The Science Policy Interface FINAL REPORT Brisbane, May 6-7 2009
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Science Policy Interface
FINAL REPORT
Brisbane, May 6-7 2009
Facilitator:
Chris Rinehart, Rinehart Consulting
Acknowledgements:
The Steering Committee is grateful to the Australian Biosecurity Cooperative Research
Centre for Emerging Infectious Disease (AB‐CRC) and the Queensland Department of
Environment and Resource Management (DERM) for sponsorship of this event.
The Steering Committee also acknowledges the substantial contribution of Chris Rinehart in
facilitating the workshop, and the speakers and delegates for their enthusiastic participation.
Report prepared by Jo Edmondston, June 2009
© 2009 Australian Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre for Emerging Infectious Disease
This document has been prepared with all due diligence and care, based on the best available information at the time of publication. The CRC holds no responsibility for any errors or omissions within this document. Any decisions made by other parties based on this document are solely the responsibility of those parties. Information contained in this document is from a number of sources and, as such, does not necessarily represent organisational policy.
2
237662F
Sticky Note
Accepted set by 237662F
237662F
Sticky Note
Accepted set by 237662F
Contents
Page
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 4
Objectives & Outcomes …………………………………………………………………..………...….. 5
Program ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
Presentations ……………………………………………………………………………………………….… 9
Opening Remarks ………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
Presentations & Case studies ……………………………………………………………………… 9
Concluding Remarks ……………………………………………..………………………………… 21
Evaluation ……………………………………………..……………………………………………………… 22
Abstracts & PowerPoint Presentations …………………………………..……………….…………… 27
Delegate List ……………………………………………..………………………………………….……… 74
Delegate Details ……………………………………………..……………………………………….……… 77
Appendices …………………………………………………….……………………………………….…… 89
A: Tools, References & Websites ………………………………………………………….………91
B: Acronyms & Abbreviations ……………………………….………………………………….… 93
C: Report ‐ Tears of the Knowledge Broker ‐ David Salt …………………………………… 94
D: Feedback on Land & Water Australia brochure …………………………………………. 96
228162G
Typewritten Text
228162G
Typewritten Text
Introduction & Approach
In October 2007 the inaugural Knowledge into Practice and Policy workshop was convened
by Adjunct Professor Debby Cousins (Director, Application & Linkage Program, Australian
Biosecurity CRC for Emerging Infectious Disease; AB‐CRC), Dr Jan Davies (Former Executive
Director, National Health and Medical Research Council National Institute of Clinical Studies;
NHMRC NICS), and Ms Kate Andrews (Consultant and former Knowledge and Adoption
Manager, Land & Water Australia; LWA). Bringing together practitioners and academics with
a professional interest in knowledge exchange, this workshop comprised a series of case
study presentations that stimulated exploration of varying approaches to policy and practice
change across the natural resource management, health, and agriculture sectors.
A steering group reformed in 2008 to plan the second workshop in this series with the aim of maintaining
cross sector sharing but focussing on the science‐policy interface.
The workshop comprised five presentations, four case studies and a workshop covering four
areas: science policy issues, organisation culture, research‐policy interface and monitoring &
evaluation (see program). Interspersed through the program were five sessions of facilitated
discussion and small group work. Delegates came from a range of backgrounds including
health, natural resource management, environment, and plant & animal biosecurity.
The following report summarises the workshop, the evaluation, notes useful tools, websites
and references. As the main body of the report includes the presenters’ abstracts and
powerpoints (where available) the text describing the presentations does not duplicate this
material but attempts only to note additional comments made by the presenters. Overall, it
is hoped this report will be a valuable resource for not only the delegates, but other parties
who have an interest in the area of knowledge into policy and practice. Thank you to all the
delegates for finding the time in their busy schedules to participate in this workshop. The
steering committee looks forward to the next workshop in this series.
4
Objectives & Outcomes
The key objective of the Knowledge into Practice and Policy II: The Science‐Policy Interface
workshop was to promote improved policy and practice change by bringing together
practitioners and academics with a common interest in this area.
The workshop aimed to enable the delegates to:
1. share their experiences and methodologies through case studies and discussion;
2. promote the best available literature, tools, and knowledge;
3. understand the approach of various sectors to policy and practice change, and discuss
the possible application of these approaches across and within other sectors;
4. enhance communication between practitioners and academics; and
5. explore whether any changes to practice are required and, if so, what these changes are.
The desired outcomes of the workshop were an improved and shared understanding of:
1. the strategies, methods and tools effective at the various points of the knowledge into
policy and practice continuum;
2. the obstacles to knowledge into policy and practice present at the science‐policy interface,
where they originate from, and how they may be overcome;
3. how to determine and/or evaluate the impact of the outcomes of interactions between
science and policy, and activities designed to promote knowledge into policy; and
4. the different cultures and drivers of policy makers and researchers.
The key messages emerging from the workshop were:
that policy development is a complex, dynamic process that differs significantly from the
research process – it is highly politicised, and has different triggers & timescales
the need for institutional changes to policy making process – facilitating movement from
opportunistic policy making to a more systematic, evidence‐based process
that bridging the science policy divide requires the development of long term
relationships, significant input of energy and commitment, and researchers to be
responsive and sufficiently prepared with the requisite scientific knowledge for policy
makers (including clear communication of the “value proposition” of the research)
the significant value in regular engagement between researchers and policy makers –
including the potential benefits of embedding researchers into policy (and vice versa),
and developing relationships with bureaucrats at the strategy development level
the need for adoption management, monitoring & evaluation to be incorporated into all
planning stages of a research project – with recognition that retrofitting these elements
is difficult, if not impossible
5
Feedback from the delegates demonstrated that the workshop was successful in achieving
its goals. There was clear indication that points raised during the workshop would impact on
the future work practices of the delegates, particularly the differences between the scientific
and policy making cultures, some key areas in knowledge adoption, and the knowledge
adoption tools described (examples of useful tools, websites and/or references raised in the
workshop have been summarised in this report ‐ see Appendix A). There was continued
support for a third Knowledge into Practice and Policy workshop (see 18. Planning for the
third Knowledge into Policy and Practice Workshop).
6
Program
Wednesday 6 May
Time Topic Speaker / Facilitator
8.30am Coffee and registration
8.45am Workshop welcome and objectives Prof Debby Cousins
9.00am Facilitator introduction & housekeeping Chris Rinehart
9.15am
Presentation 1:
Knowledge and politics in the policy making process
Prof Brian Head – Institute for Social Science Research, University of Queensland
9.45am Presentation 2:
The policy climate
Dr Scott Prasser – Senior Lecturer in Management in the Faculty of Business at the University of Sunshine Coast
10.15am Morning tea
10.45am
Case study 1:
Effecting policy changes before, during and after crises
Prof Debby Cousins – Deputy CEO, Australian Biosecurity CRC for Emerging Infectious Disease
11.15am
Presentation 3:
Barriers at the science‐policy interface: Integrating policy and science in natural resources‐ why is it so difficult?
Dr Sue Briggs – Principal Research Scientist, Department of Environment and Climate Change, Woodland Ecology Unit (NSW)
12.00pm Facilitated discussion of science‐policy issues
Chris Rinehart
12.30pm Lunch
1.30pm
Presentation 4:
Organisational change for improving adoption outcomes
Kate Andrews – Consultant, former Knowledge and Adoption Manager, Land and Water Australia
2.00pm
Case study 2:
Getting the ‘right’ science into policy from a policy maker’s perspective
Scott Rawlings – Manager, Research & Development, Natural Resources Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment (Vic)
2.30pm Facilitated discussion of organisational culture
Chris Rinehart
3.00pm Afternoon tea
3.30pm Small group work: Sharing tools & learning from experiences
Chris Rinehart
4.15pm Reflections and feedback Chris Rinehart
5.00 pm Close
7
Thursday 7 May
Time Topic Speaker / Facilitator
8.45am Tea and coffee on arrival
9.00am Day 1 review Chris Rinehart
9.15am Workshop 1:
Research meets policy
Mr Ken Moore – Manager of the Social and Institutional Research Program, Land & Water Australia
Mr John Bennett – Department of Environment and Resource Management (Qld)
10.30am Morning tea
11.00am
Case study 3:
Designing the interface ‐ participation of researcher and users
Cate Turner – Acting Manager, Sustainable Landscapes Program, &
Alistair Phillips – Manger Natural Resources Planning Policy
Natural Resources Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment (Vic)
11.45am Small group work: The research‐policy interface
Chris Rinehart
12.30pm Lunch
1.30pm
Presentation 5:
Evaluation frameworks and organisational change
Dr Jeff Coutts – Principal
QualDATA
2.00pm Case study 4:
Evaluating a ‘change champion’ strategy
Rosie Forster – Director Leadership Program, National Institute of Clinical Studies, National Health & Medical Research Council
2.30pm Discussion and small group work: Tools for monitoring & evaluation
Chris Rinehart
3.00pm Afternoon tea
3.30pm Summation, reflection and feedback Chris Rinehart
4.15pm Close
8
Presentations
1. Debby Cousins & Chris Rinehart ‐ Welcome
Debby Cousins welcomed the delegates and thanked the steering group (in particular
Gabrielle van Willigen) for their efforts in organising the workshop. Deb highlighted the
aims of the workshop, noting that while there had been a shift in focus from KiPP1
towards the science policy interface in KiPP2, cross‐sector representation had been
maintained. [The opportunity to share methods and tools across the sectors had been a
highlight of the first workshop, and throughout KiPP2 there was considerable discussion
of the merits of co‐learning afforded by cross‐sector representation]. The loss of Peter
Cullen (who had worked consistently at building bridges between science and policy)
and his significant contribution to KiPP1 was noted. Deb then introduced the facilitator,
Chris Rinehart, who provided a brief overview of the processes that would be used to
capture the outcomes of the workshop.
2. Brian Head – Knowledge & politics in the policy making process
Brian structured his presentation to cover three aspects of the science policy interface –
the policy process, the importance of scientific rigour, and the process of building
bridges between researchers and policy makers. He described the policy process as a
complex game of “snakes and ladders”, with many players, winners and losers. He noted
that long term relationships between researchers and policy makers need to be formed
around specific high importance issues (as opposed to generic issues). He also
highlighted the need for both parties to be aware of the “value proposition” around
collaborating on specific projects.
Using a biological analogy, he described the process of bridging the science policy divide
as requiring not only “arteries” ‐ the enduring structural or institutional systems
between scientists and policy makers, but also “capillaries” ‐ the networks and
relationships required to support these enduring systems.
As policies dealing with complex issues often need to be broken into many parts, Brian
noted that this creates the opportunity for many stakeholders to influence these
different parts of the process. The dynamic and fuzzy policy making process in which
policy issues are broken into manageable parts, may not give scientists any more
“special” input than any other stakeholder group – they become “one piece in the policy
process”.
He asked how policy can be improved, suggesting that this requires good science, clear
messages about how this science contributes to problem solving, and good engagement
of scientists with the political process. He cited Peter Cullen and the Wentworth group
as an example of successful engagement with policy makers. [See
http://www.wentworthgroup.org/index.php]
Brian noted the importance of collaborative forums between researchers and policy
makers in bridge‐building but stressed that this collaborative process can be a double‐
edged sword with significant benefits but also high transaction costs (e.g. with respect to
9
time and effort). He suggested that economical options for engagement such as forums
and shared information bases are required. See abstract & slide presentation.
See abstract & slide presentation
Q/A focus 1 ‐ How can we move from pure research to applied research?
Moving to problem solving science requires good relationships with policy makers.
Researchers need to clearly communicate the reason – the value proposition –
underlying why their research evidence will allow policy makers to do their job better.
Scientists need to “lead the horse to water”. There is also a need for policy makers to
shift from opportunistic evidence‐informed policy to a more systematic evidence‐based
policy, while recognising the inherently pragmatic nature of the policy process.
Q/A focus 2 ‐ Redefining what constitutes “expert evidence”. Should all stakeholders’
views be given equal weight? Does this “throw the baby (science) out with the
bathwater”? While legitimacy is appropriately given to a number of contributing views
other than science, rigour does not have to be “thrown out” of the policy making
process. Standards of rigour and hierarchies of knowledge remain important.
3. Scott Prasser – The policy climate
Scott Prasser provided a frank overview of the current policy climate with particular
reference to policy making in the state of Queensland. He stressed that although the
language and interaction about policy was expressed in the public arena in terms of
rational policy development and the use of ‘evidence’, that nevertheless this was
affected by values and ideologies. Also, policy was driven by political leaders in terms of
‘winning’ and beating potential competition.
The challenge for public sector practitioners was ‘speaking truth to power’ ie of seeking
to ensure rational advice was at least provided to political decision makers, even if it was
not always accepted. Practitioners need to appreciate what is meant by ‘good politics’ as
well as ‘good policy’ and while ‘good policy’ will ultimately lead to ‘good politics’ this
required long term perseverance and appreciation of the realities of the policy
environment.
In Queensland, the policy environment is ‘hot’ ie driven by short term politics and ‘dark’
in that it is often conducted behind closed doors between a small number of consenting
stakeholders. As a result rational advice is not always heard even when given and the
people with the knowledge and expertise are not always invited to the table.
Scott suggested some reforms that were about opening up opportunities for inputs from
a wider cross section of the community, having a more independent public service,
establishing special advisory systems and establishing a more effective parliamentary
system to debate issues and hold government to account.
Scott described the Queensland policy climate as a process for consenting adults behind
closed doors – “dark” (secretive) and “hot” (political). He noted that “frank and fearless”
advice has gone out the window.
10
Q/A focus 1 – How can the light and air be let in on this “dark and hot” process to make
it bright and cool? Is it possible?
Institutional practice and culture changes are required but this is not an easy process. It
requires transparent, open debate and needs people to “speak truth to power”. Scott
compared the Queensland systems to more transparent and open examples that
currently exist in our Federal offices, and in the US and Canada.
Q/A focus 2 ‐ How much control does the media have over the policy process?
Ministers need the conviction to argue the case on issues and hose down media
expectations and/or sensationalism.
4. Deb Cousins – Effecting policy changes before, during, and after crises
Deb described a case study in the biosecurity sector involving policy change driven by
the equine influenza crisis. After describing the emergency animal disease (EAD) policy
environment in Australia prior to the equine influenza outbreak, Deb noted that the
environment at this time was ripe for policy change. Following transfer of a new, rapid
DNA based test for avian influenza from the research organisation to the state
veterinary laboratories, these laboratories were then able to respond quickly and
effectively to the equine influenza crisis, implementing EAD policy change from a
centralised to a dispersed response system “on the run”. While there is ongoing support
for continued policy change in this area, in the absence of a crisis to drive further
changes, policy makers have returned to a “go slow” mode and there has been
additional resources allocated to support the required practice changes. In this case
study, Deb highlighted the factors which contributed to policy change ‐ environment,
timing, communication, resources and people.
See abstract & slide presentation
Q/A focus 1 ‐ Can policy change be made in the absence of crisis?
The Panarchy model suggests that times of crisis are the only time when it is possible for
science to influence policy. [See Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People
in a Changing World by Walter Reid, Brian Walker, David Salt [see
http://www.amazon.com/Resilience‐Thinking‐Sustaining‐Ecosystems‐
Changing/dp/1597260932]
5.Sue Briggs –Integrating policy & science in NRM – barriers & bridges
In her presentation, Sue provided her insights into the barriers and bridges at the
science policy interface. She began her presentation by suggesting that the full
integration of research and policy is unlikely in practice – but that all researchers and
policy makers should work towards this ideal. She noted that, as a generalisation,
researchers have knowledge and policy makers have power (see Briggs 2006). She used
the term “cross‐cultural translator” in preference to “knowledge broker” to better
11
reflect the need for these individuals to cross between the two disparate cultures of
science and policy.
See Briggs, S. V. (2006). Integrating policy and science in natural resources: Why so
difficult? Ecological Management and Restoration 7, 37‐39.
David Pannell’s website was cited as a useful tool. [See
http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/]
See slide presentation
Q/A focus 1. Are there forward thinking policy makers?
Kate Delaney distinguishes two types of policy makers – the policy analysts who worry
about the future and the strategic thinkers who plan for the future. [See
http://www.delaney.com.au/]
Q/A focus 2. How do scientists position themselves at times of crisis to better integrate
research and policy?
Requires “putting your hand up” at serendipitous times of crisis then “hanging around”
for the next crisis. There is a danger in over‐simplifying this process. Need to distinguish
between the ability of an individual to impact on policy making versus the greater reach
of an organisation. Also need to differentiate between being simply responsive, versus
being responsive and sufficiently prepared with the requisite scientific knowledge and
understanding of the “value proposition”.
6.Facilitated discussion of science‐policy issues
Observations, Questions, Ideas/ Implications, and Decisions
There was discussion of the importance of personal relationships in the policy making
process, and it was noted that knowledge brokering networks are particularly organic
– and not rational – because they are relationship based.
There was recognition that policy is not always about research evidence. There was
discussion of hierarchical knowledge, rigour, and the legitimacy of other sources of
“evidence”. The value of industry bodies and their ability to influence policy was
noted.
The need for researchers to “keep ahead of the game” was discussed. This could
include crisis planning and horizon scanning to pre‐empt crises. Short term research
projects were suggested as a means of raising the profile of specific researchers or
research organisations with policy makers prior to “stepping forward” during a crisis.
A number of additional questions were raised including: How can the structure of the
research policy interface be changed so that policy makers are better linked to
researchers? Does the push for end‐user driven research mean there is no longer a
place for blue sky research? Are policy makers settling for the quick fix too readily?
What can be done when evidence is lacking? What could be used to indicate
12
movement towards a policy environment that is cool and light, given the dangerous
“hot and dark” policy climate that currently exists?
