from July 2004, Vol 3. Living Knowledge, the International Journal of Community Based Research
Summary:
In the first section, there is a discussion of general approaches to developing policy options for policy makers. A broad contrast is made between policies formulated through rational process and policies as the outcomes of value conflict. The second section is more focused on how Science Shop evaluation projects can produce change in the policies and activities of the voluntary groups where students have conducted their research. The link between evidence and acceptance of findings is made, though experienced evaluators agree that there is no guarantee that recommendations will necessarily be implemented. Finally, in the third section, an example is provided from one of the 2004 projects, in an inner-city area of Liverpool. This brings the discussion down to earth with extracts from a project which has produced detailed policy options for a voluntary group to follow, in improving its community café and pre-school provision.
Exerpt related to PolicyOption Issue Briefs:
She argues that social science findings do impact on policy decisions, but often not directly but indirectly in the longer term, through the ‘percolation’ of ideas that help to structure the ways administrators and politicians think about policy issues. In such a world of diffuse policy decisions, with multiple sources of authority and disjointed mechanisms for producing policy, the rationality approach for presenting policy options, as given above, do not seem to apply. Instead, Weiss suggests that a diffuse process of ‘enlightenment’ is a more realistic view of how policy making operates. Social science information may not be used directly, but may be picked up later as knowledge is more generally disseminated, when many of the details of research findings are lost but the headlines are remembered. Social science has the possibility of operating at this diffuse level to
- frame the questions,
- subject old assumptions to practical test and
- introduce alternative perspectives into the policy process.
This may be somewhat comforting for researchers in suggesting that limited immediate short-term impact on policy should be balanced against longer-term influence. Science Shop projects, in other words, may not lead to specific action in the near future, but could have an effect long after the student and academic supervisor have left the scene. Whether for the short or long term, researchers do have an obligation to present their findings in ways to which policy makers can respond. Science Shop reports need to be written for usage.
As Hogwood and Gunn (1984) insist:
"There is no easy way of resolving the tensions between the danger of neglecting possible consequences of a given option and the danger of flooding the decision maker with too much material. The most effective compromise is probably a brief in the form of an ‘options paper.’ ... Each option should be described briefly in terms of (a) the course of action involved; (b) the costs and benefits in summary form. Among the costs and benefits which might be included are financial implications, manpower implications, social impact, likely reaction by groups and organisations to selection of that option, and (if appropriate) the party and electoral implications. A recommendation about selecting one or more options might be made at the end of the paper. Above all, it is essential to keep such a paper to a readable length for a busy person, yet provide relevant information.’"
footnote:
