In recent years, we have seen increased interest in global issues such as climate change, sustainable development, cybersecurity, and global supply chains, among other core issues whose impacts ripple across different regions. In line with this, more researchers have delved into studies, keen on uncovering new data that they can use to offer more insights on these global issues in a bid to better the world. At the same time, we have seen governments and other authorities go hard at work to determine what courses of action they can take to improve their resource efficiency while also protecting their people. And while these two groups have a symbiotic relationship, it is not uncommon for them to be on entirely different pages when it comes to deciding the best way forward.
Collaborative research networks, abbreviated as CRNs, come in to fill the gap that exists between the actual data derived and the decisions made based on this data. In this page, we look at how these CRNs are vital to the development of sound policies, more so in the international context.
The Types of Collaborative Research Networks
Given that collaborative research networks (CRNs) aim at solving different kinds of problems by involving different participants, they tend to vary when it comes to their setups. However, for the most part, the CRNs below are the most common when it comes to global policy discussions:
Disciplinary Networks
When it comes to fields such as science and economics, policy changes often hit a wall when disagreements arise as to the right approach. For example, if scientists in France use one model to determine the level of the sea rise, yet those in Japan use another, then another country might have trouble deciding which of the two options it should use as the standard.
To avoid this back-and-forth, policymakers often rely on disciplinary networks. These networks comprise experts from a given field who come together to assess the available data, discuss the best courses of action, and thus make objective recommendations based on the same data. In this way, they are able to transform individual opinions into collective and authoritative evidence that policymakers can use to support their decisions.
Cross-Disciplinary Networks
While disciplinary networks are effective when discussing issues that affect a specific field, such as epidemiology or economics, policy changes rarely center on one discipline. As such, disciplinary networks often fall short when policymakers are tackling complex issues whose effects are felt across different disciplines. For this reason, you find that cross-disciplinary networks are much more common.
How Do They Work?
These networks comprise experts from different disciplines who offer their input, thus helping the policy makers take in the bigger picture if they are to move forward with a change.
Say, for example, that policymakers want to propose a smart city. If they relied on only engineers, then their focus would be on the technical build. But if they involved other disciplines, they would realize that the city’s practicality and sustainability would rely on more than just its infrastructure. Sociologists would weigh in on how the technology would affect different age groups, legal scholars would look into how data collection would impact privacy, and economists would do the math on whether the government could afford to maintain such a city and whether the costs would spill over to residents. These are but examples of the different yet informed opinions that the policy makers would be privy to in such a setting.
Thanks to the synergy that these networks provide, policy makers favor them as their recommendations are more likely to augur well with the public and the law.
Regional and Transnational Networks
Disciplinary and cross-disciplinary networks often focus on breaking down research findings or scientific processes. But when applying these findings across borders, as is often the case with global policies, a few issues arise. To start with, there is the risk that what serves as a solution in one region could pose a problem for another region. Secondly, when regions borrow ideas from each other, there is always a need to understand how the same concepts can fit different legal systems and geographic regions. What’s more, there is often the nuance of language barriers, which are often at play when different regions come together to work for the common good.
In these and other cases, regional and transnational networks are often preferred. These networks, which involve experts from the affected regions, ensure that policy changes rely on harmonized data and that the recommended strategies are fair to all parties involved.
Take the example of a pandemic affecting different countries. Experts from each region would work together to come up with a reporting format that hospitals in all the affected countries could use. This harmonization would allow the experts to have access to adequate data from which they could review trends and inform policymakers of the same.
Issue-Focused Networks
When experts come together in disciplinary networks, they are tied together by the similarity of their disciplines, such as virology or dentistry. Issue-focused networks, on the other hand, are not defined by similarities in fields. Instead, they come down to what the experts want to fix. For instance, experts from different fields may come together to determine how they can end plastic pollution in the country, with each of them lending their unique expertise on the matter.
The Unique Advantages
These issue-focused networks tend to be highly inclusive, such that they comprise scientists, community leaders, and activists. In this way, they are able to integrate people’s lived experiences with academic data in order to determine what is workable. In addition to inclusivity, issue-focused networks tend to focus more on social impact than scientific truths. More often than not, they gear towards changing the laws or protecting specific groups of people.
You also find that, unlike disciplinary networks, which use peer reviews and remain neutral, issue-focused networks rely on advocacy to put pressure on policymakers. Interestingly, you find that these networks often get their raw data from disciplinary networks, which they then turn into actionable insights for their public campaigns.
Policy-Practice Networks
In the past, policymakers and researchers have often worked separately. The researchers would delve into core issues affecting society and come up with findings. Then, they would present the policymakers with the reports and their recommendations, thus leaving the policymakers to implement the strategies discussed in the papers.
But now, you find that many policymakers have turned to policy-practice networks where they work hand-in-hand with researchers from the get-go in order to come up with a solution together.
Why Are These Networks Growing?
Policy-practice networks have emerged as an effective way for researchers and policymakers to be on the same page. How?
First, there is the issue of the differences between what may sound good on paper and what can work in the real world. Take the example of a waste management system. A professor can easily design a system that promises to clean up the city in months. But on presenting this to the city council, the members may find that not only do they lack the funds to create such a system, but it would also contravene their agreements with the labor union. As such, the idea, while great on paper, would remain just a theory. By working together, policymakers are able to advise researchers on the resources available and the nuances they must consider in their recommendations.