7.Kate Andrews – Organisational change for improving adoption outcomes
Kate’s presentation covered principles of adoption and organisational change, with
insights into some of the lessons she has learnt in her career in this area. Kate began her
presentation by answering one of the questions raised in the proceeding workshop
discussion about the position of “blue sky” research in the Australian landscape. With
the caveat that she believes blue sky research to be essential, she referenced the work
of John Howard [See http://www.howardpartners.com.au/john.php ].
Kate noted that it is important to distinguish between managing knowledge for adoption
versus managing adoption. The latter involves managing relationships which can be
highly variable and by definition, possibly unmanageable.
Managing knowledge for adoption was described as incorporating a spectrum of
methods ranging from one‐way information provision through to full engagement. While
each is important and has its place, she noted that there has been a fundamental
cultural shift away from the traditional model of forced knowledge transfer to co‐
learning.
Kate noted that adoption techniques and processes need to be built into all stages of the
research life cycle, and stressed the importance of organisational systems that share the
responsibility for adoption “across the board” and embed the learning of knowledge
management processes.
Kate suggested that understanding information seeking behaviour in policy makers is an
“adoption fundamental”, that bridging the science policy divide invariably comes back to
the skills and capacity of individuals, and knowledge management should be
incorporated into the initial planning stages of a research project (acknowledging that
this is not always possible). While some knowledge transfer becomes easier as the
research lifecycle progresses, retrofitting adoption and engagement at the end of a
project is difficult, if not impossible.
See slide presentation
Q/A focus 1. What is the legacy of blue sky research?
May require contractual obligations to be written into grants. A number of regional
universities are successfully applying university based research to regional engagement.
8.Scott Rawlings – Getting the ‘right’ science into policy from a policy maker’s
perspective
Part one of a three part presentation involving Alistair Phillips & Cate Turner’s
presentations later in the workshop, Scott’s presentation covered the research to
13
underpin evidence‐based policy and incorporated a case study of the University of
Melbourne & Department of Forestry and Ecosystem Science research funding program.
Scott noted early in his case study presentation that he feels researchers are not
perplexed by policy makers and vice versa. Rather, it is the interface between research
and policy that is perplexing to both groups. He also acknowledged that there are many
valid models of evidence based policy, but warned of the dangers of over‐generalising in
adoption. Concurring with Kate, he acknowledged that “curiosity” or “blue sky” research
underpins our knowledge base, can fill important research knowledge gaps, and may
address needs that have yet to emerge or be articulated.
In the case described in Scott’s presentation, regular engagement between researchers
and policy makers is mandated (>1 meeting per month). Annual conferences include co‐
presentations between researcher and policy makers describing knowledge brokering
for specific projects, and the mechanisms used to support this.
Scott noted that the presumption that policy makers can articulate research needs and
give clear direction to researchers in not always correct.
See abstract & slide presentation
Q/A focus 1. Scott was asked to describe the formal support provided for the research
adoption plans in the case, and whether the projects were “policy ready”.
Scott noted that the planned training and coaching to support researchers and policy
makers in adoption had yet to be implemented, but this training is likely to be part of
the formal induction process. There is likely to be expansion of the research adoption
planning process with the possible inclusion of external stakeholders.
Q/A focus 2. How to manage the dichotomy between research and policy timeframes?
Requires frank and informal exchange between researchers and policy makers to
promote a shared understanding of each others’ “worlds”‐ their needs and capabilities.
9.Facilitated discussion of organisational culture.
Reflecting upon these presentations: What did you learn about the organisational
systems and policies required to support knowledge adoption/exchange? Did you gain
any learnings that will influence how you will engage with others in your organisation to
bring about change?
There was recognition of the importance of contacts databases, and the energy
required to establish and implement structures to support good knowledge
brokering. The difficulties in striking the right balance between supporting the system
and supporting the specific needs of the researchers, policy makers and knowledge
brokers associated with individual projects, was acknowledged.
The value of bringing together research and policy makers regularly and often was
noted, as was the inherent difficulty of retrofitting adoption plans versus the
advantages of researcher and policy maker engagement early in research planning.
14
The question of who should drive dialogue between researchers and policy makers
was raised.
While embedding researchers into the policy environment was seen to promote
engagement, loss of research objectivity was raised as a possible disadvantage of this
method. “Critical mass” and “dilution effects” were also raised in relation to the
embedding of researchers or policy makers in each others’ worlds. There was
recognition that research conferences bringing together researchers and policy
makers could be useful for “cross fertilisation” of ideas, and rewarding knowledge
exchange amongst both researchers and policy makers provides positive
reinforcement and increased recognition of importance of this role.
There was acknowledgement of the importance of planning, and implementing, a
“learning environment” that promotes the understanding and implementation of
knowledge brokering, in particular, an environment that stresses the value of
knowledge brokering to researchers. At the organisational level, a learning
environment such as this may promote increased ownership and participation in
knowledge brokering activities.
There was discussion of the benefits of knowledge brokering templates and the
advantages of a regular and mandated review of the knowledge brokering progress
of a project that involves both the researcher and the policy maker. Statutory
requirements in research agreements for adoption involving a “carrot” (ongoing
continued funding if complete) and “stick” (discontinued funding if incomplete) were
described. There was acknowledgement that there needs to be flexibility built into
these systems to prevent research being stifled through processes that are too
prescriptive. The value in planning for research legacy was also raised.
The value of synthesising research – a difficult process that pulls together outcomes
from multiple projects and includes an additional layer of analysis – was noted. There
was agreement that not all projects are amenable to adoption ‐ some are only
partially useful for policy makers, others may influence research that in turn has a
“knock on” effect to other research that may then influence policy.
The question of how to create a framework for setting planning priorities and
implementation was raised. Developing priority areas and “working smart”, keeping
research specific, tackling important issues, and broader stakeholder engagement
were all encouraged.
10.Small group work: What is working well?
Sharing tools & learning from experiences. Useful tools/techniques for each sector /
Needs of policy makers / Needs of researchers
Mandated adoption planning templates. It was stressed that these templates should
not be “handed out cold” but require significant support. Online calendar with
adoption planning milestones for each project were also useful.
15
Proactive librarians that keep users up to date with the relevant literature in the
knowledge brokering area. This raised the issue of where literature in this area is
published and how newcomers to the area access information. Peter Cullen’s
references were suggested as a good starting point. [A powerpoint presentation
prepared by the late Peter Cullen has also been included in this report]. The Primary
Health Care Research & Information Service (PHCRIS) website infobytes have a useful
and current review of knowledge brokering. See
http://www.phcris.org.au/infobytes/knowledgebrokering.php. Also see the Canadian
Health Services Research Foundation knowledge brokering resources page
http://www.chsrf.ca/brokering/resources_e.php.].
The medical field can access standardised medical updates via the Cochrane reviews,
although medical practice change is difficult. The difficulties of encouraging people
who have entered the information “comfort zone” to take on board new knowledge
and/or recognise the need to learn new information were noted.
Contacts databases, newsletters, portals, stakeholder reference groups, adoption
forums, research workshops, and research legacy planning.
Pairing policy makers and researchers for specific projects, embedding policy makers
into research management structures, and/or building knowledge exchange into the
whole research cycle. Using knowledge brokering awards to reward researchers and
policy makers who are integrating well, and understanding market principles to
manage knowledge brokering (scoping, desired change, and context). Improving
cross‐cultural communication between researchers and policy makers using the
principle of “listening to understand”.
MarkSan Conservation planning software http://www.uq.edu.au/marxan/
11.Reflection & Feedback
Theory versus reality – acknowledging the reality of knowledge brokering. While we
aim for engagement and co‐learning, what we often practice is information transfer.
Policy makers seem to stem from science backgrounds. What are the implications of
this?
Blue sky research – how can knowledge brokering be promoted in these projects if
the primary motivation for the research is not knowledge exchange?
Difficulty of synthesising research across projects. Not every project directly
influences policy.
What is policy? There are many types, with different aims.
“Glossing over” the different cultures of science in different organisations
(universities, research organisations, etc) – is there common ground?
Policy delivery – how can science knowledge be made “policy ready”?
16
Dealing with uncertainty – needs further discussion as it presents a major barrier to
knowledge exchange.
Generate a map of the knowledge exchange landscape in Australia and models used
by organisations – useful for more informed networking.
The role of shadow networks – individual and often unknown groups that act as
catalysts for change “behind the scenes”.
12.Ken Moore & John Bennett ‐ Research meets policy
In his presentation, Ken provided his vision of Australian rural and regional research. In a
description of a water management study, he noted that policy should not have adverse
outcomes on users of the programs derived from these policies. He stressed that local
knowledge (especially indigenous knowledge) needs to be recognised, and that politics
can get in the way and/or strongly impact on what policy gets implemented.
He highlighted the importance of understanding the operating environment, networking
and cultivating relationships, and using stories to link science to practice. He described
the benefits of using “champions” who hold established trust relationships with
stakeholders.
John Bennett then presented three case studies to illustrate the formal mechanisms
used to support research into policy integration. John provided a final slide which
showed a breakdown of the cases and the formal mechanisms used to support the
science, policy and science policy interface in each.
See slide presentation
Q/A focus 1. Debate about public reporting, in particular the use of score cards in the
Healthy Waterways project (see
http://www.waterwatch.org.au/publications/healthcheck.html).
John Bennett noted that longstanding and successful adoption projects (such as
Healthy Waterways) still require significant, ongoing efforts to maintain them.
Ken Moore presented a series of questions regarding the existing Land and Water
Australia brochure “Research Meets Policy” [see http://lwa.gov.au/products/pk040749]
designed to assist researchers address how to more effectively engage with policy and
decision makers.
Ken invited the delegates and their organisations to
contribute to revision of the brochure, with possible co‐
badging of the final document. He asked delegates to consider
how do the four policy pathways relate to your own
experiences with research informing policy? What new
17
information / suggestions can you offer which could be used to help update the
brochure?
With regard to experiences in research informing policy, it was noted that a comparison
of the differing timelines between policy makers and researchers was useful, as was the
advice to “take opportunities as they arise”. The role of policy maker as the final arbiter
of value of research for policy purposes was discussed, as was the professional standing
of researchers. Two useful statements scientists can use when approaching policy
makers – “How can I help you?” and/or “I need help”. There was further discussion of
marketing adoption and the importance of promoting your organisation and their
activities.
It was suggested that the brochure could be improved by changing of emphasis from “us
and them” to “we” – rewrite from both the policy makers and researchers perspective. It
was also suggested that the audience for the brochure could be more explicitly defined –
currently the brochure is aimed predominantly at researchers. The inclusion of tools
and/or case studies, to provide concrete examples of the principles described in the
brochure was suggested. (See Appendix D).
13.Alistair Phillips & Cate Turner – Interface design: Participation of researchers & end‐
users
Following on from Scott Rawlings presentation on day 1 of the workshop, Alistair noted
that the term ‘policy officer’ is a “catch all”, and early career policy officers may have
limited direct involvement in policy making. He highlighted that the formal relationships
between researchers and policy makers can vary significantly between and within
federal and state departments, ranging from outsourcing research to maintaining a
dedicated research group.
He drew a distinction between “capital P” policy at legislative level and “small p” policy
at the strategic level. Developing relationships with bureaucrats at the small p level can
yield ‘pay dirt’ for researchers attempting to embed science into policy as this is where
the detailed strategies that underpin big policy statements are developed. He noted that
the “worlds” of research and policy makers must be permeable if strong connections
(possibly involving funding) are to be made between the two.
Alistair illustrated some of the disconnect between policy efforts and the research
world, noted that “window shopping” for research to support policy is common, that
policy makers think in “fine grain” detail but need to talk “big picture”. He suggested
that “smart policy” combined with defensible research should create a system that is
able to “deal with shocks”. And he noted the multidisciplinary capacity of some policy
makers, who are able to translate between the social and natural sciences (defining
interdisciplinary as across disciplines, and transdisciplinary as across & outside
disciplines). While this is not a well‐defined space it will become increasingly important.
See abstract & slide presentation
18
Q/A focus 1. The issue of the legitimacy of views was raised, and the concern that little
distinction was being made between researchers of high professional standing and
information window shopped from Google (referred to as “Professor Google”). The
extent that policy is research driven as opposed to the reverse process where policy
makers window shop to support policy direction was also questioned. Shouldn’t
research drive the creation of policy and not vice versa?
Q/A focus 2. The need for equivalents of the medical sectors’ Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews in other sectors was noted. [See
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/]
Reiterating Alistair’s comments, Cate Turner began her presentation by stressing that
the strategy level of policy making is fertile ground for researchers to influence long
term policy and change. She suggested that a four part test should be applied to policy
(Is it true? Is it truthful? Is it just? Does it have functional fit?). Researchers are
concerned with the first 'truth', and it is the policy makers who are required to be
concerned with the other three (and the first) to be legitimate in public life. Researchers
often do not remember that these other truths also need to be considered, and
underplay the importance of 'subjectivity' in translating research into policy. Cate’s
research program at DSE has attempted to conduct research to address all four truth
claims, but it is a new experimental program.
See abstract & slide presentation
14.Small group work: The research‐policy interface.
What did you learn about strengthening the relationships/interface between science
and policy? How can you apply this in your workplace / sector?
The difference between scientific uncertainty and political uncertainty was discussed.
The need for researchers to be aware that policy has an adaptive cycle that can
manage political uncertainty was highlighted, as was the need to understand that
policy makers need immediate responses. Researchers should be aware that policy
making is a dynamic process, policy has caveats, limitations, uncertainties, and is able
to accommodate changes and improvements.
These issues lead to further discussion of the difficulties of getting researchers to
“put their name on the record”. Suggested strategies for overcoming this problem
included using science communicators as intermediaries (who can take “official”
responsibility for big picture statements that researchers do not feel comfortable
about having professionally attributed to them) and sharing responsibility for
scientific conclusions across scientific expert panels. The unanimous difficulty / global
experience across sectors at the “decision – support” nexus between policy makers
and researchers was acknowledged.
19
15.Jeff Coutts – Evaluation frameworks & organisational change
Jeff provided in his presentation an overview of program logic, where monitoring and
evaluation fit in this logic framework, and how policy and practice change can be
measured at the organisational level. He stressed in his presentation that the first
questions that need to be addressed for monitoring and evaluation are – What is it you
want to achieve? Do you have logical processes in place to influence policy? What is
your value‐add? Can you tease out your niche? These questions hinge on the Key Results
Areas (KRAs) of program logic. Monitoring and evaluation, which is the flipside of
management, is critical at all stages but often hinges on the KRAs. Jeff noted that
continual monitoring often hinges on these KRAs (distinguishing between one‐off
evaluations and continual monitoring and evaluation at all levels of program logic). The
Key Result Areas lead to selection of Key Performance Indicators which then dictates the
appropriate method used to monitor and/or evaluate these indicators.
See abstract & slide presentation
Q/A focus 1. How do we incorporate and/or manage serendipitous or unexpected
events? How can the rate and scope of change be accounted for in monitoring and
evaluation?
Key research areas are dynamic so “don’t get hung up on them”. Address what can be
realistically achieved, and model outcomes on short, medium and long term goals. Spin‐
off projects can then be incorporated into evaluation and monitoring, and the results of
monitoring and evaluation can also drive change. Acknowledge that many factors can
affect program logic.
16.Rosie Forster – Evaluating a ‘change champion’ strategy
Rosie presented a case study of a fellowship program implemented in the health sector
by NHMRC NICS to increase capacity of clinicians in the uptake of knowledge into health
care policy and practice, to improve patient care. She set the context of her case study
by noting that in the health sector it takes an average of 17 years for research evidence
to be taken up into practice. She used the term “change champion” interchangeably
with the term “local opinion leader”.
See abstract & slide presentation
Q/A focus 1. Rosie invited comment on useful indicators for measuring impact of the
NICS fellowship program.
A number of similar models using “change champions” were suggested, including the
international PhD leadership program in the AB‐CRC, rural leadership in LWA, and the
Wentworth scholars in NRM.
20
17.Discussion and small group work: Tools for monitoring & evaluation.
What particularly interested you from the presentation and case study? How does the
content presented today relate to your own experience in evaluating impact of research
on practice and/or policy?
It was suggested that the key to the evaluation schedules should lie with the
audience and focus of the study. The evaluation question will be determined by
questions of “Who has data?” and “How can this data be accessed?”. Possible
indicators should then be prioritised and considered for their feasibility.
Case studies were noted for their ability to provide unequalled analysis at the level of
the individual. Consideration of case study methodology for Rosie’s study was
considered dangerous, as the method should be chosen to fit the monitoring and
evaluation aims, as opposed to retrofitting case study analysis to the project.
18.Planning for the third Knowledge into Policy and Practice Workshop
Location – Previously in Melbourne and Brisbane. Alternate capital city preferred.
Structure – Case studies and directed questions, combination of cross‐sector and
intra‐sector discussions.
Possible topics – What is evidence? / Decision making tools / Public reporting and
accountability.
Participants – Maintain cross‐sector representation with possible inclusion of private
sector R&D organisations? There was some concern that broadening representation
at the workshop to groups such as these may result in a loss of focus and meaning.
Cost – Majority indicated they would be prepared to share the costs for catering and
room hire.
Size – To remain restricted to similar numbers as KiPP1 and KiPP2 (~30‐40).
Meetings of geographical chapters of KIPP was encouraged.
Many thanks to the following people who offered to organise KiPP3: Ian Dreher,
Karen Hurley, Jen Lumsden and Alistair Phillips.
21
Evaluation
At the conclusion of the workshop, the delegates were asked to complete a feedback sheet
which asked the delegates to answer the following questions prior to the workshop:
Which sector do you represent?
What is your official role?
What are your expectations of the workshop?
What session topics are you most interested in?
The delegates were also asked the following questions at the completion of the workshop:
Did the workshop fulfil your expectations?
How useful were each of the sessions in fulfilling your reasons for attendance?
Please indicate whether the workshop achieved each of the desired outcomes?
Please list three points raised in the workshop that may influence/change your work
practice(s). Describe how your practice will be influenced/changed.
