SCS082
Submission of the British Academy of Management to the Liaison Committee’s Inquiry into the Effectiveness and Influence of the Select Committee System
3.1. Improve public awareness of which inquiries are ongoing, the stage in which they currently stand, and the contributions that researchers can make;
3.2. Widen the disciplinary and methodological range of evidence received by the Select Committees; and
3.3. Increase the diversity of the individuals and organisations providing evidence to Select Committees.
Evidence
7.1. This will require some active work on the part of committee clerks to build connections to networks that can help them to identify a wider range of experts from whom to invite oral and written evidence. This may require additional staffing or resources to help committee staff engage in such activities, but this would be a worthy investment as clerks are often already overstretched, carrying out vital duties with little support.
7.2. Learned societies, like the British Academy of Management (BAM), can help committee clerks tap into deep diverse networks of experts, to identify and connect them to the right experts for a given inquiry, that also come from different backgrounds and career stages. BAM, for example, has access to almost 2000 members in the UK and abroad at all career stages and from a variety of methodological and disciplinary backgrounds. Like many of our sister learned societies, we also maintain a database of the expertise of our Fellows, who are peer-vetted for the quality and excellence of their work. Organisations like ours can easily pass on calls for evidence, and make introductions, to those working on the key questions for which select committees are seeking answers. We can also assist clerks in their efforts to put together more ethnically and gender diversified panels for oral testimony.
7.3. Other knowledge brokers that can assist clerks reach a wider array of researchers include the university knowledge exchange offices, regional networks connecting policy makers and academics such as the Scottish Policy and Research Exchange (SPRE), the Wales Institute of Social & Economic Research, Data & Methods (WISERD), or the Wales Centre for Public Policy, and the Open Innovation Team in Cabinet Office who work with a network of academics to bring their expertise to the policy making process.
7.4. Clerks may also wish to dig further when they do find a piece of research they think their committee would like to know more about. For example, rather than automatically inviting testimony from the most senior contributor on a particular report, it might be worth asking who did the bulk of the writing and research on that same report – as the most senior contributor may not be the actual ‘expert’ on the subject or the right person for the committee to engage.
9.1. Some tweaks are simple. For example, the language in the ‘get involved’ section of the parliament.uk website could be far more welcoming and encouraging, specifically highlighting that Parliamentary Select Committees are looking for a range of views and perspectives in response to their inquiries. It is excellent that the ‘get involved’ section of the website is included in the tabs at the top of the page, but it could also be added to the ‘quick links’ section on the right-hand side of the page for greater visibility.
9.2. An adjustment that requires more concerted effort, but which will reap great benefits in the long run, is to improve the sections of the parliament.uk website announcing and inviting evidence for Select Committee Inquiries. It is often difficult for even the most actively engaged researcher trying to participate in the inquiry process to know exactly which inquiries are truly ongoing and still accepting either written or oral testimony. To address this, it would help specifically to:
9.2.1. Ensure that the web-page listing open inquiries is updated daily. From user experience, this page (https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/inquiries-a-z/current-open-calls-for-evidence/) is rarely up to date, which can be highly frustrating both for researchers and knowledge brokers trying to connect research evidence to policy makers.
9.2.2. On the web-page listing open inquiries and on individual Select Committee websites, clarify which ‘open’ inquiries are only inviting oral testimony versus those that are inviting both written and oral testimony.
9.2.3. On the web-page listing open inquiries and on individual Select Committee websites, clarify what is truly meant by an ‘open-ended’ inquiry. Currently, the phrase ‘open-ended’ appears to cover: 1) those inquiries that are actively seeking written testimony after a previously stated deadline because not enough submissions or evidence was received; 2) those inquiries that may accept written testimony after a previously passed deadline with explicit permission of the clerks, but for which they are already in the process of putting together a report; 3) inquiries where written testimony is no longer accepted, but oral testimony continues to be sought and scheduled; 4) inquiries which are not formally closed, but for which no written or oral testimony appears to be actively sought at the moment for an undisclosed reason (perhaps because the person that pushed for the inquiry has left the committee, or because of more pressing business).
9.2.3.1. Evidence providers wish to know in which of these categories an ‘open-ended’ inquiry falls, in order to determine how best to connect their information to policy makers. Simple wording for these categories could be: 1) ‘open-ended: actively seeking written evidence’; 2) ‘open-ended: written evidence accepted by clerk’s permission’; 3) ‘open-ended: oral evidence ongoing’; and 4) ‘open-ended: on hold’.
NOTES
[1] Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 459–470. doi:10.1177/000276427902200308.
[2] Lenihan, A. T. (2015). Institutionalising evidence-based policy: international insights into knowledge brokerage, Contemporary Social Science, 10:2, 114-125, doi: 10.1080/21582041.2015.1055297
[3] See: The effectiveness and influence of the select committee system inquiry. Evidence submitted by Nick Bibby, Director, Scottish Policy and Research Exchange.