Hybrid management in science-policypractice relations Roland Bal Fuse exchange seminar, 24 March 2015 Based on: Wehrens, Bekker & Bal, STHV, 39(1): 6-41. A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and spotted a woman below. He came lower and shouted, “Excuse me, can you help? I promised a friend I would meet him, but I don’t know where I am”. The woman below replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You’re between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude”. You must be a researcher,” said the balloonist. “I am,” replied the woman, “How did you know?” "Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct, but I’ve no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help at all. If anything, you’ve delayed my trip”. The woman below responded, “You must be a policy maker”. “I am”, replied the balloonist, “but how did you know?” “Well,” said the woman, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You made a promise, which you’ve no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it’s my fault” (Adapted from: Locock & Boaz, 2004). Science and policy: different worlds? •  Within health care literature, much discussion about (cultural) differences between researchers, policy makers and practitioners •  Discourse of strictly separated worlds, with distinctive logics, rationales and incentives •  Experienced ‘lack of fit’ •  Relations between domains are often described in terms of ‘gaps’ •  Proposed solution: ‘gaps’ between research and policy need to be ‘bridged’ Science and policy: different worlds? •  Consequences of two cultures: –  –  –  –  Little manoeuvring space – evidence-bias Creation of ‘implementation problems’ Lack of guidance for practitioners Lack of relation between research and actual problems of citizens Goals of this talk: •  Moving beyond two communities logic to logic of coproduction •  Analysing Dutch Academic Collaborative Centres from this perspective •  Showing the consequences of this vies for practical action in science-policy-practice relations Development of knowledge translation literature in public health •  Rationalistic linear models –  One way process of dissemination –  Research use as instrumental –  Language reflects this (‘transfer’, ‘uptake’) •  Relationship models –  Interactive and incremental: presuming dialogue –  ‘Something’ needs to be done with knowledge before it is used –  Linkage and exchange •  Systems or network models –  Try to incorporate ‘mediating structures’ in which interactions are embedded/shaped –  Emphasize contexts and underlying logics –  Attention to structures and networks in which relations develop But…underlying assumptions remain similar •  Increased complexity, but all rooted in ‘two communities’ logic •  All models assume separated worlds, basic (cultural) differences between domains, and therefore a lack of fit between domains “The two communities construct remains dominant whenever the following assumptions continue: that the researcher and research organizations are outside the policy process; that the point of persuasion is at the interface between the research world and the policy world; and, that the locus of power is in the policy world” (Lin & Gibson, 2003:22) Co-Production “The ways in which we know and represent the world are inseparable from the ways in which we choose to live in it. […] Scientific knowledge [..] both embeds and is embedded in social practices, identities, norms, conventions, discourses, instruments and institutions” (Sheila Jasanoff, 2004, p. 2-3). Co-production as alternative perspective: •  Recognizing the need to study science as a social practice •  Does not start with a priori separation of science and policy as separate domains •  Points towards tightly interwoven character of research and policy in many situations •  Focuses on ‘micro-politics’ of collaboration: how distinctions between domains are drawn and for which purposes Science ‘on stage’ •  Functioning of the Dutch Health Council •  Analysing how such organizations produce credible scientific advice •  Front stage public performances in presentation of advisory reports •  Back stage negotiations and discussions that took place in constructing the report •  ‘Two communities’ metaphor seems to be strategically deployed image / front stage representation Hybrid management “Hybrids can be defined as social constructs that contain both scientific and political aspects, often sufficiently intertwined to render separation a practical impossibility” (Miller, Science, Technology & Human Values, 2001: 480) •  Hybrid management: the processes by which such hybrids are constructed, taken apart, and ordered in relation to each other –  Hybridization –  Deconstruction –  Boundary work –  Cross-domain orchestration The Dutch ‘Academic Collaborative Centres for Public Health’ •  Formal, long term collaborations between PHS’s, university departments and (sometimes) other institutes •  Collaborative infrastructures aimed to better connect researchers, local public health policy makers and professionals The purpose of the ACCs: •  Overall purpose: “structurally strengthening and anchoring demand driven research activities in the area of public health” •  Detailed infrastructure aimed to increase interaction and collaboration •  Research projects in which university researchers and public health professionals