Do you have any suggestions for how the workshop could be improved?
23 evaluation sheets were collected form delegates at the end of the workshop (55%
response rate). The responses provided are summarised below.
Delegate Sector & Role
The delegates represented a range of sectors and roles. Of the 23 responses provided to
these questions, 10 delegates indicated they fulfilled multiple roles and 12 indicated they
represented multiple sectors (most commonly natural resources and environment).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Health
NaturalResources
Environment
Agriculture
Respondents
22
Expectations & Interest
All delegates answered this question and many provided multiple responses. The responses
fell into two categories; one comprising very general expectations, the other very specific
expectations. The general category (19 responses) included expectations that the workshop
would provide networking and cross‐sector and case study sharing opportunities,
professional development and practice change opportunities, and would be interesting,
entertaining, challenging and inspiring for delegates. The specific category indicated that
delegates expected to learn about practical ideas/tools/skills (n=4), understand and improve
interactions at the science policy interface (n=13), improve research adoptability (n=4) and
learn more about the policy making process, organisational change, knowledge brokering
and contemporary knowledge adoption principles and practice (n=10).
When asked if the workshop fulfilled these expectations, 11 delegates indicated it did and
eight did not respond. One indicated it exceeded their expectations. Three felt it only
partially fulfilled their expectations, although one of these respondents noted that his/her
expectation were set high and matching them would be a difficult task.
The session topics that delegates were most interested in were the science‐policy interface
(n= 14). As delegates were not given discrete boxes to check for this answer nor were they
asked to indicate which presentation they were particularly interested in hearing, it was
difficult to distinguish from these answers specifically which science‐policy interface session
they were referring to. Other gave more specific answers indicating they were interested in
the policy process session (n=3), organisational change (n=4), monitoring and evaluation
(n=6), and practical tools (n=2). Three delegates indicated they were interested in all
sessions, and a number of delegates indicated they were particularly interested in the
presentations of Dr Sue Briggs (n=6), Cate Turner and Alistair Phillips (n=3) and Ms Kate
Andrews (n=3).
Sessions
The delegates were asked to rate each session on a three point scale from very useful to not
useful. Additional comments provided for this question (n= 14) indicated the delegates felt
the venue was appropriate and the facilitation was good, there was good opportunity for
networking, and Ms Rosie Forster and Dr Jeff Coutts were commended for their
presentations. It was also noted in these comments that the practical component of the
workshop (including discussion of tools) could be improved, discussion time could be
increased, a greater proportion of time could have been allocated to monitoring and
23
evaluation and there was too much emphasis placed on high level policy making as opposed
to policy making in broader terms.
0 5 10 15 20 25
6 - Monitoring & Evaluation
5 - Research Policy Interface
4 - Sharing Tools & Experiences
3 - Organisational Culture
2 - Science Policy Issues
1 - Science Policy Issues
Respondents
Very Useful Useful Not Useful No Response / Not Present
Outcomes
The delegates were asked to rate the success of the workshop in addressing the proposed
outcomes. These outcomes were an improved and shared understanding of:
the strategies, methods and tools effective at the various points of the knowledge into
policy and practice continuum;
the obstacles to knowledge into policy and practice present at the science‐policy
interface, where they originate from, and how they may be overcome;
how to determine and/or evaluate the impact of the outcomes of interactions between
science and policy, and activities designed to promote knowledge into policy;
the different cultures and drivers of policy makers and researchers.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cultures & drivers policy makers & researchers
Science-policy interactions
Science-policy interface obstacles
Strategies / methods / tools
Respondents
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No Response
24
Practice Influence/Change
In response to the request to list three points raised in the workshop that may
influence/change your work practice(s) and describe how these points will influence/change
your work practice, the following responses were provided. They have been listed from the
most common responses to the least common.
Practice Change Understanding the differences between the scientific culture and the policy making culture ‐and the barriers at the interface
Appreciating the different styles and needs of these two cultures, and understanding what will help ‘bridge’ the
gap between them
Importance of the legacy of research projects and the interface with policy
Invest in developing common language and definitions for researchers and end‐users, and tailor key messages to target audiences
Develop a method to “spread the word” to students / researchers / end users of the issues that impact on research adoption and uptake
Appreciation of Victorian policy makers good understanding of science culture
Understanding how to ‘pitch’ research findings to policy makers
Map different policy / policy‐makers in key agency stakeholders
Interest in methods for achieving effective interface between researchers and policy makers & supporting framework
Clear articulation of science and policy needs Practical tools More emphasis on conceptual mapping
Appreciation of resources required to develop structures to support knowledge brokering
Use Canadian Health Services Research Foundation template for translating science into policy
Developing visual conceptual models Implement Change Champion strategy to support
leadership in area
Adapt LWA ‘Research Meets Policy’ publication to own needs
Difference between evaluation tools and communication tools
Adoption Need to include knowledge and adoption processes into induction stages of research projects
Build policy considerations into the front end of research projects / proposals
Plan ways to increase organisations capacity to adopt knowledge (and methods of evaluation)
Create research adoption rewards to complement existing research quality project
Appreciate the iterative nature of knowledge adoption
25
Evaluation & monitoring Embed evaluation and monitoring processes throughout the duration of a research project
Contact NHMRC NICS to learn more about Communities of Practice and Evaluation
Map where monitoring and evaluation sits with program research structure
Need for adequate resourcing for monitoring and evaluation at all stages of research projects
Policy cycle & timing An improved understanding of the policy cycle will help me ‘inform’ policy better
Need to understand crisis & Panarchy model Improved understanding of the policy cycle will help me
‘inform’ policy better
Preparation of materials that can opportunistically feed into policy making at time of crisis
Embedding researchers into policy settings and/or embedding policymakers into researcher settings
Map key policy priority areas for key agency stakeholders & potential links with researchers
Investing in research to ‘fit’ policy problems
Knowledge seeking behaviour Look for research / information on knowledge seeking behaviours
Networking with policy makers Develop closer networks with policy makers in own area of research
Cross‐sector learning More open to ideas to implement in own sector Need for better understanding of qualitative research methods
Determine how to better integrate social science into developing research projects (to allow for value‐add)
Suggestions for improvements
The majority of the responses to this question focussed on four areas: increasing the
practical component of the workshop through increased problem solving activities, case
studies and discussion of tools (n=5); increasing cross‐sector representation (n=5);
decreasing the scope of the workshop with greater focus on one or more topics (n=3); and
increasing discussion times (n=3). There were a number of other responses provided by
delegates. They included:
Alternate methods of data presentation – catering for all learning styles
Increased international examples of knowledge into policy and practice
Mapping and/or analysis of science and policy relationships and networks
Greater focus on monitoring and evaluation, public performance reporting, decision
making tools, or means of changing policy development process
Increased representation from the environmental resources sector
26
Abstracts & PowerPoint Presentations
Knowledge and politics in the policy‐making process Prof Brian Head
The world of policy‐makers and the world of scientific and professional knowledge are different. The research sector and the political‐bureaucratic sectors are relatively isolated from each other. Policy‐makers are trying to provide public value under conditions of turbulence and uncertainty. This does not mean that scientific and professional knowledge have become the basis for policy‐making. These provide important inputs for policy‐making, but their contributions occur in a political context of government priorities, the inertia of settled programs, stakeholder interests, emergent crises, and media commentary.
Policy decisions emerge from politics, judgment and debate, rather than being deduced from scientific analysis. Bridging the worlds of science and policy is necessary to promote better understanding and better outcomes. Better communication to disseminate clear messages, and better collaboration across the sectors, are both necessary. Networked forums, joint projects, cooperative research centres and other mechanisms are useful. Some complex questions require ‘network’ approaches, partnering and community engagement. Networks and partnerships bring to the negotiation table a diversity of stakeholder ‘evidence’ about problems, priorities and solutions.
27
Knowledge and Politics in the Policy-making Process
Brian HeadInstitute for Social Science Research
University of [email protected]
Knowledge into Policy & Practice Workshop
Brisbane
6 May 2009
The Rationale for “evidence-based” policy
General idea that better knowledge
better policy
better outcomes for society
Historical importance of rationalist concept of progress based on better knowledge
Policy in a democracy
Policy takes two main forms:
• 1. PROMISES made by party leaders that commit the party to future actions;
– especially common during election campaigns
– often decided “on the run” to differentiate one party from another .
• 2. Established PROGRAMS with allocated funding, skilled labour, and legal/regulatory frameworks as required for effective implementation.
Policies are diverse
• Policies operate in many fields of activity: e.g. –
– biosecurity, health, education, employment, economic growth, environment, defence, water, energy, infrastructure, immigration etc.
• The debates, programs and relevant players are likely to be different in these fields.
• Some policies can be managed and changed in a simple process by one government agency.
• Some complex policies require broad cooperation and several methods simultaneously (e.g. reducing greenhouse gas emissions).
How is Policy developed and changed?
• Policy change is the realm of political debate and political influence.
• There are many players, both across the formal governmental sector and also the business and community sectors.
• The relevant context could be local, regional, state-wide, national or global.
• The media are important:
– The media will filter and interpret how we see events, and how we frame problems and solutions.
Managing the policy process
• Ministers (together with their advisors & minders) are formally at the centre of the policy process. – The TV series Hollowmen provides a satirical account of
the “media-driven” focus of some Ministerial offices.
• Departmental managers and experts provide non-political policy advice; they administer programs; they manage consultation exercises; they draft legislative options; and they undertake reviews of programs when requested.
• Identifying and working with key stakeholders is important, both in theory and practice.
28
Who are the stakeholders?
Policy problem
Researchers?
Ministers and Policy
advisors
Practitioners & service
professionals
Affected citizens and
children
Community & business interests
The “Policy cycle” model
The policy process can be broken into elements or stages -- sometimes called the “policy cycle”.
• identify the “issue” (what kind of problem);
• analyse the policy dynamics;
• examine options and methods (tools);
• consult interested groups;
• coordinate with funders and delivery partners;
• formal decision-making;
• implementation of decision or program;
• evaluation of success.
source: Althaus Bridgman Davis 2004 source: Scottish Executive 2006
Policy process can be fuzzy
• The main lessons are that:
– Policies are continually being reviewed and adjusted
– There are many points of access and influence
– The “cycle” of change and review is not a rational and predictable forward process; rather, it can stop, start and zig-zag.
– Science has no more “special” status than do stakeholder opinions.
Three lenses on policy knowledge
POLITICAL judgement
ScientificRESEARCH
ProfessionalPRACTICES
29
Available instruments for problem-solving• Generally speaking, there are three types of
approaches available for decision-makers:
1. “sticks”, 2. “carrots” and 3. “arguments”.
One may be more relevant to a specific problem, but they are often mixed in practice.
• (1): legitimate coercion through laws, regulations and their effective enforcement (AUTHORITY);
• (2): incentives and enticements through more or less attractive choices (MARKETS);
• (3): better information, appeals to community values, principles and ethics, diplomacy & mediation (EVIDENCE, EDUCATION & PERSUASION).
Politics, values, evidence and truth
• Issues and agendas do not arise from purely empirical analysis.
• Policy judgements and decisions are not simply deduced from “the facts”.
• Politics, judgement and debate are crucial. • There is an interplay of facts, values and
expectations.• Many policy debates remains highly polarised
between market-based and rights-based approaches.
• Problem-framing and agenda-setting are therefore crucial.
A new era of evidence-based policy-making?
• Governments now all claim to be “evidence-based” and “knowledge-based”.
• This is not a completely new idea– “Knowledge is power” (Francis Bacon 1597).
• Objective research knowledge is a valuable counter-weight to politics, prejudice and patronage.• However, objectivity is difficult to protect:- Ideologies and values influence our views
about the best approach to problem-solving- Importance of likely levels of support for
desired actions.
Beyond populism – how easy?
Can science improve policy “success”?
• Does a good process with good science always produce the best results?
• Policy “success” can be judged from three different viewpoints:
– Political benefits for government (popularity, reputation, credibility, public opinion)
– Client and stakeholder satisfaction with specific programs or services.
– Scientific and expert evaluations (measuring stated aims against achieving real outcomes)
Co-operative approaches across sectors
• It is common to find that others have important insights to complement our own knowledge and perspectives.
• But the transaction costs of access and engagement are often so high that more cooperative approaches to knowledge and action are doomed to failure.
• How then can we find economical and effective ways to broaden our knowledge, and improve our capacity for joint action to tackle major issues?
30
Some challenges and concerns
• There are many difficulties associated with knowledge-sharing across sectors & disciplines.
• ‘Flows’ of knowledge are not well understood or documented
• Few organisations have a genuine “learning culture”.
• Knowledge is “sticky” within organisations and professions and hard to shift across gaps.
• Mechanisms for overcoming divergence and fragmentation are not easily available in each sector.
Promoting a learning orientation
• There are several useful mechanisms for mediating knowledge across sectors and promoting “learning organisations”.
• Relevant literature includes studies about
– how to create “learning cultures” withinorganisations, &
– how to create better communication and planning across professions, organisations and sectors, &
– new organisations dedicated to knowledge brokering and sharing, and building bridges.
Methods
• Direct face-to-face contact seems to be the best way to get evidence into the hands of those who need it in each sector.
• This is not always possible. Hence, institutionalised mechanisms for sharing knowledge are also needed.
• Special forums and cross-sectoral bodies on key issues are useful.
• Longer-term partnerships are needed to build trust.
• This occurs best around high-quality work on projects or issues of mutually agreed importance
Questions
• Motivation: what can each sector (science, government, etc) gain from collaboration?
• Focus: where can we find the best opportunities for constructing areas of shared interest?
• Examples: under what conditions does best practice tend to emerge? What works and why or how?
31
Effecting policy change before, during, and after crises Prof Debby Cousins
The national policy for management of emergency animal diseases (EADs) has been in place for more than 30 years and has served Australia well. Australia has state of the art infectious disease containment facilities for livestock diseases that are world renown, as well as an excellent record in disease eradication and control. Scientific and technological advancements in recent years combined with other environmental factors have been recognised as significant by other countries, leading to changes in their policy and practice for managing EAD’s. Such changes have been underpinned by appropriate strategy development and implementation and resource allocation.
Although some key Australian policy makers recognised a need for change from as early as 2003 a number of barriers prevented this. During 2004 ‐ 2007 the Australian Biosecurity CRC supported the development and national implementation of a new tool for diagnosis of highly pathogenic avian influenza in consultation with government end users and national committees. This new tool was proven to enhance preparedness capacity nationwide. Its acceptance as a tool for national surveillance provided a driver for changes to policy agreed in the face of the equine influenza outbreak in August 2008. Further change is ongoing but slow. The barriers to change and the importance of timing, evidence, and precedent as well as the resources to support changes in policy and practice are discussed. Crises can provide a political imperative for action if you are well prepared.
32
Effecting policy change before, Effecting policy change before, during, and after crisesduring, and after crises
Case studyCase study –– diagnostic test development diagnostic test development influencing emergency animal disease policyinfluencing emergency animal disease policy
Debby CousinsKnowledge into Practice & Policy 2: the science policy interface
Brisbane 6-7 May 2009
• Background/context for emergency animal disease (EAD)
• R&D outcomes (evidence)– New tool
– Implementation
• Barriers to significant policy change
• Crises and policy making “on the run”
• Outcomes
• Conclusions
Policy BackgroundPolicy Background-- Management of emergency animal disease (EAD)Management of emergency animal disease (EAD)
• Importance of trade - exports– EAD preparedness
• Role of Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL)
• Constraints/Issues– State legislation– Transport problematic– Not fully tested?
The right environment for The right environment for EAD policy change EAD policy change
• Advances– Science - DNA tests
– Technology platforms
– Associated generic practice change
Other influencing factorsOther influencing factors
• 9/11 & white powder incidents
• Emerging infectious diseases– FMD, SARS, bird flu (highly pathogenic H5N1)
Australian Biosecurity CRCAustralian Biosecurity CRC
33
ABAB--CRC response CRC response to highly pathogenic AIto highly pathogenic AI
• Supported development of improved DNA test at AAHL– Faster, more sensitive, capacity for high throughput– Detected all known avian influenza strains (and equine
influenza)– Outcomes communicated
• Driver for transfer of test nationally (& NZ)– In consultation with national committees, state participants
• Risk mitigation
– Facilitated though dedicated funding– Supported designated knowledge broker – Evaluated process & cost benefit– Outcomes communicated
• KEY OUTCOME -‘For the first time in Australia's history, a DNA based test had been transferred from AAHL to the state jurisdictions for the specific purpose of surveillance for an exotic disease’
Agtrans Research and eSYS Development independent economic analysis of AB-CRC portfolio, May 2008
• KEY DRIVER - Practice & policy change driven by threat of global crisis – spread of AI & threat of H5N1 pandemic
Informal discussions on policy changeInformal discussions on policy change
• ‘Corridor chat’ about need for change in EAD policy based on– Science & technology advances– Jurisdictional capacity – Precedents: USA & Canada's response to 9/11 &
white powder incidents (dispersed model)
• Ongoing resource issues– Australia's strategy for national animal health
laboratory network (NAHLN) - ‘a business plan waiting for an investor’
Barriers to EAD policy changeBarriers to EAD policy change
• Longstanding policy (20 years)– Culture change required
• Acceptance of a new way of doing business
• Territory issues/decreasing status
• Move to a partnership model (trust)
• Open communication, definition of roles, reporting etc
– May need additional resources or reallocation of resources to facilitate
• Sometimes need a reason to change
34
An intervention (our crisis)An intervention (our crisis)
• Equine influenza
Need for urgent response to EINeed for urgent response to EI
The outcomeThe outcome
• EAD Policy change “on the run”• New test played a key role in EI outbreak
– 30,000 in first 10 weeks– 100,00 tests (& blood tests)
• Eradication of international significance• First time a DNA test used to prove freedom
from disease• Benefit cost ratio >450:1• Recognition of benefit, communication of
success
The aftermath (post crisis)The aftermath (post crisis)
• Beale Review – recommended strengthened surveillance & laboratory
services
• Recognition, acceptance of benefits of partnership model– commonwealth & state
• Ongoing support for partnership/dispersed model (commonwealth & states)– Laboratories for EAD diagnosis & response
(LEADDR)– Need for resources (back to “go slow mode”)
Other crises have an impact
Limited resources to implement the recommendations from the Beale review
Without the intervention (EI crisis)Without the intervention (EI crisis)
• And without policy change (acceptance of state participation made during crisis)– All samples to central facility
• Volume overwhelming
• EI endemic– Ongoing associated costs
• Likely eventual policy change?
