LIST OF WORKSHOPS

1. OBJECTIVES

The general objective of the workshop is to examine the role of academic policy analysts in the policy process in countries in transition to democracy, and discuss how policy environments influence the role and influence of academics in the policy process compared to that of other actors. It aims to further a debate on:

        i.            What is the role of the academic advisors and bureaucrats in the policy process?

      ii.            What is the relationship between experts (consultants) and politicians in the policy process?

    iii.            How do academic researchers relate to interest groups in the public policy process?

    iv.            What role can/should academic advisors play in the policy process of a given country?

2. CONTEXT:

Public Policy is about actions and inactions of the government, however defined. Policy analysis involve different categories of actors such as Academics, Researchers, bureaucrats and Consultants/Experts. The roles carried by all the categories of policy actors can be traced to the debate on what public policy analysis is about. The debate, as live as it is to date, has its base from the works of Lasswell and Lerner (1951). From the lenses of Lasswell and Lerner (1951), public policy is multi-disciplinary, contextual, problem-oriented, and explicitly normative. Dye (1976) associated policy analysis with the questions of “what governments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes”. As (Shaw 2010) argues, policy scholars often focus on a rationalist framework that conceives of policymaking in terms of clear 'stages' where actors feed evidence into. A political rationalist approach, in turn, recognises that ideas, values, interests and actors interact in a more complex, non- linear way to shape policy. But still, rarely does it treat policy as a discourse framework that recognises that language and social interaction shape policy, thus failing to provide the glossary that they claim to provide. The debate is further enriched  by Zittoun’s analysis of the two faces of Lasswell’ work: the first face involved his production of knowledge in his role as a social scientist, the second was associated with his role as a policy entrepreneur which primarily involved  the provision of recommendations rather than the production of knowledge (Zittoun, 2019). The first Lasswell’s view of public analysis was influenced by Weber (psychology and sociology to grasp political phenomena from a neutral axiology perspective); the second Lasswell produced more applied and normative work in favour of democracy. A critical perspective, approaching the study of government domination through legitimation and the critique of activities in the policy-making process reconciles the two faces of Lasswell’s work (Zittoun 2014).

Policy analysis is two faced, referring both to the analysis of public policy and the analysis for public policy: policy analysis as conducting scientifically-sound research on the one hand, and to bring this knowledge to use by providing policy advice on the other (Schubert, 2009). Policy analysis at universities or affiliated research institutes is often directed at gaining scientific knowledge for which possible applications play a marginal role (Blum, S. and Brans, M. (2017). According to Cobb and Elder (1983) it is highly unlikely that in many cases there will be a direct linear link between the outputs of specific pieces of academic research and changes in public policy. The outputs of academic research, are more likely to influence the broad arena of public policy debate and ideas, rather than the formal ‘institutional’ agenda of governments. Even so, policy analysts, including those from academia, are engaged in numerous activities that may underpin policy advice, such as diagnosing policy problems, pre-evaluating different policy options, or studying the effects of reform efforts (Blum, S. and Brans, M. (2017). To this extent, it follows that academic advisors from the universities can also contribute to public policy analysis as experts; as contributing expert-based information defined as content generated by professional, scientific, and technical methods of inquiry (Adams, 2004; van Kerkhoff & Lebel, 2006). The sources of expert-based information include the social and natural sciences, policy analyses, government reports, and research coming from universities, think tanks, and consulting firms, meaning academic expertise co-exists, concurs or conflicts with expertise from other sources.

3. STATE OF ART:

As Talbot and Talbot (2015) argue, how policy-makers engage with academics is both a current ‘hot’ topic and a perennial problem. Policy initiatives such as the Research Excellence Framework’s (REF) so-called ‘impact agenda’ have ‘pushed’ academics towards seeking more such engagement, whilst others ‘pull’ towards it, such as ‘open policy-making’.

Other than through publications, policymakers can come to learn about or be influenced by scientific expertise through convocation activities through which scientific experts disseminate knowledge, such as workshops, conferences, or speeches. A third form consists of informal communications and personal contacts, such as background talks or personal briefings (Lindquist, 1990). A more recent medium is such information carriers as Twitter. According to Head (2015), the four groups of scientific policy experts include: the ‘mainstream academic’, who gives broad interpretations on policy and has limited direct engagement with practitioners; those who specialize in providing evidence-informed critiques of government policies in a chosen policy sector”; researchers providing applied, direct consultancy services to practitioners (e.g. policy evaluations); and those who take “secondments into advisory roles within public agencies or ministerial of offices” (Head, 2015). All these forms and functions of scientific expertise for policymaking will differ both between policy sectors and between countries. Policy advisory systems go beyond the boundaries of internal government expertise and can include a broad range of actors, such as advisory committees, academic experts, think tanks, civil society organizations, or employer and employee associations (Blum and Brans, 2017). What counts as evidence is defined by institutionally and discursively established conventions that differ between countries and policies.  Straßheim and Kettunen (2014; see also Jasanoff, 2005) see large variances in what counts as evidence in countries with so-called contentious (e.g. the United States), communitarian (e.g. Great Britain), or consensus-seeking styles of expertise (e.g. Germany). Both the general advisory systems and the specific styles of expertise differ between countries. For instance, in a neo-corporatist, institution-based system such as Germany one will find more ‘expert rationality’, often stemming from institutional representatives who are included in advisory bodies, e.g. representatives from the employers’ and employees’ associations.

