1
We live in a highly complex political environment which is changing rapidly; not necessarily for the better. Those of us working at the evidence policy interface are confronted with 3 types of complexity: Complexity of knowledge Complexity of political problems wicked problems Complexity of the relationship between evidence and policy Complexity is the meta-problem of our age. 2
In the so-called post-fact political reality, there are multiple challenges: crisis of trust in science and elites, rise of populism, challenges within science and abundance of knowledge with reduced sense-making capacity All these create a less favourable environment for use of evidence in policy. Filing cabinets labelled, "Our Facts" "Their Facts" "Neutral Facts" "Disput - New Yorker Cartoon, Dana Fradon, First published 7 March 1977 3
Therefore, we need evidence advocates in public life more than ever. Advocates for evidence in the policymaking processes, but also in explaining the science behind political decisions to the public. JRC is an organisation quite uniquely positioned exactly in the middle of the science-policy interface. We produce knowledge supporting almost all policy fields under Commission's mandate. At the same time we are embedded inside the Commission, in a policymaking and political environment, which gives us a unique access to the policy world. Practice of providing evidence is our daily task, which also forces us to reflect on challenges of this area and how to adapt to them. We are implementing a new strategy, which puts sense-making and knowledge management in the centre of our organisation. That will make us better evidence advocates, but also requires a transformation and reflection on how to make our 2000+ scientists ever more skilful and effective. 4
The evidence advocates are evolving into a new profession, a hybrid at the science-policy interface, connecting both worlds. In JRC, we are currently developing our understanding of what this profession entails in our context, but we are here today to broaden this discussion. 'Pure scientists' cannot do this job while policymakers and politicians without scientific background either do not have the appetite for evidence, or do not know how to use it properly. Brokers in the middle are essential: scientists with a feel for policy and policymakers understanding how to manage science and scientists. Scientists are in a great position to evolve into this new profession, being a robust, better version of a knowledge-based consultancy, with crucial understanding of scientific methods, uncertainties, etc. But working between science and policy, is very hard to manoeuver. Science and policy worlds are interconnected, but not easily compatible. Moreover, they are struggling with their internal complexities. 5
Therefore, evidence advocates need to professionalise, with a distinct new skillset. They need to do so across the science-policy continuum, not just on the supply side of evidence, in order to provide and use the best possible evidence at the right time. 6
JRC has internally prepared a map of skills to get a sense of what is needed for this new profession (mention feedback provided by experts in the field at our workshop in Brussels on March 17) The skills map addresses the practical skillset needed to increase the uptake of research evidence in policymaking, which contributes to more evidence informed policies We do not, however, have all the answers, which is why we are here with you today to get your feedback on what matters from your perspective. Before giving your feedback, two important caveats need to be stressed. First of all, do not start in terms of subgroups: what skills are needed for scientists, what for policymakers. Evidence for policy interface is a messy one: think of what skills are needed for effective evidence-informed policymaking. Then the challenge is how to distribute them in the evidence for policy ecosystem. Equally, this professionalization effort is not an individual one. We do 7
not aim to create superhumans able to do all, but rather deliver capacities across our organisations and networks. Professionalization of our efforts gives hope for strengthening the impact of research as well as the appetite for evidence in policymaking. 7
The skills map addresses the practical skillset needed to increase the uptake of research evidence in policymaking, which contributes to more evidence informed policies The presentation of the modules is based on the standard program logic model, where Learning outcomes are described as behaviour change among users of outputs that demonstrates impact, adoption or use of project outputs by the project beneficiaries; Outputs are the supply-side deliverables, including knowledge and skills that result from a training intervention. The key distinction between an output (a specific skill or knowledge) and an outcome is that an output is typically is a change in the supply of knowledge and skills (supply side), whereas an outcome reflects changes in the utilisation of knowledge and skills (demand side); Each module will result in an upgrading of skills and/or knowledge (the outputs) of the participants; Utilisation of these will produce behavioural changes contributing to achieving more evidence informed policies (the outcomes). Thus all 7 modules are designed to contribute to the same overall 8