35
ConclusionsConclusions
• Understand the environment
• Timing is crucial (Prof. Peter Cullen)– Crises focus attention on the subject
• Be prepared to respond (put your case)
• People matter (as do relationships)
• Communication important
• Crises may deliver resources– Competition for resources is always an issue
• Harness momentum
AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments
• Hans Heine, Martyn Jeggo (AAHL)
• Peter Kirkland (NSW DPI)
• National committees and working groups– Consultative Committee on EAD (CCEAD)
– Animal Health Australia
– Subcommittee of Animal Health Laboratory Standards
– Animal Health Committee
– Horse industry
• Jo Edmondston (AB-CRC)
Questions & discussionQuestions & discussion
• How often is policy change achieved without crises?
• How effective is policy change during crises?
• Your experiences?
36
Integrating Policy and Science in NRM – Barriers
and Bridges
Sue Briggs
Outline
• Cultures of policy and science
• Origins of policy and science problems
• Time frames of policy and science
• Peer groups and reward systems
• Specific aspects of cultures
• Knowledge and power
• Insights and advice
• Pathways to partnerships
Cultures of policy and
science
Most science does not inform policy – WHY • Science loves detail, policy wants simple
• Different cultures, little understanding
• Cross-cultural translators rare
• Different goals and audiences
• Scientists argue; policy wants a service
• Knowledge and power
Policy = course of action adopted by government
Science = study of matters and phenomena, knowledge
Policy and science are both driven by fashion, but
•Policy officers are demand driven
•Scientists are supply driven
37
Origins of policy problems: Minister, Exec. (stakeholders) - EXTERNAL
Origins of science problems:
Scientist - INTERNAL
Policy officer – fast answers, shortcuts
(but often slow to solve big problems)
Scientist – slow and painstaking
Different Time Frames
Different Peer Groups and Reward Systems
Policy officers -
• Peer group within government, usually own department
• Recognition from senior officers, Minister’s office
• Go to many meetings, few conferences
• Promoted on outcomes
Scientists -
• Peer group is national and international
• Recognition from other scientists
(peer group)
• Go to conferences (and some meetings)
• Progression by outputs (papers)
Culture of policy
• Goal of policy – to resolve political or management problem
• Policy officers want straightforward advice and solutions
• In short time frames (reactive, ‘hose down’)
• Many stakeholders
• Policy includes compromises and pragmatic solutions
Culture of science
• Goal of science – new knowledge
• Scientists want to study the problem
• Take their time, want to be “sure”
• Scientists are cautious
• They like detail
• They like arguments
• Compromises are rare
38
The reading of the entrails....
Science
Policy
Scientists have knowledge Policy officers have power
• Scientists own knowledge and access to knowledge
• Scientists keep the “Bible in Latin”
• Policy officers own power and access to the powerful
• Policy officers gatekeep
Knight, 2003
Obscurity of words in Nature and Science
Tower of policy power in NSW
Insights• Influence of science on policy is unpredictable
• Serendipity
• Policy often wants quick fixes
• Policy wants to control the process
• Policy does not necessarily want to solve the overall problem
• All about people and power (and politics)
• Track record of scientist has little influence
Advice for scientists• Be opportunistic – get traction where you can
• One in X will succeed, have to hit “wave”
• Informing policy or helping prepare policy ?
• Don’t push one finding, don’t expect policy to take up your favourite result
• Don’t act as an advocate
• Science training is useful for policy – refereeing, clarity, logic, consistency
• Policy will find you useful, then discard you
• Many scientists are resistant to policy
39
Advice for policy officers
• Science training provides useful skills for policy, scientists trained to check for ambiguity, logic flow, consistency, refereeing etc.
• Don’t assume all scientist are the same – some can provide input into policy, some cannot (some don’t want to)
• Take scientists’ track records in working with policy into account
• Share power – with care (go in slowly)
• Control territoriality, think win-wins
Pathways to partnership between policy and science
• Understand the cultures – cultural translators
• Communication• Think ahead • Organisational rewards• Power and knowledge sharing • Build trust and mutual respect• Genuine commitment
Reward those who work together
• Support individuals who work across
institutional cultures
• Reward those who share power and
knowledge
• Encourage thinking ahead
• Provide leadership
• Reward team work
Discussion point
Which action by scientists is more likely to influence policy –
• Publishing a scientific paper
• Presenting a paper at a scientific conference
• Publicity through the media
• Meeting and chatting with a policy officer in the lift, corridor or foyer
• Attending a meeting where policy is being discussed
• Other actions or circumstances ??
40
http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/
# Engaging with researchers: tips for policy makers
# Engaging with policy : tips for researchers
# Differences between science and policy
# Why is it hard for research to influence policy?
David Pannell
University of Western Australia
Best practice regulations
• Minimum necessary to achieve objectives
• Based on clear principles
• Accessible, transparent and accountable
• Flexibility to deal with special circumstances
• Integrated and consistent with other laws
• Written in plain language, unambiguous
• Mindful of the compliance burden imposed
• Able to be monitored and enforced
STOPWe are not going around the loop again. We are still on the track that we were on when we last discussed this issue with Director Y. I welcome Sue’s input however am yet to be convinced that the Church of improve or maintain accommodates the types of changes required to make the methodology work. ... We don’t need a further meeting yet.Senior Policy Officer
While what Sue says is right (ie if we go with a methodology based approach, the legislation is much simpler), I doubt very much that such amendments would go anywhere without stakeholders XX being able to see/consider the proposed methodology. Proposed meeting to do this with Director Y.Senior Legal Officer---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have achieved much in biodiversity conservation and management the last few years by taking a "can do" approach. The 'can do' approach is much more functional than the 'nay say' approach. Let's talk this through, and see what we come up with. I am confident that we can reach an agreed policy and technical consensus on (using methodology) for EPIs very quickly. SB-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example - Recent emails
41
Kate Andrews
Organisational change for improving adoption outcomes
Understanding adoption
Managing knowledge for adoption? The research lifecycle - embedding knowledge for adoption Adoption planning
Building organisational capacity and culture Organisational systems and procedures Tools and capacity building Culture
Lessons
‘Managing knowledge for adoption’ Not ‘managing adoption’ - Many factors other than the
provision of information influence uptake, including political, economic and social factors.
An R&D organisation can, however, improve the likelihood of the adoption (manage for adoption) through the way we manage our research, our relationships with stakeholders, and the resulting outputs.
This talk focuses on organisational practices and change for research organisations and funders to better manage knowledge for adoption.
“Now that we’ve finished the research
would you organise a brochure?
And perhaps a book?”
Understanding adoptionThe knowledge factory?
Understanding adoption Not just an add-on and more than communication.
Adoption as a process: iterative, active, contextualised and needs based.
“knowing is an act of participation in complex ‘social learning’systems” Wenger
With the understanding of knowing as an act of participation, managing knowledge for adoption becomes more than managing conduits and what travels through them; it becomes about managing relationships;
42
Categories in continuum Nature of process Characteristics
Engagement/Involvement Co-learning
Stakeholders participate
Addresses identified needs/
problem solving
Stakeholders input to decisions
Builds participants capacity
(including researchers)
Face-to-face
CommunicationTwo-way
Stakeholders targeted
Mechanism tailored to
stakeholder
Stakeholders may inform
decisions
Includes face-to-face
Information Provision One-way Stakeholders not targeted Not face-to-face
ScopingWhat issue does the program/project intend to address?Has a need been clearly identified? Why is this issue a priority and
who is it a priority for? Is progress in this issue constrained by a lack of knowledge? How can
you tell?
Targeting What impact does your project seek to have?What are the possible outputs?Who are your stakeholders? What do you need to understand about
them?Who needs to participate? Who needs to be informed?This relates to the continuum of adoption discussed in Section 2.2 –
from engagement to communication to information provision.
ImplementationHow will you engage or communicate with your various
stakeholders? What methods will you use? When does this need to happen in the research lifecycle?
Barriers and adoptabilityWhat are the possible barriers to uptake?How might these be addressed by you or others?A number of characteristics increase the likelihood of research
outcomes being adopted – relevance, relative advantage, trialability, compatability and more. How could these characteristics be takeninto account or increased in your research outputs?
LegacyWhat is the possible legacy of your work? – Innovation, networks,
community capacityHow might the legacy be managed? Have resources been allocated for this?
Monitoring and evaluationHow will you measure the success of uptake activities and outputs
and improve them as you go?How might you measure adoption?
43
Organisational Systems
Fundamental systems required for people to do their job.
Contacts database (client relationship management system).
Content management system.
Publications storage and distribution system.
Procedures
Knowledge and adoption plans Contractual obligations of programs and projects. Position descriptions and/or performance
agreements (or contracts if the individual is not a staff member)
Branding protocols Establishing a consistent and clear identity for outputs builds credibility of an information provider.
Induction of new staff with regards managing knowledge for adoption.
Program and project adoption plans Appropriate or adaptable across a diverse portfolio and range
of budget scales, and that could be built upon over time as commitment and capacity improved.
1. Identify issue and the need
2. Identify stakeholders and level
3. Identify methods – eg how stakeholders will be engaged
4. Identify budget and approximate timelines
5. Identify how this will be measured
6. Identify the possible legacy
Tools and capacity building
Induction
Planning templates
“How to” workshops
Web-based toolkit providing “how to” advice and templates.
Culture
The European Guide to good Practice in Knowledge Management explains the importance of organisational culture in the context of improving knowledge management.
Establishing organisational systems and procedures, and providing tools and capacity building, will all come to nothing if these characteristics aren’t modelled by an organisation’s leaders and inculcated into the organisation’s culture.
44
Lessons:
Embed in research processes across the research lifecycle –from scoping to legacy;
Plan from the start, retro fitting is rarely as successful;
Projects may not produce information relevant to stakeholders – need capacity to tailor and synthesise
Monitoring and evaluation process from the start (supporting adaptive management);
Responsibility to be shared;
Leadership.
45
Research meets PolicyIdeas, examples and shared experience
Ken MooreLand & Water Australia
Day 2 Moore Day 2 Moore
Research underpinning policy...
National Drought Policy– Pre 1989-90 – Natural Disaster Response– Post 1990 to present - National Drought Policy
• knowledge about climate variability and drought being ‘normal’ for Australia
• Recognition that farmers need to be able to manage climate risk within their business enterprise
• Opportunity to capitalise on strengths of farmer expertise in managing during difficult circumstances and being self reliant
Day 2 Moore
but…politics gets in the way
• Community sentiment still supports ‘exceptional’circumstances support
• Politicians unwilling to upset vocal lobby groups
• Research is ‘drowned out’ by public perception and negative images of drought used by media
• This mitigates against the policy underpinned by research being implemented
Day 2 Moore
Source: Australian Financial Review, February 14-15 2009, p 25
Day 2 Moore
ways forward….
Use the economic, social and environmental reviews (research base) to highlight:
• the mismatch between policy settings, supporting programs and reality of needing to ‘farm in the dry’
• recognise the skills and knowledge already present in farming communities (eg experiential knowledge of adapting to a variable climate)
• clarify the business and social objectives, encourage innovation, educate media and community
Day 2 Moore
46
Source: Australian Financial Review, February 14-15 2009, p 25
Day 2 Moore
Pathways to informing policy…
1. Understand the relevant policy-operating environment
The more information you have about the environment and the people involved in developing policy, the greater your capacity to shape and communicate your research to improve the chance of it being taken up.
Be a policy super sleuth, cultivate relationships, learn about their priorities, start up an ‘intelligence file’.
Day 2 Moore
Example One…
Native Vegetation & Biodiversity Program (Phase 1)• Program of research that directly influenced policy
development• Membership of Program Management Ctee – policy reps• Many meetings and briefings with people in the relevant
department• Research findings tailored to policy priorities often using
‘stories’ to link science to practice
Day 2 Moore
Pathways continued…
2. Prepare your message
Make sure you are confident and articulate about the key points coming out of your research that are relevant to policy. You need to get the message across to busy people who need to know in clear, concise and simple language how your research relates to their work.
Before meeting ‘be prepared’, know your key messages and use every opportunity to state and reiterate these points.
Day 2 Moore
Example Two…
Peter Cullen
Communicated key messages clearly and succinctly to key people, repeated the same message, undertook extensive media training, used research to underpin his message but presented it in ways that made it easy to understand, used a variety of different ‘media’ with the most effective being through relationships and face to face communication
Day 2 Moore
Pathways to informing policy
3. Produce effective communication products and approaches
Where possible deliver your messages in such a way that it offers solutions to key issues or questions, be practical and pragmatic, draw on real world examples and attempt to quantify the impacts of different options. Answer the questions most likely to be asked by your target audiences.
Day 2 Moore
47
Example Three…
• Research project policy sheets (www.sirp.gov.au)• ‘Science into the paddock’ policy breakfast briefings• Using stories to communicate key research messages• Investing in champions with relationships of trust already in place
to deliver your message • Seminars and workshops – try and get people out of the office to
experience first-hand what you are talking about
Day 2 Moore
Pathways to informing policy
4. Facilitate opportunities for follow up interaction with policy makers
Informing policy is not something that happens quickly or easily –it requires patience and persistence. Make yourself as accessible and as valuable as possible to policy people – keep the avenues of communication open
Day 2 Moore
Example Four…
Social and Institutional Research Program of Land & Water Australia
• eNewsletter on the website – SIRPs UP• Membership of established discussion groups
– eg Canberra Evaluation Forum• Regular telephone calls or email follow-up• Regular meetings on current issues• Briefings/presentations on products that add value to the
debate or consideration• Informal meetings
Day 2 Moore
Case study…
John BennettEnvironment Protection Agency
Day 2 Moore
Your turn…
Consider whether the four pathways hold true based on your experience of where research has underpinned policy?
Think about whether there is new information and knowledge that could be added to the four pathways.
Day 2 Moore
48
1) Guidelines for Protecting Australian Waterways
2) Coastal CRC Wetlands Program3) Southeast Queensland Healthy Waterways
4) Discussion
John Bennett (Consultant & QDERM)
7 May 2009
������������� ����� ����������������
Day 2 Bennett
���������� �� ����������������
� South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partner’s Healthy Waterways Program and Projects (including many researcher organisations and people);
� Land and Water Australia’s water-related projects;
� Coastal Zone Cooperative Research Centre programs and projects;
� Queensland Wetlands Program;
� Queensland DERM’s Aquatic Conservation Assessment program;
� Queensland DERM’s Stream & Estuary Assessment Program;
� Coastal Catchment Initiative’s Water Quality Improvement Plans;
� Queensland DERM’s Wild Rivers Program
Day 2 Bennett
1. LWA Research into Policy
Land and Water Australia: Guidelines for Protecting Australian Waterways(Bennett et al, 2002)
Included methodology to establish ecological / conservation values of Australian waterways
Land and Water Australia: Guidelines for Protecting Australian Waterways(Bennett et al, 2002)
Included methodology to establish ecological / conservation values of Australian waterways
http://downloads.lwa2.com/downloads/publications_pdf/PR020210.pdfhttp://downloads.lwa2.com/downloads/publications_pdf/PR020210.pdf
Day 2 Bennett
A rapid evaluation of the current status of the natural values of all major rivers in Queensland
Based on following criteria:(change from natural)
• Catchment Hydrology
• Water Quality
• River / Channel Features
• Artificial Barriers to Native Flora and Fauna
• Native Riparian Vegetation Cover
• Alien Species
• Ecology of Floodplain and River
• Special Features
% Naturalness
Day 2 Bennett
���������������� ���Day 2 Bennett
Uses / applications forWaterway Ecological Value Assessments
Reef Water Quality Protection Plan
Local government urban stormwater
management plans
Environmental Protection Act
EP Policy (Water)
ERA approvals
Coastal & Marine Park Acts
State and regional coastal management
plans
Marine park plans
Water Act
Water resource plans
Integrated Planning Act
Regional plans
Planning schemes
Development assessment
WaterwayEcological Value
Assessments
Non-legislative
Legislative
Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plans
e.g. ReefWater QualityImprovement
Plans
Day 2 Bennett
49
������������������� �����
�����
Day 2 Bennett
“Evolution” of Waterway Ecological Value Assessments by EPA (now DERM)
1. “Default” – using existing protected areas as basis for high ecological value waterways
e.g. Tully, Douglas WQIPs
2. Default plus additional local technical studies based on criteria in Bennett et al (2002)
e.g. Mackay-Whitsunday, Burdekin, etc WQIPs
3. AquaBAMM
e.g. Burnett riverine freshwaters
Simple
Complex
Day 2 Bennett
Aquatic Conservation Assessments (ACAs) using
AquaBAMM
Assessment of the conservation values of riverine and non riverine wetlands
Aquatic biodiversity assessment mapping methodology
[AquaBAMM]
Day 2 Bennett
Assessment method
�������
�� ������ ���
������ �������� ��
������ ������
����������� ��
���������
�� ������� ���� ���
��������������������� ��������
���� � �
�� !"
� �����#���"
$���
�������
%�� �&�$�
���� � �
'����
'����
'���(
'���)
*+, �-����������������
�������
��"$������ !
�� ��,�
Day 2 Bennett
Criteria and IndicatorsC1 Naturalness (Aquatic)
Indicators = Exotic flora/fauna, Aquatic communities/assemblages, Habitat features modification, Hydrological modification, Water quality.
C2 Naturalness (Catchment)Indicators = Exotic flora/fauna, Riparian disturbance, Catchment disturbance, Flow modification (overland).
C3 Diversity and RichnessIndicators = Species, Communities/assemblages, Habitat, Geomorphology.
C4 Threatened Species and EcosystemsIndicators = Species, Communities/ assemblages.
C5 Priority Species and EcosystemsIndicators = Species, Ecosystems.
C6 Special FeaturesIndicators = Geomorphic features, Ecological processes, Habitat, Hydrological.
C7 ConnectivityIndicators = Significant species or populations, Groundwater dependent ecosystems, Floodplain and wetland ecosystems, Terrestrial ecosystems, Estuarine and marine ecosystems.
C8 RepresentativenessIndicators = Wetland protection, Wetland uniqueness
Day 2 Bennett
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
MONTO
DALBY
MURGON
NANANGO
GIN GIN
GAYNDAH
BILOELA
YARRAMAN
KINGAROY
KILKIVAN
JANDOWAE
EIDSVOLD
CHILDERS
BUNDABERG
BIGGENDEN
MUNDUBBERA
CHINCHILLA
MIRIAM VALE
150°30'E
150°30'E
151°0'E
151°0'E
151°30'E
151°30'E
152°0'E
152°0'E
152°30'E
152°30'E
27°0
'S
27°0
'S
26°3
0'S
26°3
0'S
26°0
'S
26°0
'S
25°3
0'S
25°3
0'S
25°0
'S
25°0
'S
24°3
0'S
24°3
0'S
Burnett River Catchment
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
����
��
��
��
����
��
��
��
����
����
��
������
��
���� ��
����������������������������� ���������������������� ������� ���,!#.� ���%���/� ���0����
� �-�� �.�1/��/�223
�
!������������������"�������������������������#�������� ���������������������� �������"������#��������������$����������%������������������%���������#��������������%�����������#��������#�#���&
��������������� ���������������������� ��������������������#����%��������������%�����'��������$�������������������%�����������������(�������)#��������������������'�����������������������*������������(��������$�����������������������������#�����%��������������������#���������$�����������������&
���'���*�
�������%���������+���������������� ���������������������� �����&
����*������������������#����������������������%����������������������,��������!���������-�����
���������������&����.�#�&*��&���&�
Location Diagram
1:964,230
0 7.5 153.75
Kilometers
Legend
�� Towns
Highways
Burnett River Catchment
Upland/Lowland
Dams
Queensland
A qu a Sco re
Ver y H igh
H ig h
Me d iu m
Lo w
Ver y Lo w
Dependability
Burnett results
Day 2 Bennett
50
Current Status ofAquatic ConservationAssessments (ACAs)
using AquaBAMM
Day 2 Bennett
• wetland research has been a priority for many research groups (e.g. Coastal CRC)
• wetland policy also been developed around Australia e.g. Queensland Wetlands Program (QWP)
• outline of process to link CRC research to QWP
2. Wetlands Research into Policy
Coastal CRC
Day 2 Bennett
Coastal CRC Wetlands Program
Joint Placement
EnsuringResearch for Management
(QWP)
Day 2 Bennett
“to initiate the development of a detailed conceptual model and summary diagram of key wetland ecosystems, based on recent scientific advances and current policy needsfor better management of wetlands”
Workshop – Researchers & QWP Taskforce
����Objective of Research Integration
Day 2 Bennett
8. Implement key options
7. Assess and prioritise options
6. Identify available management options, their costs, benefits and
KPIs
4. Determine and rank threatening processes
5. Identify values of assets at appropriate
scales
1. Identify need for protection or
enhancement of asset
2. Audit of size/ extent/ distribution of the asset
3. Review understanding and
identify gaps
9. Monitoring and Evaluation
Review
Conceptual Models
Wetlands Management Framework(role of research - conceptual models)
CRC appointed researchcoordinator to lead
development of conceptual models
Day 2 Bennett
Functions/processes are what wetlands do
Day 2 Bennett
51
Functions / processes - example
Day 2 Bennett
Impacts of threats on processes - example
Day 2 Bennett
���������� Day 2 Bennett
Functions/processes are what wetlands do(e.g. Lacustrine conceptual models)
Day 2 Bennett
Functions/processes are what wetlands do(e.g. Palustrine conceptual models)
Day 2 Bennett
Functions/processes(e.g. Estuarine conceptual models - SEAP)
Day 2 Bennett
52
��-'*�*4&�&��4 5 *�*'�-�*4&�6��7-�
/ +01/23 /425 -6, 6�
�*��*&����&
���� �8���5�&�!������
������#�6��,
&��� �����������������#�
6��,
��""��� #���������� #�������#�
6��,
-����#��������/����
�*�9����""�
*+ ��������
�&�&* �6*4��*�
-'�44�465 &*�04���'�7--��&
3. SEQ Healthy Waterways Partnership
Day 2 Bennett
Staged Staged ApproachApproach(the formative years (the formative years –– building knowledge & tools)building knowledge & tools)
�������� �������� �������� ��� ��� ��������! ����"������#��! #��!��$���
! ���%"�&���'� #����(���� �!�#���)
! ���*�����+,� ���� �+'� #����(-��.���� �!�#���)
Day 2 Bennett
����������� � �
����������������� ������� ������ ��������� � ������������ �� ���������
��������������� ������� ��!��" ������!���#������������� ��$������
��� �
%�����������
� ��
�� &����� ���& ����' ������ �������� � �����������
� &�� ��(���� �����)�* ������� " ���� ����&������
���+���)���!����������
��������� ��&����������� � ,���!� ����-���
" � �������� ��%���������& �
������� �)����&�������� �� �� �!���.�����(���� ���������
#�&��&������
(���� ����&� ��
/�����! ����& ������� 0���&��� �
"��+�/��������
Stage 2 Task ArchitectureStage 2 Task Architecture
Day 2 Bennett
������ ���! �"
�#$�
��%#&�$'
�$�
#$�
('
�����
���
���
��
��)������ ����������� ������
�������� � ������ ������!����������
�� ���������
��� ����� ���� �������������������
����������������������������� ����
����������� ��������� ��!� ��������������"����#����������������
$���������� ���%� ��� ������������� ��� ��
���������
$��������������������������
%�!���
����������$�������������
� ���
&'���'������#��(�
�!� ������� ��#������� ����
"�������" !����������
�������� ����&� �
&'���'������#��(�
�!� �����
����������� ������������������
����$#�*
**�+,-�
�, $
.� ������+��#+*���/+� 0*
� 0*+��#
)���� �����
�����
��
����
�
%�!���� *��+�����
�������%�!������������
��#-01����
�!��
���
��
� �
��
�� ���� ��������
,�����������������������-�� �� ��
,���'$�����������
�����
�����
�����
���
��
/�����
� �!#$$�� �0�������1� ��� ���
.�.
����
����
/���
����
����
����0�� �����������
-2$3* ������
Day 2 Bennett
* ��������4 ����� ���������
Day 2 Bennett
Decision Support Tools for Assessments
SedNet
EMSS
RWQM – Bay & Estuaries
Receiving Water Models
Catchment Models
Day 2 Bennett
53
,���#���� ����0����� �2�� www.healthywaterways.org
Day 2 Bennett
3�� �&��� ���&� ���#� �
Monthly Newsletters
Healthy Waterways Guide
Scientific ReportsAnnual Report Cards
Trai
ning
Vid
eo
Videos
Day 2 Bennett
56678995899:
���2�����������!�����������;��������� ����� �� ����-����
� �<������= �� ����>
Day 2 Bennett
,������� �
Day 2 Bennett
54
Getting the ‘right’ science into policy from policy maker’s perspective Scott Rawlings
Note: This abstract covers Scott’s presentation, as well as that of Cate Turner & Alistair Phillips: Designing the interface – participation of researcher and users on day 2: Principle: The general body of research and researchers needs to be better connected the procedure of policy and policy makers, and vice versa. Framework Lines that separate research effort, research needs and research funding need to be revised to allow much greater levels of permeability so that the influence of outputs/knowledge/outcomes of research has a broader reach in effectiveness. The research element of the policy world – a problem definition The disconnect between need and response may be caused by particular histories of budget planning. For example, where budget holders tend to work directly to research providers – short‐cutting broader opportunities to canvass the wider worlds of research needs – it may be possible that policy‐maker’s policy needs are missed. This may be a global phenomenon in western systems of government. The result (or current context) is that policy makers tend to window‐shop the broad research world (IE internet journal access) in the often vain hope that they will stumble onto research that will support emerging policy arguments. Knowledge‐research theoretical framework The transfer of NRM data and information into knowledge and decision making is crucial for public sector governance of our natural assets. Continuous improvement in R&D activity is vital and relies on a coordinated and integrated approach by agencies to collecting and distributing NRM information. Knowledge exchange for a public policy organisation has two important, but distinct, components: the policy uptake of mission‐directed science to inform the evidence‐base of a particular policy task, and the wider distribution of research projects’ findings to relevant program areas other than the direct investor. The adoption of a theoretical framework that establishes a system for R&D management has been a focus of the R&D effort of the Natural Resources Division since early 2007. This presentation will consider the problem which the Division was confronted with at the time, the triggers for reform and the strategies that have been applied to address the problem with reference to three key functions of the framework: the partnership between purchaser and provider, policy‐led research investment, and knowledge exchange. Policy Policy makers need to think in the detail while writing in the ‘big picture’, consider long‐term decisions while simultaneously reflecting on whether a decision needed at all, or carry three or four options neatly folded into the back pocket (particularly while working in increasingly risk conscious environments). And policy decisions can be erroneous if decision‐makers assume that risks are well understood and knowledge is fit‐for‐purpose when it is not. Today’s policy makers cannot solve long‐term and as yet unseen challenges, but we can position society to better deal with shocks – all the while balancing near‐term constraints against long‐term needs – if (and only if) knowledge bases are reliable/defensible. Within NRM policy there are constant knowledge needs such as maintaining an understanding of the dynamic character of human – nature interactions. There are also deeper knowledge needs around new policy edges such as what shapes the vulnerability or resilience of ecological‐social systems in geographic or geophysical contexts. So what kind of
55
research package allows justifiable reflection on potential events decades into the future particularly when in the ‘here and now’ circumstances of deep uncertainty prevail. Given the multidisciplinary character of policy‐making then perhaps a first step is around the importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research. The policy makers point of view on competing analyses (which can contribute to indecision) or misplaced concreteness (which can blind decision‐makers to more complete pictures) is important for research realms to hear. Roles and brokerage Enabling researchers to align their research ideas with key policy discussions and debates involves on‐going dialogue between the two groups. Policy makers have a key role in fostering and brokering communication of policy perspectives to researchers in real time. This must be balanced with the potential to create dependency‐oriented relationships or superficial positioning of research agendas to extract funding. Research at different scales Research needs differ for policy makers, investors and implementers, yet each group requires new knowledge generation, communication and application. Processes for identifying research priorities should also differ according to user group. A framework of scales of research based upon Peter Senge’s work on triple loop learning has been developed to reflect this. This framework has been used to inform a research typology to support policy development and organisational learning.
56
Knowledge into Policy & Practice Workshop 2009Research informing NRM Decision Making:
The role of the end-user
Scott RawlingsManager, Research & DevelopmentNatural Resources DivisionDepartment of Sustainability & Environment (Victoria)
‘Experts are more likely to be committed to truth than
officials and politicians, and taken as a whole the rise
of validation and triangulation has tended to make
states more accountable, more reflective and better
able to make the right decisions’
-Mulgan 2006
DSE’s Conundrum & Triggers for Reform
Policy goalspredefined
Standard methods are chosen& applied by experts across all contexts
Experts allocate resourcesinformed by reductionist science
Communities asked tocomment on expert solution
Policy implementedcentrally across large areas
Policy adaptation avoided,difficult, with conflict
Goals simplified to fit methods
Models of evidence-based policy
Nutley, Walter and Davies, 2007
The Transition Story… Research informing NRM decision-making
Lump funding
Researcher-driven priorities
Science capacity-building
Science only focus Science, institutional and social focus
Policy-driven prioritiesNot targeted, not always relevant to key questions
Completed in silos
Oriented to answering key questions
Integrated and aligned
Making it work better
1. Engaging policy in the design stage
2. Proactive approach to the policy-research interface
3. Findings are accessed easily
4. Contextual considerations are taken into account
5. Expectations of research on policy decisions are managed
57
Purpose of Research
Knowledge Base
Policy Needs
Statewide Focus
Research Community
Implementation
Research
Targeted, Specific
Broad, ‘Blue Sky’, Emerging issues
Our Investment Focus
Emerging Knowledge Exchange Strategies
Embedding
Coaching and training programs
Knowledge transfer awards
Mandated knowledge exchange components in projects
Mandated Knowledge Exchange
1. What is the context and need for the research?
2. Who is concerned about that context?
3. What new knowledge is required?
3. Who would need to know?
5. What action would be needed?
‘People do not go to the hardware store because
they want to buy drill bits – they go because
they want holes’
Insights and questions
Grevillea dipmorpha (photo: DSE/McCann
58
Designing the interface – participation of researchers and users Alistair Phillips & Cate Turner
See Scott Rawlings page 28 for shared abstract entry
59
Toward policy-focussed research
Alistair Phillips
Manager, Natural Resources Policy,
NR Div, DSE Victoria
Cate Turner
A/Manager, Sustainable Landscpaes,
NR Div, DSE Victoria
Where are we working
Policy (party/statewide)
Legislation, (depts, parl)
Strategy, (depts)
Program (depts, agencies)
Policy
Purpose of Research
Knowledge Base
Policy Needs
Statewide Focus
Research Community
Implementation
Research
Targeted, Specific
Broad, ‘Blue Sky’, Emerging issues
Our Investment Focus
PrincipleConnections that develop research to inform policy are probably best if they are two-way.
FrameworkA gentle plea for permeability between research worlds (effort, needs funding) and policy cocoons
The research and knowledge element of the policy worldPolicy makers tend to ‘window-shop’ the broad research world hoping to encounter research that supports policy arguments.
Connecting
Policy
• Policy makers need to think in the detail while writing in the ‘big picture’, consider long-term decisions while simultaneously reflecting on whether a decision needed at all, or carry three or four options neatly folded into the back pocket (while working in increasingly risk conscious environments).
• Policy makers cannot solve long-term and as yet unseen challenges, but we can position society to better deal with shocks – if knowledge bases are reliable/defensible.
• The constant knowledge needs within NRM policy are around understanding the dynamic character of human – nature interactions and the evolving qualities of natural systems.
• There are also deeper knowledge needs around new policy edges such as what shapes the vulnerability or resilience of ecological-social systems
One view from one policy wonk
Policy and research
• Policy-making is multidisciplinary in character so perhaps a first step is around commonality of language between skill sites.
• Beyond specifications, briefs, contracts language is all in interdisciplinary research.
Worth a look:
Quinlan & Scogings, 2004, in Environmental Science & Policy (7) pp 537-546
Wiggering et al, (2006) in Ecological Indicators (6) pp 238-249
Earth System Governance (Google)
So what…
60
A couple of lived experiences A couple of lived experiences
The need for a ‘post-normal science’ is growing under climate change The accepted scientific method (hypothesis, random trial series, analysis, retrial, conclusion, publication) may be too slow to cope Post-Normal Science may expedite decisions by operating on an ‘extended peer community’ involving all expert/lay players influenced by an issue who are prepared to bring to the table their ‘extended facts’ –including past science, regional knowledge and ideas not necessarily intended for publication
Inter-disciplinary (across disciplines) and trans-disciplinary (across and reaching outside disciplines) approaches need to become common practice. Why? Because under climate change imperatives social and ecological problems can no longer be described and assessed in terms independent of each other
Emerging directions
Cate…
A Brief Story…
• Research through the triple loop– Why policy-focussed research?
• Moving to policy-focussed research– A story of transition – and a work in progress
• Keeping researchers ‘in the loop’– Is collaborative learning useful and possible?
Purpose of Research
Knowledge Base
Policy Needs
Statewide Focus
Research Community
Implementation
Research
Targeted, Specific
Broad, ‘Blue Sky’, Emerging issues
Our Investment Focus
61
Nature of Research for Land Health
R&D to support Program Delivery
(Regional)
R&D to support Policy & Strategy
Development
R&D to supportOrganisational
Objectives & Purpose
Learning how to do things ‘right’ (operational)
Learning how to do the right ‘things’ (tactical)
Learning about our role and purpose (strategic)
R&D Priorities understood through A participatory, bottom-up process
R&D Priorities understood through A focus on policy needs
R&D Priorities understood through Asking strategic questions
The Transition Story… Research for Land Health
Lump funding
Researcher-driven priorities
Science capacity-building
Science only focus Science, institutional and social focus
Policy-driven prioritiesNot targeted, not always relevant to key questions
Completed in silos
Oriented to answering key questions
Integrated and aligned
Land Health Research Priorities: A First Cut
Maintaining sustainable landscapes
Improved soil understanding and
management
Biodiversity contributing to whole-
of-landscape health
Managing salinity and other risks
Developing effective institutions and
governance methods
Integrated research into socio-ecological
systems to inform policy
Utilising best monitoring &
reporting practices
Utilising effective research methods
(meta research)
Increasing combination of science, institutional and social focus
Priority assets and services are protected, enhanced and restored through the development of effective policy and programs
Examples of Policy-Focussed Research
Decision Support Framework for Communication and Assessment
How do we assist stakeholders in decision-making, and how do we know which tools are most helpful?
Feasibility of a Duty of CareHow feasible is it to implement an effective Duty of Care for landholders in Victoria?
Network Readiness for Community-Based NRM
What is the capacity of Landcare Networks to engage in natural resource planning?
Salinity Risk Mapping Under Climate Change in Victoria
Is there a current and/or future need for DSE to invest in salinity management in Victoria?
