Leveraging knowledge for impact
Bridging the collaboration gap between science and decision-making
Effective interaction between science and policy is widely acknowledged as critical to addressing today’s complex and urgent global challenges. How do we enhance evidence-based decision-making? How do we leverage science and knowledge effectively to advance on the Sustainable Development Goals? Why does the collaboration gap seem so persistent? Is erosion of trust in science and the rise of populist politics making such collaboration more difficult at a time when it is sorely needed?
This topic is often referred to as the science-policy interface. It can be useful, however, to broaden this lens. For the purposes of this article and for lack of better terms, I refer to “knowledge-generators” and “decision-makers”. By knowledge-generators I mean scientists, academics, researchers, experts — people whose primarily role is to develop and disseminate knowledge. By decision-makers, I do not mean only people with high levels of authority but all the stakeholders who decide to act individually or collectively in ways that significantly influence outcomes related to a given societal challenge.
I approach this topic from the perspective of a facilitator of cross-sector and multi-stakeholder processes in situations of complexity, uncertainty, and polarisation. In this article, I offer three practical examples from our work at Reos Partners, from which I draw out three inter-connected success factors for bridging the collaboration gap:
- Creating “third spaces”
- Incorporating the “pull factor”, and
- Building sustained and trusting relationships.
Three practical examples
Example 1: Developing alternatives to the War on Drugs
At the Summit of the Americas in 2012, then Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos raised a concern that the war on drugs was failing. He said, “sometimes we all feel that we have been pedaling on a stationary bicycle. We look to our right and our left and we still see the same landscape.” At the Press Conference following the meeting, Santos announced that a mandate had been issued to the Organization of American States to “analyze the results of the current policy in the Americas and to explore new approaches to strengthen this struggle and to become more effective”.
This mandate led to a process to deliver two interconnected outputs: The first was an “analytical report” analysing the causes of the problematic drug situation, developed by more than 50 leading experts and academics. The second was a “scenarios report”, exploring possible future pathways of the phenomenon, developed by 46 leading stakeholders, from across sectors, countries, and ideological perspectives. This latter group was called the “Scenario Team”.
The two processes ran staggered and in parallel. The analytical process started first, so that a draft of the analytical report could be fed into the scenarios process. Meanwhile, the five “chapter leads” from the analytical team participated also in the Scenario Team on an equal footing with other stakeholders. The analytical report was not finalized until the Scenario Team had also had a chance to give their feedback and to highlight key questions that they would like it to answer.
This process potentially offers a model for the science-policy interface that could be applied to other issues. Scenario construction is a powerful way to work with decision-makers based on evidence. In developing scenarios, stakeholders need to test the logic and plausibility of possible futures. To do this, they need to understand what is known about the past and present. They seek out and process existing knowledge and on that basis develop a creative, legitimate, and collective owned output, which allows for divergent perspectives and priorities to be reflected. They explore and illuminate together the future implications of decisions with content experts serving as a sounding board. The use of story allows for a collective creation process and the building of a common narrative.
Co-authored by 50 experts, the analytical part of the OAS Drugs Report gave voice to existing knowledge and research. Meanwhile, the scenarios part gave voice to uncertainty, to divergence, to mindsets, and to the possible implications of difficult choices and trade-offs. Both the decision-makers and the knowledge-generators were motivated and incentivised to exchange: The decision-makers needed the analysis to be able to formulate scenarios and the knowledge-generators were assured that their knowledge was being received and applied. The results were released together in May 2013 — with the scenarios making the output more stimulating and legitimate and the analysis making the output more grounded and credible.
The two-part report was delivered to all the heads of state of the region. It was debated at the General Assembly of the OAS, the Pan-American Health Organization and many other events. The New York Times wrote that the report “effectively breaks the taboo on considering alternatives to the current prohibitionist approach”, and the Secretary General of the OAS, José Miguel Insulza said “the report has set a “before” and an “after” in our way of addressing the drug phenomenon.”
