imperative'. This brings us full circle to the first area addressed in this review: the decision-making situation.

This section has tried to summarise a large and growing literature about the most effective forms of interaction between researchers and decision-makers. Some final conclusions are given next.