Professor Annette Boaz and Dr Kathryn Oliver, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine – Written evidence (STS0019)

Written evidence submitted by Professor Annette Boaz, Professor of Health and Social Care Policy and Dr Kathryn Oliver, Associate Professor of Sociology and Public health at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

1 TRANSFORMING EVIDENCE is an initiative aiming to look at how evidence is produced and used for public policy and services. It is led by Dr Kathryn Oliver and Professor Annette Boaz, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

2 Despite significant investment in infrastructure, there is limited research in the area and lessons remain within disciplinary and policy silos, leading to waste and lack of learning about how to maximise the value of evidence. We have four streams of work: Sharing expertise and best practice about evidence use; Connecting communities across sectors globally; Advising decision-makers on how to make best use of evidence; and Generating new research on evidence production and use.

3 This submission draws on our work with our international, multi-disciplinary colleagues within the Transforming Evidence community and the empirical work we undertake on the use of research evidence. This includes are current work as the ESRC Areas of Research Fellows based in the Government Office for Science.  Our aim in making this submission is share our knowledge and experience of the current structures in place to support the use of science in government.

4 This submission is structured around the questions 1-3 set out in the Call for Evidence that relate directly to our expertise:

1. Are the right structures in place in government to implement a science and technology strategy

5 Over the past twenty years there has been a shift from viewing the relationship between science and policy as a linear pipeline from production to use, to an understanding that there is work to be done (often involving connecting people in government and science) to support the use of science in government[1]. More recently, the need to build structures and systems in government to support the use of science has also been recognized[2]. We have been working within the Government Office for Science to make sure the Areas of Research identified by government departments can act as an effective mechanism for supporting engagement between the academic and policy communities around government research priorities. From this work, we see a relatively strong science system within the UK government. The system is complex and multifaceted and includes the development of departmental science strategies, cross departmental networks, scientific leadership in government, the increase in capabilities for science use through the Government Science Capability Review and the structures in place to support access to external advice. The coordinating role of the Government Office for Science provides internal support and operates at a number of levels: convening and coordinating, building capacity and supporting networks of science leaders and officials. 

6 There is of course more that could be done. 

• Optimising the ways in which the science system in government interface with the science system outside government and with other areas of government.  In particular, the interface with science funders such as UKRI seems poorly developed. 
• Recognition that investment in research benefits practice organisations and sectors beyond technological innovation
• Recognition for and investment in the work that is undertaken at the boundaries by skilled intermediaries located within government, the academy and organisations with a specific remit to support boundary work (such as Academies, Funders, Universities Policy Engagement Network and What Works Centres). A successful example of an investment of this type would be the Knowledge Exchange Unit in the UK Parliament. 
• Coordination to support government in tackling shared research priority areas given the complexity of the multiple moving agendas of different government departments.
• As the infrastructure to support use of science in government grows then explicit effort to understand similarities and differences in roles emphasising the importance of coordination functions to ensure complementarity rather than duplication.
• Monitoring and evaluating for accountability purposes and to establish which mechanisms work well in which circumstances to support the use of science in government. There remains knowledge gaps that should be addressed to support future improvement. At the moment, the mechanisms are often employed without a sense of purpose, with activities often proving burdensome and costly, rather than beneficial.[3]

2. Does the introduction of a science and technology strategy challenge the Haldane principle and UKRI’s commitment to fund outstanding research?

7 Based on our work we would argue that this is the biggest ‘red herring’ in science policy discourse[4].  There seems to be no inherent conflict between the production of outstanding research and academic-policy engagement. What is commonly termed ‘discovery’ or ‘curiosity-led’ research in reality often has clear societal, policy or practice audiences who could benefit. The distinction between ‘applied’ and ‘pure’ research is drawn inappropriately with – in reality – nearly all research having potential impact outside the academy. Commentators also often flag the unfettered curiosity of researchers being a key driver of excellence. It is not clear that this is true, and neither does this reflect how most researchers select their areas of expertise.

8 Government being clearer about their knowledge needs (such as through the Areas of Research Interest, or the science and technology strategy), helps more fruitful engagement between evidence producers and users. Indeed, engagement of all those who have a stake in the outcomes of research is increasingly recognised as critical to establishing a robust research agenda that speaks to the greatest challenges facing the UK.  There is growing recognition (Knowledge Exchange Framework, KE Concordat and the UK Innovation Strategy) that research prioritization and problem framing can be informed by a range professional and lay stakeholders (see, for example, the work of the James Lind Alliance work on public involvement in research prioritization).

9 Furthermore, government relies on a wide range of knowledge sources to inform policy. The research councils are contributors, but there is a rich mixed economy of knowledge production. This supports our argument that policy interests in research do not constrict the independence of academic researchers.

10 However, what it does signal is the need for:

• Clear systems of governance and accountability in all relevant organisations
• Multiple strands of science funding to facilitate both policy-relevant and more blue skies research
• Coordination of initiatives designed to promote stakeholder engagement in policy
• Capacity building for researchers and government analysts to support good quality academic-policy engagement to inform each others work.  This could include opportunities for individuals to move between academic and policy environments, improved funding and career structures for these individuals
• Better empirical evidence about how the science system functions, and how it interfaces with external stakeholders. Too much commentary on this topic is opinion-led, and funders could usefully support independent research on how evidence is made and used.

3. Is the UK realising the potential of its research investment

11 A clear message from our work is that to realise the potential of science spending requires investment in knowledge mobilisation activities and that this area of work has been under invested in in the past[5]. Where there is investment in realising potential it tends to be focused on research evaluation and research impact assessment, which are valuable but are not focused on supporting the use of science in policy making – rather, on examining the primarily academic impacts (citations) of academic outputs (journal articles). A better understanding of the elements and activities within the science system as a whole would help shift this discussion away from knowledge production, towards use.

12 One particular gap we note is the often missed opportunity to mobilise what we know already on key topics. Funders and researchers often leap to generate new research, before checking existing bodies of evidence or even existing research investments.  As a result there is significant waste and a missed opportunity to use existing reservoirs of scientific knowledge.

13 While this is beginning to change there is a way to go to recognise that investing in this area should be a core priority activity for research funders, governments and universities. There is even further to go to recognise that we need to invest in research to understand which knowledge mobilisation activities work and in which circumstances.  There is a growing international network (the Transforming Evidence Funders Network) which is seeking to address this challenge from a funder perspective. However, there is no obvious place to seek advice on how to improve access to and use of evidence.

14 To realize the potential of UK research investment requires:

• Investment in knowledge mobilisation activities, often to make best use of what is already known on key policy topics
• Recognition and value to be place upon knowledge mobilizers (individuals and organisations) within government, academia, funders and intermediary organisations.
• Most of the policy challenges faced by government require interdisciplinary contributions from across the UKRI portfolio but this doesn’t happen by itself
• Some parts of UKRI are better set up to mobilize their portfolio than others
• Funding for research to examine how better to realise the potential of UK research investments

24 March 2022