To add to this, feedback loops have often been a problem. Researchers would spend months or years on ideas only to present them and find that they were unacceptable. But with real-time collaboration, researchers can get the permission they need to run a test program, collect data, and present their findings to policymakers within a short period. This way, they can work on addressing the challenges together and refining the concept such that by the time they launch the final project, they have mitigated most of the associated risks.
And, of course, there is the buy-in hurdle. Researchers often face pushback from policymakers when suggesting policy recommendations. And in many cases, this stems from the lack of ownership on the part of the policymakers, as they seldom have a say in the development of the policies. In some instances, they might even look at the reports as a negative review of their performance. But when they have been part of the project from the start, they see it as their own and are more likely to see it through to completion and implement the findings.
How Collaborative Researchers Foster Dialogue
Each of the collaborative networks we have discussed results in key findings that can shape public policies. But these are just reports at the end of the day. How do they get transformed into roadmaps that affect people’s lives? Well, it all comes down to collaboration.
For real and practical policy changes to take place, researchers must create opportunities where they share their findings and receive feedback from their peers and other stakeholders as they work towards acceptable solutions that can inform policies around the world.
Here is how they do this:
Workshops and Policy Forums
Standard government meetings focus on briefing people on a decision that has already been made. As such, they are often formal in a way that the policymaker leads the conversation and uses scientific findings to justify a political decision.
Workshops and policy forums are quite different. Rather than researchers presenting their research and calling it a day, they invite feedback and questions from their audience, which often comprises policymakers and other stakeholders.
Why Is This A Good Thing?
Dialogue minimizes the risk of misinterpretation. In a standard report, a policymaker can easily misinterpret a statistic and use it to inform their decisions. But in a forum, the researcher gets to explain everything in the report, including nuances such as confidence levels, sample sizes, and limitations. Policymakers are also able to ask questions on how the data can affect their decisions moving forward. Thanks to this collaboration, nothing gets lost in translation, and policymakers leave the discussion with adequate and verified information.
Secondly, these discussions address uncertainty. While researchers love uncertainty, policymakers are not too fond of it. As such, by having a dialogue, policymakers are able to get concrete information on the probabilities of certain events taking place. This way, they can come up with contingency plans if things do not go as planned, rather than working with the hope that everything works in their favor.
To top it all off, these discussions pave the way for joint ownership. Every time policymakers and researchers spend time debating strategies, the final policy is often the result of a negotiated agreement. And because all stakeholders played a part in its creation, they are more likely to support it.
Joint Publications and Reports
Researchers often write academic papers to share their findings with the world. But sometimes, their research can get buried under other papers due to the increasing number of publications in the modern world. Luckily, research networks are able to bypass this issue through joint publications and reports, which are designed to serve as scientific as well as diplomatic resources.
These reports are often aimed at advising government leaders, CEOs, and NGOs on how to solve existing problems through objective strategies, and their focus is often on sparking changes in national and global policies for the good of society.
How These Publications Encourage Dialogue
In politics, it is quite common for differences in expert opinions to serve as a roadblock to policy changes. After all, if scientist 1 says X is correct, but scientist 2 believes Y is the answer, who should policymakers trust? Joint reports harmonize data from different institutions and thus create a report that honors the nuances present in different organizations and regions. For example, if the World Bank, the five top universities, and the International Energy Agency work together, they present a unified front. And in this way, it becomes easier for policymakers to trust the findings in the report as the risk of bias reduces significantly.
But these reports do not only address contrasting opinions. They also mitigate the risk of low or no buy-in from policymakers. How? By including experts from different regions and specialties, researchers create reports that have essentially been co-authored by different groups of people. Policymakers can thus adopt the recommendations, knowing that they will not face much pushback from either side, as the reports have addressed competing interests and found a balance.
Policymakers are often willing to rely on these reports to open dialogues relating to the covered issues.
Knowledge Platforms with Adaptive Communication
While research networks focus on coming up with insights to inform policies, their findings are not just for policymakers. If anything, researchers usually strive to create inclusive spaces where everyone can access their data and derive meaning from it, thus setting the ball rolling for dialogue. And the easiest way for them to do this is through knowledge platforms.
How Do These Platforms Work?
Knowledge platforms come in the form of digital repositories where researchers upload their data, case studies, findings, and recommendations. The idea here is to share this knowledge, not just with policymakers, but also with the global community at large, including local communities who are often left out of these vital discussions. As you would imagine, this requires some creativity, as follows:
Layering
Seeing as people have different degrees of interest and understanding in the data provided, these repositories often feature several layers.
The top layer is often for policymakers who want to navigate to the main findings. Here, you find interactive maps which highlight the results, related case studies, and simple visuals that the policymakers can rely on when perusing the site.
In the middle, you find more information, which is often for policy advisors as well as the general public. This section often includes policy briefs, detailed case studies, and data breakdowns, which people can rely on to get a deeper understanding of the core issue.
And at the very bottom, you find the raw data files and API access to more research. This layer often appeals to scientists who want to go further into the findings and perhaps even base other studies on the same data. Other research networks often use this data during their discussions.
Scenario Modeling
Beyond providing visuals and case studies, most of these repositories allow users to work with or play with the data and see what happens. For example, a report on taxation may have a slider tool that allows policymakers to adjust one variable to see how it affects the others. So, they can slide it up and down to figure out which effects the change would have.
Thanks to this variability, different policymakers can use the same tool to see different effects. The finance minister can use the tool to see how it impacts GDP, while the health minister may focus more on the effect on the cost of healthcare. Together, they can work to determine what best suits everyone.
As a plus, researchers are often able to adapt their tools in such a way that policymakers from around the world can input their data into the platform and find solutions that are tailored to their specific circumstances.