From the foregoing it is clear, there is a possible disconnect between the works of most policy researchers and most government policies. First, about the content of policy analysis; second, about who are or should be involved in policy advice; third about who policy analysis is addressed to. Whereas it is less contentious that policy analysis indicates a wider interest in the outputs, the determinants, and the consequences of government action (Dye, 1976) and that the three terms of policy analysis, policy studies, and policy research are in practice often used interchangeably (Blum and Brans, 2017), it is not accepted universally, on who should do the analysis and for whom should academic advisors be the ones carrying out government targeted policy analysis? What of the bureaucrats, other experts, interest groups, or even citizens (in citizen science)? And often ignored in national policy advisory research, how to take into account the role of experts from international and donor organisations. Different countries have different approaches to engagement of academic advisors in policy analysis, and the study of these engagements have primarily been studied in the context of Western democracies. There is still much ground to cover on the role of academic advisors in the policy process of transition democracies.

4. Research questions:

The workshop chairs intend to explore answers to the following research questions:

        i.            How complementary are the roles of academic advisors and bureaucrats in the policy process; and should they be complementary?

      ii.            How independent are experts/consultants from politicians’ influence? How can independence be fostered?

    iii.            Do/and should academic researchers take cognisance of the role played by interest groups in the public policy process?

    iv.            Do/should academic advisors set the agenda in the policy making process of a given country, particularly in transition democracies?

5. PAPERS:

The panel is interested in theoretical, methodological and empirical presentations. Although we are interested in empirical cases not sufficiently covered in the international literature, the chairs also welcome conceptual and methodological papers. We particularly welcome case studies from sectors including but not exclusive to Water, Education, Energy, Transport, Communication, with a focus on how academic advisers and other experts are engaged in the policy process, and on how they demonstrate relevance and potential influence. To fill a gap in the literature on knowledge utilization and policy advisory systems, the panel is especially interested in cases of academic advisers’ input in the policy making process in transition democracies.

6. AGENDA:

The workshop will adopt the use of plenary discussions in which individuals will present papers after which breakout sessions will be adopted based on the themes/sectors covered by the presentations.  The breakout sessions are intended for in-depth discussions due to small number and emerging issues captured.  The reports from each break out group will be presented at the plenary to isolate similarities and differences across the sectors. The discussions on the papers is expected to continue across the network for further improvement of the papers. The comments obtained from the participants on each paper will be shared and authors will be encouraged to review and finalize their papers for submission to be considered for possible publication of a book on “Academics, Expertise, and Policy-Making in Transition Democracies”

7. POSSIBLE PAPERS:

Although, the chairs have already identified at least eight participants to do papers, the titles have not yet been finalized. The titles are expected to be ready within the next few days.

How policy-makers engage with academics is both a “current ‘hot’ topic and a perennial problem” (Talbot and Talbot 2015). Policy initiatives such as the Research Excellence Framework’s (REF) or so-called ‘impact agenda’ have ‘pushed’ academics towards seeking more such engagement, whilst others ‘pull’ towards it, such as ‘open policy-making’.

Other than through publications, policymakers can come to learn about or be influenced by scientific expertise through convocation activities through which scientific experts disseminate knowledge, such as workshops, conferences, or speeches. A third form consists of informal communications and personal contacts, such as background talks or personal briefings (Lindquist, 1990). A more recent medium is such information carriers as Twitter. According to Head (2015), academic policy experts are of four types: the ‘mainstream academic’ who gives broad interpretations on policy and has limited direct engagement with practitioners; those who specialize in providing evidence-informed critiques of government policies in a chosen policy sector”; researchers providing applied, direct consultancy services to practitioners (e.g. policy evaluations); and those who take “secondments into advisory roles within public agencies or ministerial of offices”. All these forms and functions of scientific expertise for policymaking will differ between policy sectors and between countries. Policy advisory systems go beyond the boundaries of internal government expertise and can include a broad range of actors, such as advisory committees, academic experts, think tanks, civil society organizations, or employer and employee associations (Blum and Brans, 2017). What counts as evidence is defined by institutionally and discursively established conventions that differ between countries and policies.  Straßheim and Kettunen (see Straßheim & Kettunen, 2014; Jasanoff, 2005) see large variances in what counts as evidence in countries with so-called contentious (e.g. the United States), communitarian (e.g. Great Britain), or consensus-seeking styles of expertise (e.g. Germany). Both the general advisory systems and the specific styles of expertise differ between countries. For instance, in a neo-corporatist, institution-based system such as Germany one will find more ‘expert rationality’, often stemming from institutional representatives who are included in advisory bodies, e.g. representatives from the employers’ and employees’ associations.