learning outcome, namely more evidence informed policies, be it through better communication and collaboration between scientists and policymakers (module 1), more effective management of knowledge (module 2) and networks (module 3), providing scientific evidence adapted to the policy cycle (module 4), clear and concise communication of knowledge (module 5) in effective messages to policymakers (module 6) or an effective monitoring, evaluation and learning framework (module 7). Once the skills map is finalised, but before implementing any training interventions, a mapping of existing skills (supply side) must be carried out and matched with the skills map. At this point, we must also consider which pre-disposed personal traits would be required for scientists and policymakers respectively aiming to specialise in e.g. community management, communicating knowledge. Once we have finalised the modules we will move on to identifying the personal traits required for each module It consists of 7 modules: Interpersonal skills Research Synthesis Knowledge Community Management Understanding Policymaking for Scientists (and 'Science for Policymakers') Communicating Scientific Knowledge Science Advice/Evidence Advocacy Monitoring & Evaluation 8
Interpersonal Skills: are the skills that we use when interacting with one or more people. Being able to interact well with others is often essential to solving problems that inevitably occur both in our private and professional lives. Policymaking is just one of the areas which can benefit from good interpersonal skills as it often requires negotiation and communicating complex information so that the most impactful decision can be made. Participants will improve their skills for: Conflict management Negotiation and persuasion Understanding and working with group dynamics Participatory leadership The module provides the scientists and policymakers will tools and skills to improve their interaction with co-workers. Improving collaboration and communication between scientists and policymakers contributes to better informed and more impactful policymaking. 9
Secondary Research Synthesis: The sheer amount and flow of evidence on a given policy problem is beyond the capacity of the human mind without some means of assistance. Research synthesis provides this assistance with a number of methods for identifying, critically appraising, and summarising the balance of evidence on a policy problem from a wide range of sources over a long period of time. Thus, research synthesis is an umbrella for a number of detailed methods and tools employed to make better sense of the wealth of knowledge available on a given policy problem. As a result, effectively managed knowledge will provide policymakers with access to more robust scientific evidence contributing to more evidence informed policies Participants will improve their skills for: Synthesising knowledge Which, how and when to use a given secondary research tool/method Lateral thinking Critical appraisal of evidence Background information (not necessarily to be mentioned during the 10
presentation) The module overs secondary research tools Meta-analysis: Literature review: Systematic review Quick scoping reviews Rapid evidence assessment (REA) Evidence gap mapping Critical appraisal of evidence Visual analytics 10
Knowledge Community Management: The super intelligence that is changing the world is in the community of knowledge. So rather than the great advances in technology are to be found in creating machines with superhuman horsepower, they will instead come from helping information to flow smoothly through the ever-bigger communities of knowledge and by making collaboration easier. Consequently, no good knowledge management system can operate without mapping and connecting strengths and expertise of various individuals and groups in a given policy area. This is a key skill, as properly synthesised, well communicated knowledge adapted to the needs and reality of policymaking benefits from collective wisdom of networked and diverse (interdisciplinary) practitioners. Knowledge feeds policymaking process more effectively when closer science-policy ties are established. This module covers networking and facilitation skills reaching over digital and physical interactions improving the participants' skills in: Management and facilitation of communities of practice Social media management Thus, Communities of Practice should span boundaries of both sciences 11
and policies and stimulate interaction around problems/topics, not occupational categories, in order to facilitate the exchange of ideas and better understandings of each other's needs and hence provide a platform for co-creation of research and policy. 11
Understanding Policymaking for Scientists (and 'Science for Policymakers': Contextual awareness of the science-policy nexus is crucial to succeed in providing evidence and lessen the risk of valuable knowledge being misdirected. Likewise, is the communication of scientific results nested in specific circumstances which need to be well understood in order to adapt the skills accordingly and use the organisational structures in the best possible way. Participants will improve their knowledge about: EU policymaking processes Context evidence receiving structures operate in (for scientists) Context evidence providing structures operate in (policymakers) Strategic Planning Policy of the Commission How to go about gathering 'policy intelligence' (policy drivers, current developments, stakeholders etc.) Policymakers and researchers will discover their ability to deploy their contextual awareness. Scientists will adapt their communication of scientific results to the EU policy cycle. Policymakers discover that using their in-depth knowledge about the policy process they are able to 12