Example 2: People-centred justice transformation
Working with the Hague Institute for Innovation of Law (www.hiil.org), Reos Partners has supported the development of a methodology for people-centred justice transformation called the Justice Transformation Lab (JTL). Core to this method is that it is on the one hand evidence-based and evidence-building, and on the other hand participatory and promoting stakeholder ownership of solutions.
The starting point of a Justice Transformation Lab is usually evidence-gathering in the form of a Justice Needs and Satisfaction survey (JNS) for a specific country or region. The JNS collects the voices of thousands to reveal people’s actual legal problems and their experiences with trying to solve them. The HiiL dashboard presents this data from multiple countries, along with outlining seven categories of gamechanging solutions and examples of successful justice innovations based on international research accompanied by learning from HiiL’s Justice Acceleration programme.
In the JTL, a diverse group of justice stakeholders works through a structured process whereby they draw on this data and evidence to meet the tasks that they set out for themselves. The data from the JNS is used to inform the setting of people-centred justice goals to ensure that priorities are addressing the most prevalent and serious justice problems encountered by ordinary people. Understanding of what works locally is combined with international knowledge of gamechanging solutions to stimulate development of justice pathways. There is an explicit acknowledgment of the complexity of different environments and that what works in one place may not work in the same way elsewhere.
During the JTL process, stakeholders may pull in further knowledge through requesting rapid “deep dive” research from HiiL on topics of their choice. As they work on goals and pathways, they are supported by content coaches who are aware of what has been learned in the past or elsewhere. The intentionality and agency rests with the stakeholders: they decide when and how to draw on the knowledge of the research team.
In the context of this work, Maurits Barendrecht, Director of Research at HiiL said to me, “if you work only with the opinions and intuition of the stakeholders in the room, you are missing out on so much more knowledge that the world has to offer.” In my experience, many multi-stakeholder processes are limited in this way, believing that ownership will be compromised if expertise is brought in from outside. The question the Justice Transformation Lab continually balances is how to leverage this knowledge in a way that doesn’t undermine the ownership and dignity of decision-makers and hence their motivation and leadership.
The JTL process is not only evidence-based but also evidence-building: As new experiences are gained, new innovations are tested, and the processes are evaluated, new knowledge is also generated. As stated by HiiL Justice Innovation Researcher Kanan Dhru, “it’s a two-way process.”
Example 3: Accelerating the energy transition
The Electricity Innovation Lab, or “e-Lab” for short, is a group of thought leaders and decision makers from across the US electricity sector, who have come together to solve key problems at the frontier of the energy transition. It is convened by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), an independent, non-profit think and do-tank with a mission to “transform the global energy system to secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all”. The Lab convenes those who can change the trajectory of the industry and supports them to co-create strategic pathways and to test and spread practical solutions.
The e-Lab applies multiple strategies and hosts a portfolio of interconnected initiatives to facilitate demonstrable change. The annual e-Lab “Summit”, the annual e-Lab “Accelerator”, and the interaction between the two offers a particularly interesting model to leverage knowledge for impact. The Summit works on the strategic level on industry-wide issues that need to be solved, while the Accelerator works on the tactical level on delivery of energy transition solutions on the ground.
The Summit gathers leaders focused on energy transition across the US including universities, cities, companies, NGOs, solution providers, customers, investors, policy-makers and regulators. This group works together over three days on 7–8 thorny shared challenges — not issues of a single company or sector but of the industry as a whole. An example is the cost and benefit of solar power, how to price solar and connect it to the overall electricity grid.