It is clear there is a possible disconnect between the works of most policy researchers and most government policies. It is moreover not accepted universally who should do the analysis and for whom academic advisors should be the ones carrying out government targeted policy analysis? What of the bureaucrats, other experts, interest groups, or even citizens (in citizen science)? Often ignored are international policy advisory actors, and how to take into account the role of experts from international and donor organisations. It is acknowledged that different countries have different approaches to engagement of academic advisors in policy analysis, but the study of these engagements have primarily been studied in the context of Western democracies. There is still much ground to cover on the role of academic advisors in the policy process of transition democracies.

Although we are interested in empirical cases not sufficiently covered in the international literature, the chairs also welcome conceptual and methodological papers. We particularly welcome case studies from sectors including but not exclusive to Water, Education, Energy, Transport, Communication, with a focus on how academic advisers and other experts are engaged in the policy process, and on how they demonstrate relevance and potential influence. To fill a gap in the literature on knowledge utilization and policy advisory systems, the panel is especially interested in cases of academic advisers’ input in the policy making process in transition democracies. Papers addressing one or more of the following questions are most welcome:

-          How complementary are the roles of academic advisors and bureaucrats in the policy process; and should they be complementary?

-          How independent are experts/consultants from politicians’ influence? How can independence be fostered?

-          Do/and should academic researchers take cognisance of the role played by interest groups in the public policy process?

-          Do/should academic advisors set the agenda in the policy making process of a given country, particularly in transition democracies?

There is a possible disconnect between the works of most policy researchers and most government policies: first, about the content of policy analysis; second, about who are or should be involved in policy advice; third about who policy analysis is addressed to. Whereas it is less contentious that policy analysis indicates a wider interest in the outputs, the determinants, and the consequences of government action (Dye, 1976) and that the three terms of policy analysis, policy studies, and policy research are in practice often used interchangeably (Blum and Brans, 2017), it is not accepted universally who should do the analysis and for whom should academic advisors be the ones carrying out government targeted policy analysis? What of the bureaucrats, other experts, interest groups, or even citizens (in citizen science)? And often ignored in national policy advisory research, how to take into account the role of experts from international and donor organisations. Different countries have different approaches to engagement of academic advisors in policy analysis, and the study of these engagements have primarily been studied in the context of Western democracies. There is still much ground to cover on the role of academic advisors in the policy process of transition democracies. 

Joseph Obosi holds a PhD in Political Science and Public Administration from the University of Nairobi. He teaches Public Policy & Administration, Comparative Politics and Research Methods at the University of Nairobi. He recently, in Collaboration with Partnership for Social and Governance Research (PASGR) conducted Engaged Public Policy Research course. He has about 20 publications in books and refereed journals in the areas of water sector reforms, privatization of water delivery, Private-Public Partnerships, and Health governance. He also coordinates Public Policy and Research Programmes at the Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Nairobi. He is also a College member of International Public Policy Association. He successfully conducted E-Summer school on Advanced Research Design for IPPA in 2020.

Prof Gerda Van Dijk holds D.Phil (Public Administration), University of Pretoria and teaches Public Administration and Management at the University of Pretoria. She has supervised a number of Students and published widely in international journals and books. She recently facilitated a Critically Engaged Research Course in Collaboration with Partnership for Social and Governance Research (PASGR). Her research interests are in Leadership development, Power and Gender and policy engagement Dr. Olivia A. Opere holds a PhD in Sociology of Education and a Master of Education Degree in Educational Foundations. She is an accomplished educationist. Her area of expertise includes transformative education fields such as Peace Education, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and Global Citizenship Education (GCED). She is a researcher with extensive field and desk research experience. She is a member UNESCO IICBA’s advisory group on Advancing Genocide and Global Citizenship Education to Strengthen the Prevention of Atrocity Crimes in Africa. She is an Earth Charter affiliate and a member of the Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education Olivia recently won a Commonwealth Peace and Reconciliation Challenge Grant award.