anticipate what scientific evidence is useful and when. 12
Communicating Scientific Knowledge: Evidence-informed policymaking depends not only on the existence and availability of reliable evidence, because it also requires that researchers and policymakers communicate with each other effectively. Communication encompasses a wide array of skills helping to pass messages across, both in written and oral form, in digital and physical context. This module is focusing on content-related communication of knowledge improving skills for : succinct writing, infographic design, public speaking data visualisation When scientists are able to communicate effectively beyond their peers to broader, non-scientist audiences, including policymakers and politicians, it builds support for science and encourages more informed policymaking at all levels, from government to communities to individuals. 13
Science Advice/Evidence Advocacy: Cooperation between policymakers and researchers, does not always come naturally. A familiar set of obstacles cultural, linguistic and institutional can make interaction difficult. What is more, scientists, and policymakers are all subject to biases, mental shortcuts (heuristics), social and cultural influences and the limits of their cognitive bandwidth. To understand how these behavioural insights are relevant for policymaking implies an awareness of how scientists' and policy-makers' own biases can account for flawed problem definitions and policies. Thus, to achieve impact on policy, advisors (scientists and policymakers) and advisory structures need a particular sensitivity to how they provide and frame advice and evidence. In this context, storytelling is an important tool for distilling complex issues and relating them back to a policymaker s interests, values or experience. Scientists can use stories to humanize less exciting issues to improve the impact of their interaction with policymakers. This module will provide and understanding of: Storytelling in theory and practice; 14
Cognitive biases; The relevance of behavioural insights for policymaking; Communication of uncertainty and the inconvenient truth. Being able, as a scientist or a policymaker, to communicate effectively beyond your peers and to a broader audience contributes to more evidence informed policies at all levels. This module addresses the framing (scientific) evidence into effective messages taking into consideration the context that the "recipient" operates in. 14
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework: Monitoring, evaluation and learning are part of everyday knowledge management and are critical to increasing the impact of research evidence in policymaking. Without an effective MEL framework we would be unable to track progress, make adjustments and discover unplanned effects of knowledge brokerage, or evaluate the impact the impact an institutional level. The purpose of this module is to develop the skills for designing, developing and implementing a strong MEL framework tracking the knowledge brokerage actions both at the level of the organisation as well as the level of individual training modules As such, the underlying intention is that information generated from monitoring and evaluation of the impact of research evidence on policymaking is reflected upon and used to continuously improve the knowledge brokerage institutions. 15
JRC Community of practices If you want to join this community, join our online Community of Practice. We have an online presence with some resources and a place to share your news and events. Who: For those operating at the interface between evidence and policy What: A dedicated community page on evidence for policy, bibliography of relevant papers and useful links, events, concepts and practices on evidence for policy, thematic twitter feed wall Why: Connect with colleagues, share expertise, understand the politics of evidence, comment on publications, read how to write a policy brief, announce your event/training/activity Where: Find our more and register here - QR code/mobile tag Through this Community of Practice, JRC aims to gather thinkers and practitioners focused on evidence-informed policymaking, in order to exchange our collective expertise and experience in this complex field. We aim to link conceptual debates on science, policy and their interconnections with practical approaches on how to stimulate the demand for evidence and train people providing and receiving it for the sake of better policies. By joining this community, you gain access to a onestop shop for everything related to evidence-informed policymaking. Explore and contribute to our forum, news and events sections. Our library provides useful resources to better prepare oneself for the challenges of this field. 16
17
18