collaborate How are the ACCs organized? •  Theme based: focus on specific public health domains (health promotion, infectious diseases, youth health care, elderly health care) •  Development of infrastructure to increase interactions and collaboration between researchers, professionals, policy makers and other stakeholders •  Dual appointments: professionals part-time located at university or university researchers part-time at PHS •  In all ACCs, research projects are conducted in which university researchers and professionals collaborate An empirical example: the ‘Healthy in the City’ project •  Small project conducted within the ‘Small but Beautiful’-format (policy-oriented research format focusing on short projects, similar to AskFuse) •  Modeling study in which a Health Impact Assessment is made in order to calculate which policy measures are necessary to reduce the health disadvantages of the Rotterdam population •  Involved from PHS: –  Supervisory group including several PHS-employees from different departments; –  Healthy Cities policy group (responsible for broader policy program of the PHS) What happened in the ‘Healthy in the City’ project? •  Research shows the relatively low health status of Rotterdam population in comparison to Dutch average •  Local councilor hands in motion •  Motion delegated to PHS, involvement ACC and Erasmus MC •  Supervisory group within PHS: regular meetings •  During 1st presentation the preliminary results where dicussed with PHS policy group (responsible for policy program PHS) •  After mutual adjustment and last-minute revisions the final report is presented to local councilors and aldermen Balancing perspectives and accountability demands •  Required continuous coordination and legitimation work that had to be conducted simultaneously •  Internal coordination work consisted of balancing perspectives and finding workable solutions for dilemmas •  Legitimation work (towards participating organizations and external parties such as the funding organization) consisted of accounting for the decisions that are made and compromises that have been reached Balancing perspectives: This first meeting [ . . . ] was like a Babylonian confusion of tongues of researchers on the one side and policy makers on the other side. The research clearly didn’t give answers to their questions, and they didn’t know what to do with it. In short: it was two hours of chaos. And there was disappointment:the research did not answer the great questions Healthy City stands for—what should we do to make the Rotterdam population healthier? (Interview project coordinator, May 27, 2008) Coordination work: •  Expectation management: –  range of informal discussions among actors involved to help clarify—and make explicit—the expectations of the different groups •  Scenario approach: –  specific interventions (and their effects on known health determinants) were clustered into scenarios that were closely connected to the PHS policy program. Dealing with accountability demands: They [the councillors] found it to be very interesting. They also liked very much to be put back into the college banks again. We purposively did that. We even literally tried to arrange one of those classical round college rooms, but we did not succeed in that. (Interview policy maker PHS, June 26, 2008) Legitimation work: •  After the internal consensus, the primary line of accountability became to convince the local aldermen and Councilors of the results of the project. •  Results of the study not simply handed over: much work went into orchestrating the perspectives of the audience: –  Timing of the report –  Embedding the main findings into broader context –  Creating impression of “science speaking truth to power” Theoretical reinterpretation: hybrid management strategies and boundary work •  Strong emphasis on boundary work in beginning of project through strictly maintained (formal) role division –  Mixed effects: useful for certain legitimation purposes but led to diverging conceptualization of ‘‘evidence’’ and ‘‘relevance’’ •  Strategies shifted to combination of hybridization and crossdomain orchestration –  Expectation management –  Scenario approach •  In presenting the results again emphasis on boundary work –  ‘Science on stage’ Theoretical reinterpretation: front and back stage regions •  Neat distinction between what counts as ‘science’ and what counts as ‘policy’ is only one side of the story •  Front stage representation of the process •  At the same time, continuous back stage negotiations between research and policy actors necessary to reach consensus and discuss different perspectives •  Involvement of Healthy Cities policy group led to heated discussions •  However: because discussions took place back stage it was possible to ‘close the lines’ and orchestrate a coherent front stage performance Discussion: what can we learn from this? –  Dealing with multiple accountability demands involves more than ‘bridging’ different domains à active and strategic (re)construction of malleable and fluid science-policy boundaries –  At some moments, for some purposes, these boundaries are presented as strict; for other purposes and at other moments, boundaries become intentionally blurred –  Orchestrating hybrids means active engagement—here in the scenario approach –  Leading to ‘reflexive guidance’ of practices Thank you!