The Accelerator gathers 10–12 multi-stakeholder teams of 5–7 people who are working together on a specific local or regional project related to energy transition. It is structured as a 4-day working meeting that helps teams to advance their projects in a high-energy, focused, and collaborative environment. During the event, the e-Lab Accelerator teams are supported by a group of expert “faculty”, drawn primarily from the eLab network (including the Summit participants), who are in the room during the meeting, available to the stakeholders as they work. The faculty offer relevant thematic teaching sessions at certain times during the Accelerator process but also provide coaching and advice tailored to the specific initiative, as well as “network weaving”: connecting the cohorts to useful knowledge, people, and activities. The faculty meet briefly multiple times a day during the Accelerator to check what may be needed and exchange observations. The work builds on the extensive technical expertise and knowledge base of RMI. In this way, the e-Lab helps coalitions close to the ground to build momentum, leverage expertise, and harness peer support. The open exchange and learning between industry experts and practitioners in turn provides fertile ground for identifying industry-level issues relevant to e-Lab Summit.
Prior to setting up the e-Lab, RMI was already identifying and communicating about stuck problem areas of the industry and possible ways to solve them. But the impact of this knowledge has been amplified and the level of ambition, connection, and imagination of key industry stakeholders have been increased through setting up the e-Lab. By bringing stakeholders and thought leaders together in e-Lab, RMI has been able to engage a much wider network in solving problems together. Based on their ongoing research work, RMI continues to nourish and inform the work of e-Lab network. One of the Accelerator participants noted that “in 4 days, we achieved what would have taken 9 months”, and the faculty also cite the Accelerator as a highlight because of the intense and meaningful engagement with people who are really trying to shift the status quo.
Three success factors
Success factor 1: Creating “third spaces”
All three of these examples testify to the value of third spaces that are not the space of scientific research, academia, and peer review (like universities) nor the space of politically negotiated decision-making (like parliaments). Often, efforts to bridge science and policy try to link these two spaces up directly. By rather creating a third space, where knowledge-generators and decision-makers can work together over time around shared challenges, a “container” can be built that is conducive to leveraging knowledge for impact. Such spaces carry different names, including for example social labs, policy labs, collaboration platforms, and regulatory sandboxes.
Third spaces are generally created around a shared challenge or purpose — in the examples above, addressing the drug problem, enhancing people-centred justice, or accelerating energy transitions. Preferably, they are oriented towards production of a shared output, such as goals, pathways, scenarios, policy options or prototype initiatives. The co-creation of this shared output, rather than just an open dialogue or learning space, allows for stakeholder ownership. When an output is owned by stakeholders who have diverse and significant spheres of influence, and those stakeholders have an interest in the output being shared and actioned, it has a much higher degree of success.
Co-creation of a shared output doesn’t necessarily require agreement on policy or at the level of values and beliefs. Even groups with divergent interests and perspectives may collectively produce a series of “what if’s” (scenarios) and/or “how to’s” (prototype initiatives or other solution-oriented knowledge like the HiiL gamechangers). This can be done without necessarily directing the policy decisions that will subsequently be negotiated and adopted informed by this output through the appropriate political fora and procedures.
Paul Ladd, Director of UNRISD, pointed out at the Coimbra seminar in 2021 that an additional category of participants can usefully be added to this third space in addition to “knowledge-generators” and “decision-makers”, which is the “pressure-builders” — for example youth, activists, or people directly affected by the issues. Having this voice of pressure in the process can bring in an ingredient of urgency that enhances the focus and commitment of the knowledge-generators and the decision-makers.
Success factor 2: Incorporating the “pull factor”
Over the years, I have witnessed many experts unsuccessfully trying to “push” their knowledge to a passive, distracted, unreceptive or suspicious audience. This can be particularly painful to watch in situations where race, gender, and colonial power dynamics are also present in the room.
When reports gather dust or presentations meet resistance or fall on deaf ears, this does not necessarily mean that the knowledge is useless. Perhaps it is before its time or relevant for a small but important niche of work. Perhaps it is simply intrinsically valuable. In many situations, it is due to a lack of attention to the audience and to the process by which the knowledge is shared and exchanged. In particular, leveraging knowledge for action involves activating a “pull” factor, whereby the knowledge is wanted, invited, and actively sought out by relevant and interested decision-makers.
