.@AnnetteBoaz and @oliver_kathryn introduce #transformure: UK not as good as we think we are at evidence-informed policy; lots of current research, policy and practice interest; need to think beyond barriers and facilitators to evidence use.
Huw Davies tracks the history of evidence-informed policy in the UK from 'what counts is what works' forward. A field that has initiated interesting debate, but (ironically) tended through time towards introspection? #transformure
A plug from Huw for forthcoming update to the classic 'What works?' - to be released by Policy Press early 2019. A critical but supportive reflection on how evidence can inform policy, inc chapter by me & @OliWilliamsPhD on evidence-informed public service delivery. #transformure
Interesting social network analysis from @oliver_kathryn on how people in the room from various disciplinary backgrounds connect with each other. Important overlaps, but a small number of more central nodes hold us together. #transformure
... But the literatures we draw on are more disjointed. Similar questions bring answered in isolation? #transformure
Nick Mays: policymakers tend not to want researchers to make policy recommendations. Research evidence is 1 consideration among many for policymakers, & researchers aren't privy to full range of considerations and tradeoffs that those in policy positions must make. #transformURE
(It may be heresy to say this, but I have a lot of sympathy for this position. Policy is, and should be, political. It should be subject to popular control, one way or another. I may be a scientist, but I don't want to live in a scientocracy. #transformure)
.@Sarah_A_Hartley on the politics of coproduction and co-development in international science collaborations: tech transfer a priority for the global North; capacity development more important to the South #transformure
(As a self-indulgent aside, this piece from a few years ago shows that very similar power relationships can also infuse public involvement in economically developed world countries: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…) #transformure
Interesting debate now about whether #ref2021 drives claims of impact towards individualistic reliance on 1ry research studies: devaluation of evidence synthesis? Or do savvy institutions recognise that impact arises from cumulative influence of research programmes? #transformure
My sense on this is that it may be v discipline-specific. Biosciences #ref2021 panel has indicated that it wants demonstrable population impact (not just 'policy influence'), wants to see new impacts not continued ones, and does not value individual testimony. #transformURE ...
... Does this risk fetishizing the new and exciting, rather than recognising that academic research's real value to society burns more slowly (and is as much about consolidating and correcting as it is about discovering)? #ref2021#transformure
Building on the #ref2021 debate, Ian Viney of the MRC reflects on some of the unintended consequences of measuring (and incentivsing) research impact. #transformure
.@kieran_walshe asks whether some areas of public services might receive more research funding than they merit - diplomatic answer from the panel is that it's a legitimate question that UKRI will have to grapple with #transformure
Rounding off the #transformure day, @VivianT88 discusses @wtgrantfdn's approach to researching research use and acting on findings. Theory-driven approaches and rich empirical evidence central to their programme.
And building a learning community from the groups that have contributed to this research agenda, spanning disciplines (and connecting with other funders and networks internationally) and helping to identify complementary insights as well as divergences. #transformure
#transformure day two. Brian Head begins by suggesting that measuring research impact/uptake might be more defensible where the evidence is technical, specific and prescriptive, and so fidelity might be a reasonable proxy for influence.
.@justinparkhurst examines disciplinary perspectives that might help us to understand the social process of evidence use, including e.g. cognitive psychology and heuristics #transformure
We can move from this towards a normative framework for research utilisation, starting to distinguish between good and bad forms of evidence use. #transformure
.@CairneyPaul presents on his work with @oliver_kathryn on how academics can achieve policy influence: less to do with the skills of the individual 'policy entrepreneur'; more about the environment and connections they gain access to. #transformure
Scientific debate around Covid-19 on Twitter and beyond has become increasingly polarised & unpleasant in recent weeks. It’s not a great look. Ironically, I think it’s less down to scientific disagreement, & more down to the limits of scientific knowledge. A few thoughts. (1/16)
#AcademicTwitter is rarely the civilised, courteous affair that people outside academia might expect of university researchers, but since the pandemic started it’s been particularly rough-and-tumble. (2/16)
I think some of the ill-tempered flare-ups are down to the same pressures facing everyone. Long hours and lack of face-to-face interaction with colleagues take their toll. Recently, though, I think the quality of Covid-19 debate in particular has got worse. (3/16)
A quick preview of my part of a panel presentation with @rwjdingwall & @DrEsmee at the virtual @BSAMedsoc conference this Thursday. You can register at the link below. We’ll be discussing science, policy & society, with face mask policy as a focus. (1/5)
Mask policies have rapidly expanded in the UK & elsewhere. Wearing a mask is seen as the right thing to do. Opposition to mask wearing is portrayed as irrational, reactionary, anti-scientific posturing: see this New Statesman piece, for example. (2/5) newstatesman.com/politics/uk/20…
Masks have become the latest front in the war between the conservative right and the progressive left. Caught in the crossfire are groups for whom enforced mask wearing has important downsides, including often marginalised and seldom-heard groups. (3/5)
Stage 1: There’s nothing in here that’s useful and although I’ve got about 30 different codes, each of them has just one excerpt of data in it so they’re really just interesting things that people have said or done. Why am I an academic?
Stage 2: Ooh, it turns out that two of those codes are really interesting, and although 28 of them have withered and died, these two are blossoming and need to be subdivided into 60 more-nuanced codes.
I've seen plenty of this. But I worry about the opposite as well - that scientists/academics limit themselves to what they can truly claim to be experts on, which by definition tends to be very limited. (1/4)
I've also seen people getting bashed on the basis of ‘this -ology has nothing to say about that -ology’, which is a pretty lazy way of invalidating opposing views. It also doesn’t really do justice to science as an interdisciplinary/collaborative effort. (2/4)
On the other hand, scientists in higher-status disciplines do tend to over-reach more often, and that carries its own risks in terms of the balance of the debate, and the legitimacy ascribed to different disciplinary perspectives. (3/4)
Just a short comment on the face masks policy question. It's generating far more heat than light, on Twitter at least. A polarised, personalised exchange is not helpful to debate or to public health. Therefore this will be my last word on it, at least for a while. (1/4)
I don't think there's much point in engaging with someone who characterises our work as ‘mischief’, who dismisses the contribution of an entire discipline as indifferent armchair commentary, and who (deliberately or otherwise) misconstrues the whole point of our paper. (2/4)
I really appreciate the constructive criticism in good faith of people on both sides of the debate who have engaged here. We’re developing our ideas further (with one or two new collaborators), and our thinking has been strengthened by your critique. (3/4)
These headlines look like they were written before the event. The BBC describes people flocking to Brighton beach, and reports “more than 3000 people” in Brockwell Park, Brixton. The newspapers offer similar accounts of collective irresponsibility. (1/4) bbc.co.uk/news/uk-521720…
That makes it sound like the place was thronging with people, cheek by jowl. In practice, 3000 people over the course of a day in a park of 125 acres looks more like this. (2/4)
The park has now reportedly been closed. There is talk of an outright ban on outdoors exercise.
The lockdown and social distancing may be working: the curve is starting to plateau. Reactionary, oppressive measures will hinder, not help. (3/4) bbc.co.uk/news/uk-521720…