Soil Assessment – Risks to Assets in Victoria
What risk does soil loss pose to key natural resource assets in Victoria?
Public Benefit of Healthy SoilsIs there sufficient public benefit to justify investing in soil health – in addition to increased productivity?
Research ProjectPolicy Question
Case Study: Salinity Risk Mapping
Research Question: Is there a current and/or future need for DSE to invest in salinity management in Victoria?
Project: Salinity Risk Mapping Under Climate Change in Victoria
Successes:• Comprehensive assessment that answered the key policy question
(eventually!)• Researchers across public and private sector working together
Challenges:• Lack of knowledge of the policy arena undermined ability to address
questions• Discussions about model functioning delayed project (expert ego)
Lessons learned:• Keep researchers ‘in the loop’• Encourage researchers to share their knowledge (not just evidence). The ‘so
what?’ factor.
Your Insights and Suggestions
62
Evaluation frameworks and organisational change Dr Jeff Coutts
Introduction This presentation will look at the value of evaluation frameworks/log frames in focusing on achieving and measuring policy and practice impacts at the organisational level. In particular it looks at the links between how policy and decision makers are engaged and what can reasonably be expected to result from that engagement – and how it can therefore be measured. Key Result Areas If one of the aims of a project or program is to influence policy/funding/organisational decision making, then the first step is articulating what impact you are seeking beyond a motherhood statement – into what is called a “Key Result Area” or KRA. The challenge is to describe this in terms of measurable parameters or boundaries. These describe: Who (specific organisations/roles) are you intending to influence; about What (the ideas/directions/actions) you want them to take on board; and When (time frame). For example, you may be working on a program that is researching improved approaches to managing creeks and rivers going through farmland to improve water quality downstream in South East Queensland ‐ and you want the results of your research to impact on policy and organisational change within agricultural industry organisations. In this case, your KRA may be:
KRA 1: By the end of the 3 year program, agricultural industry organisations with members in SE Queensland will endorse the improved waterway management processes coming out of the program, recommend it to their members and ensure that they become industry standard.
By capturing this desired impact on the targeted decision‐makers in a specific way, you have now provided the program with a specific goal to aim for ‐ and something that they have a chance of measuring along the way ‐ informing their progress as well as ultimate achievement. Knowing that this is the goal (that will be measured) it ensures that you check your program logic and are engaging with the key persons within these organisations in a way that: ensures they are aware of the project; they have some stake or ownership in it; and are able to understand your program outcomes and the implications/benefits for their organisation and its members. It is rare, for example, that written papers alone will achieve this aim! Examples of activities that programs have taken to specifically target organisations and decision makers in programs that I have evaluated include:
The use of ‘Advocates’ to personally follow up key persons and organisations towards the end of a program – in the Land, Water and Wool program.
The use of a harvest year to develop publications aimed at the different audiences – National Dryland Salinity Program
The inclusion of representatives of key organisations on Steering and Management Committees – a number of programs.
The use of specialist policy seminars and forums Key Performance Indicators To help focus the monitoring and evaluation of the defined KRA, it is useful to consider the appropriate “Key Performance Indicators” or KPIs. KPIs are readily measurable indicators that relate directly to the KRA. In the waterway example above, the KPI might be:
63
KPI 1: Significant levels of engagement by the key land management policy officers of [e.g. AgForce, Meat & Livestock Australia; Horticulture Australia Limited] at program initiation, situation analysis, research trials and result presentation; their levels of interest, awareness and understanding; degree of endorsement in industry publications and meetings; and examples of translation of results into official “Industry Best Practice”.
Methods It is the Key Performance Indicators that are the best guides to the monitoring and evaluation methods that you might choose to use. In this example, you know you need tools to capture: levels of involvement at the different stages; their reaction to the program and its work; what has been included in industry communication about the project; and what has changed in best practice guidelines. There are a range of methods that can be used to monitor and measure these and other impacts on organisational decision‐makers. These include:
Records of attendance/ meetings/ inquiries/requests
Informed person interviews/surveys
Structured Group ‘debriefs’ Critical Incident Analysis Noting actions and measuring numbers and types of relevant communication
activities/content.
Looking for desired changes in policy documents, guidelines, regulations, protocols and funding decisions.
These methods will be discussed and examples provided about their value.
64
Evaluation frameworks & organisational change
Dr Jeff Coutts
Premise
You need to articulate what it is you want to (realistically) achieve,
ensure you have logical processes to bring about that achievement,
and monitor and evaluate the outcomes along the way.
Overall Program LogicCommunity Outcome
Key Result Areas
Uptake Strategies
Outputs
Activities
Stakeholder Engagement
Management & Resources
Context
Overall Program LogicCommunity Outcome
Key Result Areas
Uptake Strategies
Outputs
Activities
Stakeholder Engagement
Management & Resources
Context
Key Result AreasCommunity Outcome
Key Result Areas
Uptake Strategies
Outputs
Activities
Stakeholder Engagement
Management & Resources
Context
Key Result Areas
What it is that your project/program can realistically achieve in the targeted change area
Who are you intending to influence
What (the ideas/directions/actions/changes) you are intending to influence
When (time frame).
65
Outcome Focus
Community Outcome
Key Result Areas
Uptake Strategies
Uptake Strategies
Those approaches designed to influence ownership and changes in awareness, understanding, attitude, aspirations and practice changes in targeted groups.
These could include such approaches as: Participative development of outputs; education and training;
extension; information provision; marketing; financial incentives; regulation; advocates; etc.
ExampleCommunity
OutcomeCommunity
Outcome
Key Result AreasKey Result Areas
Uptake StrategiesUptake Strategies
Improved water quality of streams and rivers
KRA 1: By the end of the 3 year program, agricultural industry organisations with members in SE Queensland will endorse the improved waterway management processes coming out of the program, recommend it to their members and for it to become industry standard.
Engage with program managers from identified organisations from start of project
Work with leading and politically active producers
Regular targetted articles and case studies Hold policy implication workshops each year of
project
Performance Indicators
Community Outcome
Key Result Areas
Uptake Strategies
Key Performance Indicators
Performance Indicators
Performance Indicators
Performance Indicators
What you can actually (and easily) measure which provides an indirect or direct indication that you are on track to achieving what you intended at each level of the log frame
Key Performance Indicator – how you are travelling against the associated Key Result Area
Key Performance Indicators
Community Outcome
Community Outcome
Key Result AreasKey Result Areas
Uptake StrategiesUptake Strategies
Key Performance IndicatorsKey Performance Indicators
Performance IndicatorsPerformance Indicators
Performance IndicatorsPerformance Indicators
66
Example - KPI
KRA 1: By the end of the 3 year program, agricultural industry organisations with members in SE Queensland will endorse the improved waterway management processes coming out of the program, recommend it to their members and for it to become industry standard.
KPI 1:Levels of interest, awareness and understanding of industry organisation program managers; Degree of endorsement in industry publications and meetings; Extent of translation of results into official “Industry Best Practice”.
M&E Methods
KRA KPI Method
M&E Methods
KRAKRA KPIKPI MethodMethod
Choosing Methods
KPI 1:Levels of interest, awareness and understanding of industry organisation program managers;
Degree of endorsement in industry publications and meetings;
Extent of translation of results into official “Industry Best Practice”.
Methods:Feedback sheets from workshopsRecords of attendance and communicationFinal in-depth interviews with program managers
Media/publication analysisInformed person survey
Examples of before and after best practice standards and policyNarratives
Case Study:LW&W Advocates
OutcomeLand Water & Wool (LWW) was a partnership between Australian Wool Innovation Ltd and Land & Water Australia to provide both economic and environmental focused solutions to key natural resource management issues facing woolgrowers.
KRA Influence NRM organisations that service the wool industry across Australia so that they used and promoted the outputs of the program to producers.
Uptake strategiesConsultants were employed on a part-time basis to use their initiative and networks to systematically approach key NRM organisations and to position the most appropriate LWW results and products for each body.
Advocates: KPI
Extent of engagement with key persons in the different relevant NRM bodies, their levels of interest in specific products, and the degree to which they used, disseminated or promoted the outputs of the LWW program with wool producers in their regions.
67
Advocates: M&E Methods
Analysis of activity and feedback reports from advocates
Workshop with advocates and AWI staff
Survey across NRM organisations (and across roles within the organisations) and informed persons
Analysis of AWI products requested by NRM bodies and their regions – in relation to advocate activity
Advocate: Results
Directly responsible for 20% of their contacts learning about LWW and its products for the first time.
Prompted contacts to seek and obtain information and tools that they would not have otherwise sought.
The information and tools were highly valued, passed around the organisations, included in landholder programs and have impacted at the policy level.
Current concept and approach effective - could have an earlier presence in the program and have a presence for a year after the end of a program.
Case Study:NDSP Harvest Year
OutcomeImprovement in the management and productivity from agriculturalland affected by dryland salinity and a reduction in the rate of newly affected land.
KRA Influence leading producers and their consultants in the management of saline lands and influence policy makers and funders through targeted products (publications) which gather together the knowledge gains from the life of the program.
Uptake strategiesUndertake a harvest year, develop products specific to targeted groups, workshop them with representatives from target groups and modifythem based on feedback; promote the products and distribute on request.
NDSP: KPI
Number of relevant policy makers, landholders and their consultants aware of the products and their messages, with increased understanding of salinity management and using this to change policies, advice and on-ground actions.
NDSP: M&E methods
Desktop research
Phone survey of a sample of people who had requested one or more NDSP products;
Phone survey of a sample of people who were involved in the development and testing process;
Web survey of persons who were listed by LWA as having an interest in Natural Resource Management Issues.
NDSP: Results
Process significantly improved relevance and usefulness of products to targeted audiences
Significant use of products by educational institutions
Needed a further process to engage the wider audience after the products were completed
68
Uptake Strategies
Those approaches designed to influence ownership and changes in awareness, understanding, attitude, aspirations and practice changes in targeted groups.
These could include such approaches as: Participative development of outputs; workshops with policy
influences; education and training; extension; information provision; marketing; financial incentives; regulation; advocates; etc.
Key Message
Name it
Plan for it
Monitor it
Evaluate it
Report on it
Improve on it
69
Evaluating a ‘change champion’ strategy Rosie Forster
This case study will share the methods, findings and implications of the evaluation of a change champion strategy. The aim of NHMRC's National Institute of Clinical Studies (NICS) is to improve the uptake of knowledge into health care policy and practice in Australia. Based on research that one of the ways to influence knowledge uptake is via opinion leaders/change champions, NICS offers a fellowship award for clinicians to learn knowledge and skills in knowledge translation to improve patient care, and to become a clinical leader in this field. Our aim is to build capacity in Australia by developing a cohort of NICS Fellows and to‐date we have awarded 34 Fellowships nationally. However, developing clinicians to be leaders and champions of change is a significant investment and we are constantly monitoring the program for outputs and outcomes. This case study presentation will focus on the methods, findings and implications of an independent external review commissioned by NICS in 2008.
70
W O R K I N G T O B U I L D A H E A L T H Y A U S T R A L I A www.nhmrc.gov.au/nics N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Knowledge into Policy & Practice: Case Study
Developing and evaluating effectiveness of ‘change champions’
Rosie ForsterDirectorLeadership Program
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
About NICS
As an institute of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the National Institute of Clinical Studies (NICS) works to improve health care by getting the best available evidence from health and medical research into everyday practice.
Our goals are to lead and support clinicians in finding and applying evidence to close gaps; develop the knowledge base for the science and practice of implementation; and advocate for systemic change to improve the use of evidence.
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
How we work
One of the ways we do this is by:
• providing opportunities for health professionals to increase knowledge and skills in improving evidence uptake.
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Case Study: Evaluation Change Champions
• Background
• Methods
• Findings
• Recommendations
• Evaluation internationally
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Do local opinion leaders improve the behaviour of health care professionals?
– Systematic review Cochrane Library (EPOC group)– Local Opinion Leaders: Effects on Professional Practice and
Health Care Outcomes
– Yes– a 10% absolute decrease in non-compliance in the local
opinion leader group (based on 12 eligible RCTs)
Reference: Dounit, Gatellari et al (Review 2007) Cochrane Collaboration
Why change champions…
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
NICS Implementation Fellowships: capacity building to improve the use of evidence within health policy and
health practice.
71
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Making a difference?
Monitoring
– Progress reports
– Feedback
– Questionnaires
– Final Reports
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Outputs
>140Key presentations
30+Peer reviewed publications
12Co-Funders
30Host organisations
Nursing, Doctor, Allied HealthDisciplines
Qld, NT, WA, SA, Vic, Tas, NSWStates & Territories
6Fellowships to complete 2009
11Fellowships completed
34Fellowships awarded
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Pre Research• Priority setting/review
• Questions
• Methodologies
• Funding
• Research training (not just researchers)
Research
•Primary
•Secondary
Evaluation Adoption(Use
•Direct
•Symbolic
•Enlightenment)
Dissemination
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Commissioning the evaluation
Select tender
– evaluate to what extent the program has been effective in meeting its objectives
– make recommendations about how the program can be improved and possible efficiencies
– make recommendations about how the program can contribute to NHMRC objectives
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Qualitative Methodology
• In depth interviews (30)
• Fellows, Mentors, Co-Funders, Review Committee, Selection Panel, Visiting Experts, Content Reviewers, NICS Staff
• Document analysis
• Financial analysis
• Review related programs Australia and internationally
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Findings
- Unique program on track to achieve aims
- Masterclasses and mentoring most valued components
- Co-funding at 48% (2008)
- Co-funders perceive value
- Spheres of influence local, state, national levels
- High level of support from NICS needed (25% total)
72
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Monitoring outcomes
Selection
– No of applications and ratio of applications to available
– Proportion of applications fundable
– Range of professional backgrounds & distributionSupport organisations
– No of host organisations
– No & value of co-funders
Progress
– Proportion of Fellows that complete
– Proportion of Fellowships completed within time
– Satisfaction of Fellows
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Evaluating Impact
– No of publications (total and refereed)
– No of Fellows appointed to senior positions
– No of impacts by sphere of influence
– % Fellows ongoing involvement NHMRC NICS
– Level of media coverage
– Contribution to undergrad and postgrad training programs and professional development activities
– Sustained implementation projects
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
The Health Foundation UK: Leadership Program
Leaders for Change
Test out & evaluate approaches to developing leaders in health and explore the relationship between leadership and improvement
– Evaluation method: • Semi structured interviews
• Focus groups
• Observation learning sessions
• Site visits
• Written progress and final reports
• Follow up for 2 yrs via questionnaire
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Outcomes
Patient related
– Direct: Efficiency & access, Patient involvement, Patient satisfaction
– Indirect patient-related outcomes
– Project ‘failure’Award holders
– Developing new skills, gaining awareness and insight, project-related
Sustainability
– Dissemination, attracting resources, leadership capacity
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation
EXTRA is a 2-year fellowship program designed to train health services leaders (CEOs, Directors, Senior Managers) and their organisations to become even better decision makers by learning how to access, appraise, adapt and apply research-based evidence on innovation.
It does not train them to do research. It trains them to use research as a change management tool.
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
EXTRA
Fellows stay in their home organisations and commit 20%+ of their time for 2 years and receive:
– Six weeks of in-class learning in residency sessions
– Mentors who guide them through an intervention project to implement a research-based innovation in their home organisation
– A state-of-the-art desktop of resources including access to research databases
– Support for an ongoing ‘community of practice’
73
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Impact at individual Fellow level
at grad% at entryMeasures
8616Ability to promote use of research evidence in my organisation
9550Knowledge of change management
5212Skills for assessing quality of research
240Skills for doing research
9017Knowledge of research- based evidence
7116Research literacy
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Impact at Organisational level
% Measures at end of program
52Changed roles and expectations of executive to be more evidence-based in decision-making
76Culture of more evidence-based decision-making
81Increased collaboration with researchers
90Environment with expectation that decisions will be challenged by research evidence
90Increased implementation of better practices
95Increased use of research evidence in decisions
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Indicators for NICS Fellowships?
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
Summary
• Background of change champion strategy
• Monitoring and Evaluation • Findings
• Recommendations
• Evaluation internationally
N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E O F C L I N I C A L S T U D I E S
For more information about NICS: www.nhmrc.gov.au/nics
Fawkner Centre,
Level 5, 499 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC. 3004
GPO Box 4530, MELBOURNE, VIC 3001
t: +61 3 8866 0400
74
Delegate List
Name Affiliation Email address
Carmel Anderson Land & Water Australia [email protected]
Kate Andrews Natural Resource Management Board (NT) [email protected]
Ray Baker Department of Environment and Resource Management
Kirsty Bayliss CRC for National Plant Biosecurity [email protected]
Stephen Begg Queensland Health [email protected]
John Bennett Department of Environment and Resource Management (Qld)
Sue Briggs Department Environment and Climate Change
Neil Cambourn Department of Environment and Resource Management
Chris Carroll Department Environment and Resource Management
Debby Cousins Australian Biosecurity CRC [email protected]
Jeff Coutts QualDATA [email protected]
Derec Davies Department Environment and Resource Management
Ian Dreher Department Primary Industries (Vic) [email protected]
Jo Edmondston Australian Biosecurity CRC [email protected]
Rosie Forster National Institute of Clinical Studies, NHMRC [email protected]
Barbara George‐Jaeggli
Department Environment and Resource Management
Barbara.George‐[email protected]
Phil Gurney The Australian e‐Health Research Centre [email protected]
Brian Head Institute for Social Science Research, University of Queensland
Sue Huckson National Institute of Clinical Studies, NHMRC [email protected]
Karen Hurley Centre for Applied Environmental Decision Analysis
Christina Jones Department of Environment and Resource Management
Kirstin Kenyon Department Environment and Resource Management
Sarah Leonardi Land & Water Australia [email protected]
Chris Linehan Department Primary Industries (Vic) [email protected]
Jen Lumsden Bushfire CRC [email protected]
Nolani McColl Land & Water Australia [email protected]
Sue McKell Pebble Communication [email protected]
Kerryn Molloy Land & Water Australia [email protected]
Andrew Moore Land & Water Australia [email protected]
75
Name Affiliation Email address
John Mullins Department Environment and Resource Management
Ruth OConnor Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge [email protected]
Lyn Pearson CRC for Construction Innovation [email protected]
Alistair Phillips Department Sustainability and Environment (Vic)
Scott Prasser University of Sunshine Coast [email protected]
Scott Rawlings Department Sustainability and Environment [email protected]
Chris Rinehart Rinehart Consulting [email protected]
David Salt Centre for Applied Environmental Decision Analysis
Leslie Shirreffs Department of Environment and Resource Management
Cate Turner Department Sustainability and Environment (Vic)
Brian Vandersee Department Environment and Resource Management
Gabrielle van Willigen Department Environment and Resource Management
Christine Williams Department Environment and Resource Management
76
Delegate Details
Presenters
Professor Brian Head
Institute for Social Science Research, University of Queensland
Professor Head joined the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland in mid‐2007. He has held senior roles in government, academia and the non‐government sector. He is committed to improving linkages between the research sector, the government sector, and service providers.
