This article is written by Tanyah Hameed, research and policy associate at the Government Outcomes Lab at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford

The outbreak of Covid-19 has presented the world with a dual crisis: a health crisis, and a public policy crisis.

On the healthcare side, the race for a vaccine has led to at least three promising candidates. Meanwhile, researchers and policymakers are still striving to assess and emulate best practice within public policy.

Arguably, the challenge on this front is much broader, with many variables at play and limited clarity on what truly “works”.

Commonly asked questions include: What are the best approaches to social distancing? What is the right balance between closing down large sections of the economy through lockdowns, and grappling with the stark economic consequences — particularly in economies with large informal sectors and limited safety nets? How should public awareness campaigns be designed?

For now, the evidence is partial at best.

Challenges of working between academia and policy-making

As a public policy research centre based at Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government, my team and I at the Government Outcomes Lab (GO Lab) have found ourselves at an exciting junction. Due to a unique partnership between the UK government and the University of Oxford, we work closely with both policymakers and academics.

There is a risk that by the time relevant research is published, the world might have already moved on

Our research benefits from access to practical insights and data, while supporting evidence-based policymaking. This year, we have acted as a neutral sounding board and advised on Covid-19 adaptation in our role as researchers. However, straddling these two worlds also comes with significant challenges.

While Covid-19 has increased policymakers’ appetite for evidence-based policy, differences in organisational culture and ways of working can encumber this process. Bridging research with actual practice, in our experience, runs into problems due to four main reasons:

Time horizons

Research and evaluation projects are time-consuming. The process of acquiring ethical approvals, collecting data, and being peer-reviewed can stretch out over several years.

While this upholds the credibility of research teams, it can be in sharp contrast to the needs of policymakers. Ministers and senior officials might need to be briefed at short notice, based on readily available information. Important decisions might need to be made quickly, with public pressure to act decisively taking precedence over a detailed study of evidence. There is a risk that by the time relevant research is published, the world might have already moved on.

Time pressures are particularly acute during a crisis like Covid-19. Although there is high demand for robust evidence on “what works”, when implementing lockdowns, setting up testing and tracing systems, and offering economic stimulus packages, there is a lack of definitive answers.

Individual countries have taken different approaches to dealing with Covid-19. While some countries, such as Sweden and Italy, were initially lauded, their approaches are now increasingly questioned as the second wave sweeps across Europe.

Others, such as Taiwan and New Zealand, continue to be heralded as the ones to emulate. However, significant differences in demographics, prior experience (such as SARS), and integration with international trade and travel networks make direct comparisons difficult

Still others, such as Pakistan, appear to have escaped the worst of the pandemic despite weaker measures. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. More bespoke research is needed before we can say any one of these approaches is “best.”

Tone of communication

Returning to how policymakers and researchers can better work together, it's important to highlight how the customary tone of communication may differ between academia and practice. Researchers are expected to be independent. Their outputs must reflect nuance and caution, often through a clear statement of caveats and limitations within their work.

However, this restraint might be seen as under-confidence in other spaces (such as government), where actors might be expected to give clear answers. Politicians might prefer to project more optimism and success around policies than academics might be comfortable with.

Culture and professional norms

Organisational culture and norms in academia favour rigour and detailed study of a carefully defined research question. This requires employing researchers who have deep expertise in their subject area.

Conversely, civil servants and policymakers often rely on pragmatism. The constantly evolving policy landscape requires them to have a broader, more transferable skill set. Given these vastly different ways of working, liaising on projects between academic and policy teams can be complicated.

A strong spirit of partnership is fundamental to making collaborations between academia and policy work

Although Covid-19 touches on many aspects of public policy, the structure and funding of research teams can mean they have insights for only part of what is needed. Partnering up with policy teams to provide quick evidence is hence most useful when the research team already holds relevant knowledge.

The benefits and limitations of scientific advice

Ultimately, there are limitations to scientific advice. Harmonising evidence with politics is not always straightforward. The UK’s response to Covid-19 has led to reflection on a potential “split” between politics and science.

Some worried that British ministers might have been “leading the science, rather than following it”. Others wondered whether having scientific evidence is indeed enough. Personal judgement might still be needed to guide difficult decisions, and evidence cannot fully counter the arbitrariness of outcomes.

Despite these challenges, our experience has shown us the benefits of working in partnerships involving both academia and practice.

Such arrangements can be mutually beneficial. On the one hand, governments can access independent and impartial evidence while providing the impetus for long-term research agendas that will yield critical insights for future policy.

On the other hand, researchers can access crucial data and practical insights. Their work has a higher chance of reaching key decision-makers, thereby amplifying its impact. GO Lab has benefited from unique approaches on both sides.

It benefits from the focus on applied and engaged research within Blavatnik School of Government. It also enjoys a partnership with the Office for Civil Society in the UK government, where there is an appetite for reflective and evidence-led policymaking.

Key ingredients for effective partnerships

A strong spirit of partnership is fundamental to making collaborations between academia and policy work. Strong relationships and trust play a pivotal role in addressing tensions. Understanding and respecting each other’s differing approaches helps build clear expectations.

Most importantly, shared objectives around evidence-led policymaking and improving social outcomes for some of the most vulnerable individuals ensure wider alignment, and can help both sides adapt to “the new normal”. — Tanyah Hameed

(Picture credit: Unsplash)