In the three above-mentioned examples, the act of defining a collective task to co-create a shared output is one way of creating a pull factor. This task requires decision-makers to seek and process knowledge, integrate it with their own imperatives and practical experiences, consider its meaning and implications, and identify their uncertainties and knowledge gaps. They are empowered in their agency, but they will not succeed in the task they have set out for themselves without actively pulling knowledge towards them.
Enabling the pull factor is not only about generating the motivation to seek out the knowledge, but also about creating effective and attractive mechanisms for proactively accessing it. For example by having faculty available in the room as in the e-Lab, creating an online knowledge dashboard and “deep dive” research opportunities as in the Justice Transformation Labs, or interacting with the production of an analytical report and expert group as in the Drugs Scenarios.
The effectiveness of the pull factor is also about the dynamic that is created between the decision-makers and the knowledge. Even if the expertise is invited into the process, are the knowledge-generators on a pedestal, lecturing the decision-makers and then leaving the room? Or are they also open to learning and engaging? Is the knowledge turned into raw material to build on and work with, for example in the form of audio-visual materials, visually appealing maps hung on a wall around which a dialogue can take place, or as interactive workmats or card decks that the decision-makers can choose from and build on? There are many creative and interactive ways to process knowledge in a way that stimulates its use for idea generation and action.
Success factor 3: Building sustained and trusting relationships
The urgency and complexity of today’s and tomorrow’s problems means stakeholders need to act and take decisions on imperfect knowledge. Scientists for good reason hesitate to provide definitive answers. Decision-makers can’t necessarily wait for research to be completed. This is an argument for building ongoing relationships between knowledge providers and decision-makers through which they can engage in cycles of action and learning around topics of shared concern.
Further, in a world of increasing polarization, knowledge lands in a social and political context in which it is not necessarily easily absorbed. Scientists often seem baffled by people not acting in the interest of their long-term survival or even their short-term benefit (as perceived by the scientists), as well as with the declining interest in truth. In an article entitled “More Faust than Frankenstein” (2001), Joyce Tait argues that while interest-based conflicts can usually be resolved by the provision of information, compensation, or negotiation, in the case of values and ethics-based conflicts, “information is viewed as propaganda, compensation is viewed as bribery, and negotiation is viewed as betrayal”.
The most pressing issues we face — climate change, inequality, disinformation, etc — are today the subject of such values- and beliefs-driven conflicts. If science is to be leveraged effectively for addressing these issues, it will need to be combined with a capability to understand political dynamics and to navigate divergent viewpoints and narratives. At the same time, sometimes the truth hurts, and if decision-makers are to be effective in advancing their agendas, they also need a capability to navigate uncomfortable truths. Sustained collaborative relationships between knowledge-generators and decision-makers can help to understand the social and political context in which knowledge needs to be adopted as well as building the courage and openness to listen to and engage with what the knowledge-generators have to say. All the examples above involve building teams and collaborative partnerships between knowledge-generators and decision-makers that recognise the legitimacy of both these roles as well as their complementarity.
The practice of collaboration
It is important to acknowledge that collaboration across divergent logics is not easy, and it is natural that knowledge-generators and decision-makers speak different languages and have different imperatives. Simply connecting one to the other is not going to be sufficient. Collaboration becomes easier in the presence of familiar relationships and collaborative capabilities, both of which require time to establish. Third spaces provide a container in which these relationships and capabilities can be built and practiced in the context of shared thematic concerns, and where the pull factor can be applied.
True collaboration requires a certain level of humility and openness from both those who tend to see themselves as “experts” and those who tend to see themselves as “authorities”. To address the complex societal challenges we face, it is crucial to embrace the key contributions of knowledge-generators, decision-makers, and pressure-builders, and to build, accelerate, and amplify processes and spaces where interdependence can be recognised and complementarity can be activated.
***
This blog is adapted from a talk delivered at a Coimbra Group seminar entitled “The Coimbra Group Meets the UN”, 21–22 October, 2021. The Coimbra group is an association of European multi-disciplinary universities committed to promoting internationalization, academic collaboration, excellence in learning and research, and service to society.
(Illustrations by Toa Maes)