Before 2003 he held senior executive positions in several Queensland Government agencies, including roles in policy development, public sector reform and inter‐governmental program negotiation. He is the author and editor of several books on public policy and organisational management. His major interests are collaboration, service delivery, community consultation, evaluation, and evidence‐based policy.
[email protected] | 07 3346 7450
Dr Scott Prasser
Senior Lecturer in Management in the Faculty of Business, University of Sunshine Coast
Scott has worked in senior policy, research and advisory positions in federal and state governments across departments such as Tourism, Small Business and Industry, State Development and Premier and Cabinet. Scott writes extensively on policy and business issues in both academic and media outlets including the Courier‐Mail, The Australian and is a frequent commentator on the ABC. His publications include: Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries in Australia; Restraining Elective Dictatorships: The Upper House Solution? and Private Sector’s Role in National Parks.
Scott also runs policy skills workshops for the public service and founded the State of the Region Summits presently being run across Australia. Scott gained his Arts degree and later Master of Public Administration from the University of Queensland and in 2004 was awarded his doctorate from Griffith University. He is about to take up a new position in July as Professor of Public Policy and Executive Director of the Public Policy Institute at the Australian Catholic University, Canberra.
[email protected] | www.policysolutions.com.au | 0402 381 736
Dr Debby Cousins
Deputy CEO, Director, Application and Linkage, Australian Biosecurity CRC for Infectious Disease
Debby Cousins is Director, Application& Linkage, for the Australian Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre for Emerging Infectious Disease (AB‐CRC) and an Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Curtin University of Technology in Western Australia. Her role in the AB‐CRC is to lead the uptake of research through
77
commercial and non‐commercial channels, with responsibility for knowledge exchange and technology transfer, communication, commercialization, consultancies and staff exchanges to enhance employment opportunities and relationships with end users.
Professor Cousins has a BSc in Medical Science, a PhD in Microbiology, and a background in zoonotic disease research in livestock, wildlife and humans focusing on diagnostics, taxonomy and epidemiology of mycobacterial diseases. Prior to her secondment with the AB‐CRC she was Principal Microbiologist and Manager of the Animal Health Laboratories within the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food. In this role she was responsible for leading strategic planning and financial aspects of the laboratories’ government and private businesses and managing 60 staff in the delivery of veterinary testing and scientific services.
She has been Director of the Australian Reference Laboratory for Bovine Tuberculosis since its inception 1992 and a Director of the International (OIE – World Animal Health Organization) Reference Laboratory for Tuberculosis since 1993. She is a Member of the WA Premier’s Science Council providing strategic policy advice to government and has served on other government and industry advisory and policy committees.
[email protected] | www.abcrc.org.au | 08 9266 1645
Dr Sue Briggs
Principal Research Scientist, Woodland Ecology Unit, Department Environment and Climate Change
Sue’s major interests and expertise are the science and practice of natural resources management (NRM), particularly providing and synthesising scientific information to inform policy and management for improved NRM, resolving NRM issues, and working with people for implementation.
Dr Briggs' work contributes at the interfaces of natural resources science, management, policy, practicality and legal frameworks.
[email protected] | 02 6242 1621
Kate Andrews
Currently based in Darwin Kate is working as a consultant and advisor in the fields of knowledge into practice, and community based natural resource management. She is the Chair of the Natural Resource Management Board of the Northern Territory.
Kate was the first Chief Executive of the Lake Eyre Basin Coordinating Group – a unique, cross‐ border community organisation for natural resource management which was designed and established in a participatory process with stakeholders.
As the first Knowledge and Adoption Manager for Land & Water Australia (a Commonwealth rural research and development corporation) Kate developed their inaugural strategy for ‘research into practice’, built a knowledge and adoption team, and helped to establish organisational systems to improve adoption of LWA funded research. At this time Kate also established the national program
78
‘Knowledge for regional NRM’ to improve evidence‐based decision making in natural resource management, winning government funds to build national capacity and tools for knowledge management and exchange.
[email protected] | 0403 604 823
Scott Rawlings
Manager, Research & Development, Natural Resources Division, Department Sustainability and Environment
In his current role Scott is responsible for a range of NRM R&D procurement, knowledge exchange and management initiatives and services. He has previously worked in greenhouse, indigenous and justice policy as well as roles in improving policy and research capability.
Scott has recently submitted his PhD on environmental ethics and has published numerous articles on the subject. His key interest is in the potential for environmental praxis at the interface of ethics, economics, biophysical science and cultural production systems.
[email protected] | www.dese.vic.gov.au | 03 9637 8969
Dr Jeff Coutts
Principal, QualDATA
Jeff is a national leader in both rural extension and program evaluation. He has particular expertise in the strategic design of market research tools. In 1992 he developed DPI Queensland’s Extension Strategy. He was Director of the Rural Extension Centre at University of Queensland (UQ) from 1996‐2001 where, in addition to overseeing training in new extension approaches, he developed evaluation methods to monitor their effectiveness. He continues to teach the Masters level Evaluation of Projects and Programs Course at UQ. Since 2001, he has established his own evaluation and social research company “Coutts J&R” as well as forming QualDATA with Gordon Stone.
Jeff ran the first Australian Extension Conference at the Gold Coast in 1993, was a founding member of the Australasian Pacific Extension Network and is also a member of the Australasian Evaluation society. He has undertaken extensive research into extension and its evaluation through the Cooperative Venture in Human Capacity Building.
[email protected] | www.qualdata.net.au | 07 4630 1297
Ken Moore
Manager, Social & Institutional Research Program, Land & Water Australia
Ken Moore has more than 30 years experience in national, state and regional policy development and research management. He is currently manager of social, institutional and water research with Land & Water Australia (LWA).
As a national consultant from 1997 to 2008, Ken researched,
79
interviewed and wrote prolifically on future directions for agricultural industries and natural resource management including water. The Harvey Irrigation Systems project led by Ken under the National Sustainable Irrigation Program won the 2005 Western Australian Environment Award for water management.
In past lives, he was an Executive Director with Agriculture Western Australia and an Assistant Secretary with the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy. In the 1980s and 1990s, he was involved in policy that established the rural R&D arrangements, reformed Australia’s primary industry statutory marketing authorities, removed the export ban on merino rams, and re‐focussed drought policy on the principles of viability and self‐reliance.
Ken presently lives and works in Canberra, but owns a family farm in tall karri country in Northcliffe, WA.
[email protected] | www.lwa.gov.au | 02 6263 6029
Cate Turner
Acting Manager, Sustainable Landscapes Program, Natural Resources Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment
Cate coordinates investment in Research for Land Health. She has worked in natural resource management, research and planning for the last decade as a commercial consultant for CMAs, government departments and bodies such as Land & Water Australia.
She has also worked within Griffith and Swinburne Universities on sustainability and triple bottom line assessment tools. Her interests lie in the use of strategic foresight techniques, and how a shared knowledge of short, medium and long term trends influences policy, strategy and planning within organisations.
[email protected] | www.dse.vic.gov.au | 03 9637 9817
Alistair Phillips
Manger Natural Resources Planning Policy, Natural Resources Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment
Alistair has worked in sustainable land management policy in local and state government for the past 15 years. During this period he has also contributed to the body of national/international literature on the topic. Current responsibilities lie in NRM and catchment planning at both regional and state‐wide levels.
Key interests underpinning Alistair’s work are around climate change imperatives and how the concepts of ‘sustainability’ and ‘resilience’ might guide NRM policy.
[email protected] | www.dese.vic.gov.au |
80
Rosie Forster
Director Leadership Program, National Institute of Clinical Studies, National Health & Medical Research Council
Rosie leads a team responsible for building capacity of clinicians in Australia to translate research findings into policy and practice in health care. Prior to this role, she held positions in the Department of Health and Ageing, and a Division of General Practice.
Rosie has a Master’s Degree of Business from the Queensland University of Technology. Her undergraduate degree is in Physiotherapy and she gained clinical experience in acute and ambulatory settings, before taking on postgraduate studies and other roles in the health care system.
[email protected] | www.nhmrc.gov.au/nics | 03 8866 0422
Facilitator
Chris Rinehart
Principal, Rinehart Consulting
Chris has a particular interest and skill in community engagement to achieve natural resource management (NRM) outcomes and to help individuals and groups reach their goals. Chris has delivered courses and facilitated numerous workshops using principles of adult learning, leadership, facilitation and negotiation which are appropriate to the situation and objectives. Clients have included landholders, regional NRM body staff, government officers, academics, urban community, and non‐government organisations.
Chris has had twenty years experience in community based natural resource management: as a volunteer, Landcare group coordinator, and government extension officer and has also contributed to international Landcare. Since 1997 she has worked for the Qld Department of Natural Resources and Water, most recently in the implementation of an Education Policy. She is currently completing a Master of Rural Systems Management degree. Through Rinehart Consulting, she is involved in facilitating workshops and in casual lecturing at University of Queensland, Gatton in Negotiation and conflict management in resource management and Adult learning principles for regional development.
[email protected] | 07 5464 1995 | 0432 650 033
Workshop Coordinators
Christina Jones
Principal Advisor (current secondment), Natural Resource Sciences, Department of Environment and Resource Management
Christina is Principal Scientist and Group Leader of the Community and Integration Sciences team in the Natural Resource Sciences Program and has an interdisciplinary background in geography, science and environmental education. This team is focussed upon the the integration of knowledge adoption principles and practice, and the social sciences, in natural resource science and policy.
81
Christina's previous work has included the development of integration frameworks and approaches for enhancing natural resource science and research; community participation in natural resource management, particularly through community monitoring of waterways, and Landcare/NRM Education; and coordination of a multidisciplinary, multi‐agency team delivering statewide projects under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.
[email protected] | www.derm.qld.gov.au | 07 3896 9665
Gabrielle van Willigen
Natural Resource Officer, Natural Resource Sciences, Department Environment and Resource Management
Gabrielle has a background in environmental management working with big businesses on how to improve their environmental performance, particularly in the area of waste minimisation. She is currently working on a project looking at how researchers within DERM can more effectively connect with departmental policy makers and regional practitioners.
[email protected] | www.derm.qld.gov.au | 07 3896 9482
Dr Jo Edmondston
Senior Project Officer, Australian Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre for Infectious Diseases
Jo’s role in the AB‐CRC is to assist in the management of research uptake through commercial and non‐commercial channels, with responsibility for knowledge exchange and technology transfer, communication, and commercialisation. Dr Edmondston has a BSc in Biotechnology, a Masters by Research in Public Health, and a PhD in Science Education / Communication. Prior to her current position, she worked as a medical scientist at Sir Charles Gardiner and Royal Perth Hospitals (1990‐1997), and lectured at Murdoch University in Biotechnology (1998‐2004).
[email protected] | www.abcrc.org.au | 08 9266 1705
Kirstin Kenyon
Principal Project Officer, Catchment Program, Department Environment and Resource Management
Kirstin has worked across local, state and federal levels of government in supporting community based natural resource management and science knowledge adoption. Kirstin currently works within the Qld Department of Environment and Resource Management as the State DataHub Coordinator (short term secondment) but usually resides in the Natural Resources Sciences, supporting science knowledge adoption.
[email protected] | www.derm.qld.gov.au | 07 3224 7734
Kate Andrews – see “Presenters”
Deb Cousins – see “Presenters”
82
Delegates
Barbara George‐Jaeggli
Research Scientist (Crop Physiology), Department of Employment, Economic Development & Innovation: Primary Industries & Fisheries
Barbara.George‐[email protected] | www.dpi.qld.gov.au | 07 4660 3642
Brian Vandersee
Executive Director, Natural Resource Sciences, Department Environment and Resource Management
Responsible for managing the science portfolio for the previous Department of Natural Resources and Water (now part of the Department of Environment and Resource Management) including the strategic direction for science and the delivery of quality, relevant and innovative science to inform policy and service delivery aligned with the Departments and governments priorities. Currently includes some 260 staff and a budget of approximately $22m.
[email protected] | www.derm.qld.gov.au | 07 3896 9523
Dr Chris Carroll
Principal Scientist, Landscape and Community Services, Department Environment and Resource Management
Dr Carroll has undertaken research in the Fitzroy basin for 26 years. Over that time he has conducted research on the 5 major land uses in the basin, namely: dryland cropping, grazing, irrigation, open‐cut and underground long‐wall coal mining.
During his science career he has conducted physical, hydrologic and agronomic research on soil and water processes that allow the development of both profitable and sustainable farm systems. As catchment coordinator for the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Catchment Hydrology his research experience was used to coordinate research activities in the Fitzroy ‘focus’ catchment. A close association with the Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management CRC in the Fitzroy has led to research exploring the linkages between land use activities within the catchment and their impacts on the coastal and estuarine areas and the inner reef of Keppel bay. Most recently he led a modelling project to support resource management target setting for the high priority in the Fitzroy and other catchments adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef.
Currently, he is the CRC eWater leader of the Great Barrier Modelling application project and the regional science coordinator for the central west region in the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management.
[email protected] | www.derm.qld.gov.au | 07 4938 4240
83
Carmel Anderson
Knowledge Broker, Land & Water Australia
As a Knowledge Broker at Land & Water Australia, for the Managing Climate Variability Program, my role is to engage with a range of stakeholders and assist in the knowledge transfer and the adoption of new practices that can help farmers and others manage agriculture production in a variable climate.
My interest in knowledge and adoption and stakeholder engagement stems from previous work on government‐ and science‐based public participation programs, which include the establishment of the new Defence headquarters in southern NSW and Australia's first carbon dioxide storage (geosequestration) project in south‐western Victoria.
In addition to working at LWA, I am the ACT‐southern NSW coordinator for the International Association for Public Participation and am undertaking a research Masters at the ANU on social networks and the community consultation process.
[email protected] | www.lwa.gov.au | 02 6263 6013
Chris Linehan
Program Manager, Capacity Development, Department Primary Industries
Chris Linehan is in the Practice Change portfolio of Vic DPI. He has an interest in the adoption of innovations by landholders and understanding problems associated with the implementation of Government policy by organisations. His current role involves building capability in DPI staff to implement social science frameworks into project design. He barracks for Carlton, which has meant that prior to this year he has been able to concentrate solely on his research. He is glad to be here in Brisbane and is really looking forward to the workshop, but to save any hassles at home he has told his wife he is away on a "Selecting the best flowers for your wife" conference. Please don't tell her.
[email protected] | www.dpi.vic.gov.au | 03 5833 5344
Dr Christine Williams
Executive Director, Environmental Sciences, Department Environment and Resource Management
Christine has been with the EPA since March 2007, initially as part of the 2007 Executive program. As Executive Director Environmental Sciences, Christine’s focus has been on improving the use of the science to inform policy and decision making both within the Agency and elsewhere in Government and the community.
Prior to her current position, Christine held a number of senior positions in Queensland Treasury, including Director of Economic Policy and Assistant Government Statistician (Economics). In these positions, again a focus of her work was to improve the use of information in policy and decision making. She was previously an academic at Queensland University of Technology and the University of Queensland where she taught statistics and econometrics.
84
Christine is an economist by training with a Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Queensland and a Master of Philosophy from Oxford University.
[email protected] | www.derm.qld.gov.au | 07 3227 7779
David Salt
Science Communicator, Centre for Applied Environmental Decision Analysis
David is a writer and editor based in the Fenner School for Environment and Society (FSES) at the ANU. He produces Decision Point, a magazine on environmental decision theory for managers and policy makers. Prior to this, David created and produced The Helix magazine for CSIRO Education, Newton magazine for Australian Geographic, and Materials Monthly and ScienceWise for ANU. He has served as the Communications Manager for CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology and co authored the widely acclaimed texts Resilience Thinking and Trees and Biodiversity.
[email protected] | www.aeda.edu.au/news | 02 6125 9286
Derec Davies
Senior Project Officer, Coordination of Knowledge & Programs, Department Environment and Resource Management
[email protected] | www.derm.qld.gov.au | 07 3224 7838
Ian Dreher
Manager, Practice Change Portfolio, Department Primary Industries (Vic)
Ian has had a long career with the Victorian Department of Primary Industries and its predecessor organisations, working in a variety of fields including invasive pests, soil conservation, community engagement, agricultural development, business management, business improvement and more recently in the area of service development as Manager of Farm Services Victoria's Practice Change Portfolio.
In his personal life he enjoys travel, playing the piano and didgeridoo and when it rains, growing things. Professionally his prime focus is to change DPI's dominant "extension" paradigm for service development to one where the full suite of practice change tools are utilised to achieve the scope and rate of change required.
