Supporting evidence-informed policy and scrutiny: A consultation of UK research professionals
dc.contributor.author | Walker, LA | |
dc.contributor.author | Lawrence, NS | |
dc.contributor.author | Chambers, CD | |
dc.contributor.author | Wood, M | |
dc.contributor.author | Barnett, J | |
dc.contributor.author | Durrant, H | |
dc.contributor.author | Pike, L | |
dc.contributor.author | O'Grady, G | |
dc.contributor.author | Bestmann, S | |
dc.contributor.author | Kythreotis, AP | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-17T14:40:47Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2019-03-26 | |
dc.date.updated | 2022-01-17T14:15:32Z | |
dc.description.abstract | Access to reliable and timely information ensures that decision-makers can operate effectively. The motivations and challenges of parliamentarians and policy-makers in accessing evidence have been well documented in the policy literature. However, there has been little focus on research-providers. Understanding both the demand- and the supply-side of research engagement is imperative to enhancing impactful interactions. Here, we examine the broader experiences, motivations and challenges of UK-based research professionals engaging with research-users relevant to policy-making and scrutiny in the UK using a nationwide online questionnaire. The context of the survey partly involved contributing to the UK Evidence Information Service (EIS), a proposed rapid match-making service to facilitate interaction between parliamentary arenas that use evidence and research-providers. Our findings reveal, at least for this sub-sample who responded, that there are gender-related differences in policy-related experience, motivations, incentives and challenges for research professionals to contribute to evidence-informed decision-making through initiatives such as the EIS. Male and female participants were equally likely to have policy experience; however, males reported both significantly broader engagement with the research-users included in the survey and significantly higher levels of engagement with each research-user. Reported incentives for engagement included understanding what the evidence will be used for, guidance on style and content of contribution, and acknowledgement of contributions by the policymaker or elected official. Female participants were significantly more likely to select the guidance-related options. The main reported barrier was workload. We discuss how academia-policy engagement initiatives can best address these issues in ways that enhance the integration of research evidence with policy and practice across the UK. | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | GW4 Building Communities | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | European Research Council (ERC) | en_GB |
dc.format.extent | e0214136- | |
dc.identifier.citation | Vol. 14 (3), article e0214136 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214136 | |
dc.identifier.grantnumber | GW4-AF5-004 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.grantnumber | 647893 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10871/128437 | |
dc.identifier | ORCID: 0000-0003-1969-6637 (Lawrence, Natalia S) | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) | en_GB |
dc.relation.url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30913236 | en_GB |
dc.relation.url | https://osf.io/z4xt2/ | en_GB |
dc.rights | © 2019 Walker et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. | en_GB |
dc.subject | Biomedical Research | en_GB |
dc.subject | Decision Making | en_GB |
dc.subject | Female | en_GB |
dc.subject | Humans | en_GB |
dc.subject | Male | en_GB |
dc.subject | Policy Making | en_GB |
dc.subject | Surveys and Questionnaires | en_GB |
dc.subject | United Kingdom | en_GB |
dc.title | Supporting evidence-informed policy and scrutiny: A consultation of UK research professionals | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
dc.date.available | 2022-01-17T14:40:47Z | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1932-6203 | |
exeter.article-number | ARTN e0214136 | |
exeter.place-of-publication | United States | |
dc.description | This is the final version. Available on open access from the Public Library of Science via the DOI in this record | en_GB |
dc.description | Data Availability: All files are available at https://osf.io/z4xt2/ | en_GB |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1932-6203 | |
dc.identifier.journal | PLoS One | en_GB |
dc.relation.ispartof | PLoS One, 14(3) | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | en_GB |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2019-03-07 | |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | en_GB |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2019-03-26 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_GB |
refterms.dateFCD | 2022-01-17T14:39:07Z | |
refterms.versionFCD | VoR | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2022-01-17T14:40:56Z | |
refterms.panel | A | en_GB |
refterms.dateFirstOnline | 2019-03-26 |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2019 Walker et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.