2015_03_24 Fuse exchange seminar

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!