Researchers and policy-makers must work towards 'strategic friendship'

29 September 2009

When it comes to their own research, researchers should take equal responsibility for communication with policy-makers from the outset, and keep the contact informal, brief and interactive – ‘upstream engagement communication’. That is the core message from TUD student Marjoleine Georgette van der Meij. She completed her communication science internship within the NWO’s Sea and Coastal Research (ZKO) programme.

How do you make sure that policy-makers are kept on top of developments in scientific knowledge, and that researchers are researching the right things? Van der Meij looked into what researchers could do to solve these problems. She carried out her research within the research community of the Sea and Costal Research programme, and told us about her findings. “Traditionally, the NWO or an institute takes charge of organising the communication with external interest groups. Communication is something that’s usually tacked on to the top of research findings, but you actually need a 'bottom up' approach in order to be successful. If, as a researcher, you really do want to make sure that policy-makers use your research, you need to actively think up ideas, along with your institute and the NWO, about the communication between researchers and policy-makers. You can’t just protest that the policy-makers don’t want that, and that they wouldn’t understand anyway. That blocks the discovery of innovative ideas and solutions for this sort of communication."

Traps and obstacles

But that’s easier said than done, as Van der Meij knows. “A researcher won’t see immediate reward for communication initiatives. Also, in the ZKO, no communication agreements are made with the policy-makers that invest in the programme. But not all researchers are used to thinking about communication either, nor are they willing to start. And there’s also the fact that most researchers would prefer to talk about the details of their projects, while policy-makers would prefer to discuss things on the macro level.” In short, says Van der Meij, changes are needed in the research system so that efforts to improve communication are rewarded. But internal communications need improvement too, in order to successfully establish communication with external parties such as policy-makers. And that will take time.

Communicate earlier in the research process

Van der Meij used the theory of upstream engagement communication for her research. She explains that ‘upstream’ pointed to a shift in scientific communication to earlier in the research process, with the goal of allowing interested parties such as policy-makers to ‘experience’ the research phase too. “You communicate with interest groups like policy-makers before the beginning of a programme or project, and during the research phase at various times, right up until the end when the results have come in and the outcomes have been decided upon. Ideally as a researcher you also do something with the wishes that interest groups express during the course of the research, and you make them the co-owners of the research. You literally involve them in your research.”

Relationships in place of conflicts

Van der Meij has an example. “In the case of the Wadden Sea, we all knew that there was a lot of change going on, including that caused by changing climate phenomena. But nobody knew what exactly was going on or how best to anticipate it – not even the researchers. Of course they had their own opinions though, just like all the people from the fishing industry, the gas drillers, the wind-farm builders and policy-makers. And practical decisions often had to be made within a very short time frame. The ‘upstream engagement’ body of thought promotes communication between the different parties, on an ongoing basis, so that possible problems in the scientific research can be identified early by the entire group. The parties keep other up-to-date about what’s going on on the Wadden Sea. Subsequently, the communication is about finding ground-up solutions for these problems, in order to satisfy as many of the parties as possible. Upstream engagement is also about strengthening relationships in order to prevent possible future conflicts. “At the moment there are often hit-or-miss policy decisions made or researchers write angry letters to the papers, and big problems blow up. That pushes people apart.”

Promotion by itself is insufficient

“Promotion (Science Marketing) is about a single moment in which people want entertainment and content that isn’t too challenging,” says Van der Meij. “But upstream engagement challenges current concepts – it’s about collecting as many different opinions from interested parties, on the subject of potential research implications, as possible. In addition, upstream engagement is about communication in which all parties invest something, and have something invested in the outcome. With promotion, you don’t get that effect. Upstream engagement is about thinking together, exchanging knowledge from different disciplines, and deciding together on what you want from each other and can promise each other. A strategic friendship.”
Naturally it’s difficult to change the research culture, in which investing in communication by colleagues is often correlated with lower levels of scientific achievement. But Van der Meij has given a number of concrete recommendations to the ZKO management. These include discussing and coming to understandings about communication between the NWO and researchers. “I expect that within a few years the assessment system for thematic research won’t be based simply on the number of publications any more. That will help to increase the value placed on communication.”

The management report from the internship (in Dutch) can be found on the ZKO website