[email protected] | www.dpi.vic.gov.au | 03 5336 6606
Jen Lumsden
Education Manager, Bushfire CRC
With a background in adult education and managing projects in the community and state government sectors Jen has been working as the Education Manager for the Bushfire CRC for the past 20 months.The Bushfire CRC is in the final year of a seven year funding program and to maximise the adoption of research the CRC works closely with the industry body, the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Council
85
(AFAC).
A research adoption plan, a calendar of events and Fire Notes (a user friendly short communication tool) support the roll out of research adoption http://www.bushfirecrc.com/training/calendar.html.
The AFAC members’ structure is used for conducting an industry impact assessment to determine the most effective pathway/s to adoption. Agency advisory groups work with researchers to assist in developing the product or processes that have been identified in the impact assessment.
For example, Jen worked with agency advisory groups to develop two recent products launched at the April 2009 Stakeholder Council: the Smoke Management Field Guide and the Burning under young Eucalypts Field Guide.
[email protected] | www.bushfirecrc.com | 03 9412 9605
John Bennett
Principal Environment Officer, Strategy & Policy, Department of Environment and Resource Management
John Bennett has had 35 years water planning and management experience with the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (formerly the EPA). This has ranged from “hands on” roles leading water quality modelling and monitoring studies to applying this experience to guiding waterway/water quality planning and catchment management strategies, such as the South‐east Queensland Healthy Waterways Strategy and the Great Barrier Reef Water Quality Improvement Plans. He has served on several national, state and regional working groups and also had a 3 year joint placement with the Coastal CRC from 2002‐2006.
[email protected] | www.derm.qld.gov.au | 0408 769 436
John Mullins
Director, Science and Strategic Initiatives, Natural Resource Sciences, Department Environment and Resource Management
John Mullins is currently Director of Science Strategy and Integration, Natural Resource Sciences, with the Department of Environment and Resource Management. He has a background in soil conservation research and extension; water, land and vegetation policy and legislation development; and management of natural resource management research. He has recently been involved in the coordination, planning and implementation of new high priority research projects for salinity, water quality, and the whole landscape approach.
[email protected] | www.derm.qld.gov.au | 073896 9472
86
Karen Hurley
Knowledge Broker, Centre for Applied Environmental Decision Analysis
Karen is new to the role of Knowledge Broker with AEDA (the Applied Environmental Decision Analysis research facility), which works across the University of Queensland, RMIT, University of Melbourne and ANU. Karen has a many and varied professional background including 14 years in IT, involved in marketing, sales and pre‐ and post‐sales support; several years supporting IT in a legal environment; a Bachelor of Science majoring in Ecology; Business Manager for AEDA; and several years as a research assistance in Australian and SE Asian rainforests. She is excited about bringing all her expertise together in this new role.
[email protected] | www.aeda.edu.au | 07 3346 7541
Dr Kirsty Bayliss
Program Leader, Education & Training, CRC for National Plant Biosecurity
[email protected] | 08 9360 2814
Kerryn Molloy
Knowledge Broker, Land & Water Australia
Kerryn completed an applied science degree majoring in environmental management (with minors in chemistry and indigenous studies) at the University of Canberra, then postgraduate study in environmental education prior to an education degree. She has further developed skills in science writing, editing, publications and web management, art and graphic design. Kerryn has been employed in a variety of fields, including as a geographic information systems officer, a teacher and tutor, and as a science communicator. Recent positions have included Communications Manager for the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre (based at the University of Canberra) and currently as a Knowledge Broker for the Innovation Program of Land & Water Australia.
[email protected] | www.lwa.gov.au | 02 6263 6083
Leslie Shirreffs
General Manager, Land Management & Use, Department of Environment and Resource Management
Leslie Shirreffs is the General Manager, Land Management and Use with the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management. With a diverse background in industry development, media and conservation/natural resource management, Leslie has been involved for the past decade in the development of science‐based policy aimed at delivering practical, on‐ground outcomes.
[email protected] | www.derm.qld.gov.au | 07 3224 5501
87
Lyn Pearson
Education & Training, CRC for Construction Innovation
[email protected] | www.construction‐innovation.info | 07 3138 9295
Neil Cambourn
Manger, State Land Management, Department of Environment and Resource Management
Neil Cambourn leads the State land management policy area in the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) and has primary responsibility for development and implementation of strategic land management policy including the supporting frameworks that underpin the Delbessie Agreement (State Rural Leasehold Land Strategy), as well as policy directions for fire and pest management on State lands. Neil has a broad knowledge of complex land related issues throughout Queensland supported by operational management experience across the two land management agencies (NRW and QPWS) that now form DERM.
[email protected] | www.derm.qld.gov.au | 07 3224 7550
Nolani McColl
Knowledge Broker, Land & Water Australia
Nolani has had a rapid introduction to the world of Knowledge Broking. She completed an undergrad degree from the University of Canberra in 2007, having worked whilst at Uni on the Narran Ecosystem Project in the role of Knowledge Exchange Officer (2005‐2007). She landed this job after working in the lab on soil analysis for the Narran project. In December 2007, Nolani then started working at DEWHA in the Wetlands Section with part of my role being the coordination of Wetlands Australia Update (issues 16 and 17), and then in December 2008 started at LWA as a senior KB in the Landscapes Arena.
[email protected] | www.lwa.gov.au | 02 6263 6075
Dr Phil Gurney
CEO, The Australian e‐Health Research Centre
[email protected] | Http://aehrc.com | 07 3253 3698 / 3253 3628
Ray Baker
Director Economic Services, Strategic Policy & Legal, Department of Environment and Resource Management
Ray’s team is responsible for providing economic input and advice to the development and review of natural resource and environmental management policy. He has a particular interest in the development
88
of markets in environmental goods as part of broader range of policy tools available. He was the Queensland member of the National Market Based Instruments Working Group which developed and implemented the national MBI pilot program.
[email protected] | www.derm.qld.gov.au | 07 3239 0690
Ruth OConnor
Knowledge & Adoption Coordinator, Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK)
Ruth’s academic background is in aquatic ecology. After spending over 10 years doing research for state and federal agencies, she realised herkey interest was in the adoption of science. Since that time she has worked in a range of contexts from helping instigate participatory fisheries management in Cambodia at a community level to working as a knowledge broker with the CRC for Freshwater Ecology. She is currently the Knowledge and Adoption Coordinator for the TRaCK (Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge) research hub.
[email protected] | www.track.gov.au | 07 3735 5094
Sue Huckson
Director of the Effective Practice Program, National Institute of Clinical Studies, National Health & Medical Research Council
The National Institute of Clinical Studies (NICS), an institute of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). She has extensive experience within the health sector, having a long nursing career with positions in clinical management, quality improvement and program management. Sue has led national programs including the National Emergency Department Collaborative, the National Emergency Mental Health Interface Project and is known for expertise in developing strategic and innovative approaches to support the implementation of research in complex health environments.
Sue has developed a national and international profile for her work in the application of a ‘Community of Practice’ (CoP) model within the Australian Emergency Care sector that has attracted additional funded projects and consultancies including: the National Organ Donation Collaborative (NODC), Department of Human Services (DHS) Victoria Emergency Department Mental Health Project, National Seclusion and Restraint Beacon project and an implementation project for the New Zealand Guideline Group.
Sue is also engaged in a number of international projects including the establishment and coordination of a ‘virtual’ community in partnership with the Guidelines International Network (G‐I‐N) to support international collaboration for the emergency care on aspects of guideline development and implementation. More recently, Sue has been invited to be the implementation advisor on a Canadian Institute of Health Research project on knowledge translation in sepsis management in the emergency department.
[email protected] | www.nhmrc.gov.au/nics | 03 8866 0410
89
Sarah Leonardi
Program Officer, Land & Water Australia
Sarah Leonardi is the Program Officer and Knowledge Broker for the National Program for Sustainable Irrigation (NPSI). NPSI is a collaborative program with 14 Partners, including Land & Water Australia who is also the managing partner. NPSI invests in and manages research, development and its adoption to improve the productivity and sustainability of irrigation in Australia. Sarah’s role ranges from negotiating contracts to working with researchers to develop communication products and activities. Target audiences for the Program include policy makers. Sarah has been a part of the NPSI team for two years.
[email protected] | www.lwa.gov.au | 02 6263 6031
90
Appendix A: Tools, References & Websites
Bell, S. Communicating Science ‐ Concerned Scientists, Pragmatic Politics and Australia’s Green Drought. Science and Public Policy, Volume 33, Number 8, October, Pages 561–570. Briggs, Sue. Integrating Policy and Science In Natural Resources: Why So Difficult? Ecological Management & Restoration Vol 7 No 1 April 2006. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation knowledge brokering resources page: http://www.chsrf.ca/brokering/resources_e.php Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/ David Pannell’s website http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/ eWater website (Catchment Modelling Toolkit). Conceptual model builder –click and drag to create your own conceptual models: http://www.toolkit.net.au/ http://www.toolkit.net.au/Tools/Concept Gibbons, P., C Zammit, K Youngentob et al. Some Practical Suggestions for Improving Engagement between Researchers and Policy‐Makers in Natural Resource Management. Ecological Management & Restoration Vol 9 No 3 December 2008. Healthy Waterways project http://www.waterwatch.org.au/publications/healthcheck.html). Kate Delaney’s Types of policy makers http://www.delaney.com.au/] Kuruvilla, Shyama, Nicholas Mays, Andrew Pleasant and Gill Walt. Describing the Impact of Health Research: A Research Impact Framework. BMC Health Services Research 2006, 6:134. Land and Water Australia brochure “Research Meets Policy” brochure http://lwa.gov.au/products/pk040749]. MarkSan Conservation planning software http://www.uq.edu.au/marxan/ Mary Maher and Peter Nichols (Mary Maher & Assoc) for Land and Water Australia Transferring success – an examination of Healthy Waterways management initiative in south east Queensland www.ozcoasts.org.au/pdf/SIRPMaherReportSummary.pdf Peter Cullen and the Wentworth group http://www.wentworthgroup.org/index.php] Position of “blue sky” research in the Australian landscape. John Howard publications: http://www.howardpartners.com.au/john.php Primary Health Care Research & Information Service (PHCRIS) website Infobytes have a useful and current review of knowledge brokering. http://www.phcris.org.au/infobytes/knowledgebrokering.php
91
Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World Walter Reid, Brian Walker, David Salt http://www.amazon.co.uk/Resilience‐Thinking‐Sustaining‐Ecosystems‐Changing/dp/1597260932]. Wetlands Info website with the “conceptual models” in the “Science and Research” section: http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/wetlandinfo/site/index.html http://bnecms01/WetlandInfoCMS/content/preview/index.html
92
Appendix B: Acronyms & Abbreviations
AB‐CRC Australian Biosecurity CRC for Emerging Infectious Disease
DERM Queensland Government Department of Environment and Resource Management
EAD Emergency animal disease
DECC Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW)
DERM Department of Environmental and Resource Management (Qld) (previously Department Natural Resources and Water, and Department Environmental Protection Agency)
DPI Department of Primary Industries
DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment (Vic)
KRAs Key Results Areas
LWA Land & Water Australia
NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council
NICS National Institute of Clinical Studies
NRM Natural Resource Management
PHCRIS Primary Health Care Research & Information Services
TRaCK Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge
93
Appendix C: David Salt: Tears of the KB
Below is an editorial published by David Salt after participating in the KiPP workshop.
Reproduced in full with his permission.
Tears of the KB: Knowledge brokering and telling a story as if it mattered
By David Salt (Knowledge Broker, Applied Environmental Decision Analysis)
Full article available at Decision Point #29 http://www.aeda.edu.au/news
I am a science writer and a storyteller. I’ve been telling stories about scientific research for
more than two decades for a variety of audiences ranging from school students to
politicians. I now find myself designated as a ‘knowledge broker’ (KB) working for a group of
mathematical and conservation ecologists who are working on ideas and methods to help
policy makers and environmental managers implement robust and transparent decision
making (we call ourselves AEDA). Robust and transparent decision making sounds like a
pretty sensible thing to me. But isn’t it already happening?
Well, I’ve seen enough to know that ‘sensible and rational’ is not the way things play out in
the conservation policy and management arena. Everywhere we look we seem to be losing
habitat and species, decision making seems largely ad hoc and opaque, available research
funding is patently inadequate and what is available comes with ever greater transaction
costs. And, regardless of the quality of the science that’s generated, little seems to actually
inform policy. This last bit is my fault, right? I’m supposed to be a knowledge broker, the
agent ensuring products coming out of research are taken up by the policy people and the
decision makers.
I’ve worn a number of hats since I began to tell stories for a living: project manager, editor,
business development manager, communications manager and now knowledge broker. In
each role it’s been roughly the same approach to business – ‘we (the researchers) want
more people to engage with our research; and we want you (our communicator) to translate
our words into something that others will be interested in’. This is a traditional approach to
science communication and it can be summed up with the phrase – do the research, then do
the brochure.
I’ve done many ‘brochures’ in my time; some of them have been quite good (in that they
have been read far and wide). But I’ve frequently come away thinking it was more of a box
ticking exercise that the researcher was obliged to go through in order to get the funding in
the first place. Tick the box, then move on (knowledge adoption is now the KB’s problem).
Now, I don’t want to denigrate the art of ‘brochure’ production (because it’s a large part of
what I do – I think the latest spin on that might be: ‘it’s an integral component of my value
proposition’) but clearly it’s only a small part of the game of knowledge adoption. If this
game of knowledge adoption was a spectrum of activities it would have research push at
one end and policy pull at the other. The more traditional approach of science
communication (brochure production and research ‘translation’) lies up the research‐push
end of this spectrum whereas the evolving area of knowledge brokering and ongoing
dialogue between stakeholders and providers is more along the policy‐pull side.
94
Last month a mob of KBs (or should that be a keg of KBs?) came together in Brisbane for
KiPP2, a workshop on Knowledge into Policy and Practice (it was actually the second get
together, hence the 2). It was designed to bring together professionals from a range of
sectors to explore the process of getting science knowledge into policy and practice. Over
two days we discussed the policy making process, barriers at the science‐policy interface,
how to improve adoption and shared a range of tips and tricks.
The key messages emerging from the workshop for me were themes I had heard at many
meetings on this hoary old topic of science influencing policy, and they are:
• policy formation is not easy or rational (it takes time, multiple iterations and is based on
personal relationships);
• knowledge adoption is not a linear process of science – translation – policy uptake (but this
has been the traditional approach);
• knowledge adoption is most effective where there is an ongoing two‐way dialogue in
which researchers and stakeholders (eg, policy makers) are working together to formulate
the appropriate questions;
• even though researchers and policy makers want a more effective partnership, they
operate in separate universes (though they’re often unaware of it).
Two other little pearls from KiPP2 were the phrases ‘the policy climate is hot and dark’ (hot
meaning policy formation is volatile and driven by short term political imperatives; dark
meaning decision‐making was opaque – effective knowledge adoption would lead to a cool
and light climate) and ‘what’s your T‐shirt message’ (which I suppose is analogous to your
‘elevator pitch’, or how you sum up your value in the space of a few seconds).
As a communicator I acknowledge the value of the ‘t‐shirt message’ but, as a story teller, I
hope my stories are sufficiently interesting that you’ll want to hear the whole thing.
Sometimes the real value is in the detail and the telling. However, as a knowledge broker, I
also acknowledge it’s not just up to me to tell these stories. I need to empower my research
colleagues to tell their own stories. And these researchers need to know enough about the
policy makers they want to influence to make sure their stories are truly compelling.
95
Appendix D: LWA Brochure Feedback
Research Meets Policy ‐ Feedback on LWA brochure from delegates of the Knowledge into Policy and Practice 2009 workshop in Brisbane 6‐7 May – comments and suggestions for possible future modification / inclusion Comments
Good layout – simple, text and photos Modifications
Include a policy angle as well as researcher angle in the brochure – move from ‘us and them’ to ‘we’. Note that process should aim for an agreed set of outcomes, shared understanding of the current situation, negotiation of what needs to be done, and who will do which bits. Then, and only then, can scientists be seen as relevant and be given a place (and/or funds) at the table.
Include a research life cycle model showing interactions with policy makers all the way through the research lifecycle, not just at the end
Consider definitions of policy (eg. strategic, operational etc)
Emphasise Pathway 1. Rather than presenting all pathways as a continuum, show that some are more important. Make principles more circular.
Include a list of tools under “communication products”, provide concrete examples eg. case studies, and references of places to go to get tools etc
Change pathways to include both informing policy and informing management
Principle 4 could be about the full continuum of interactions between researchers and end users (policy makers, managers etc): before defining research projects, during research projects, end products and dissemination, future research needs
Possible inclusions ‐ Advice to researchers
Be aware of policy – be prepared and have information ready for when policy maker is ready to hear it. Note that timing is critical – link with policy making lifecycle – there is only a narrow window of opportunity where policy makers are receptive to information. Wait for a place in policy cycle where you will be most effective – often a crisis or maybe policy agenda pivot piece, or even a network opportunity. Have messages ready for when the opportunity arises.
Consider how to value add to research – note that the value of research is judged by policy maker
Consider inclusion of researcher in policy team –researcher not only sees how their work is used, it also helps them frame research proposals into policy needs
“Market yourselves” according to Malcolm Gladwell “The Tipping Point”. Sets out three laws to successful outcomes from a marketing point of view: Law of the few (connectors, salesmen and mavens); the stickiness factor (message needs to be contagious); the power of context (timing and placement is critical)
Acknowledge source of funding, have clear understanding of target audience, understand importance of synthesis products, build trust and credibility, be adaptable to the needs of policy makers, deliver messages in several ways (not just one model fits all), be culturally aware, value other scientists’ efforts to get findings taken up into policy, and produce
96
Ask “how can I help you?” rather than “this is what I can do”. If policy makers are the end users, then let policy be the driver of the direction of the research
Understand different levels of engagement for different researchers, and the role of intermediaries (eg. knowledge brokers, boundary spanners, integrators and/or translators)
97
Related Documents
