Academic incentives for enhancing faculty engagement with decision-makers—considerations and recommendations from one School of Public Health

The study investigates how academic incentives shape faculty engagement with decision-makers to promote knowledge translation and evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). Motivated by Boyer’s call for engaged scholarship, and by Phase I findings that highlighted incentives as a priority, the authors examine whether and how incentives could encourage or recognize engagement activities typically situated under the nebulous service pillar. The context is a leading U.S. School of Public Health (JHSPH), where promotion primarily recognizes teaching and research outputs, while engagement often lacks clear evaluation. The purpose is to identify existing incentives, faculty perspectives on their value and risks, and to generate recommendations for institutional policy and practice. The importance lies in aligning academic missions with societal impact in an era of funder emphasis on research use and broader impacts.

The background synthesizes several strands: (1) Barriers to knowledge translation and exchange (KTE/IKT): Limited empirical work on factors enabling researcher–decision-maker engagement, with institutional incentive gaps frequently cited as barriers. (2) Funder responses: Many HIC funders now prioritize IKT; in the UK, the REF emphasizes societal impact and required Pathways to Impact, complemented by follow-on funding schemes—signaling funder-driven incentives. (3) Academic environment: Conventional metrics (publications, grants, conferences) inadequately capture engagement processes and impacts, which often occur pre- and post-grant, are relational, bi-directional, time-lagged, and hard to attribute. (4) U.S. context: Despite longstanding calls for SPH–government collaboration, incentives that value impact beyond traditional outputs remain under-optimized. (5) Institutional context (JHSPH): Large, diverse SPH with existing practice-oriented structures (e.g., Office of Public Health Practice and Training) and professorships of practice; yet service-related incentives and definitions remain opaque. The literature flags the difficulty of appropriate indicators for engagement and the risk of perverse effects when measurement is misaligned with meaningful KT processes.

Design: Qualitative study (Phase II of a larger mixed-methods project) exploring faculty perspectives on incentives for engagement with decision-makers. Sampling and participants: From an initial Phase I sample of 211 faculty, a subsample of 106 eligible were approached based on engagement profiles (previously categorized as highly engaged or non-engaged). Ultimately, 70/106 (66%) responded positively and 52/70 (75%) from all 10 departments participated. Participants spanned professorial and scientist tracks and included some in leadership roles. Data collection: Semi-structured interviews conducted Nov 1, 2017–Feb 5, 2018; 36 in-person, 12 via Skype, 4 by phone; duration 30–75 minutes. Interviews audio-recorded with verbal consent and transcribed verbatim. The SSI guide drew on Phase I findings and faculty input. Working definitions followed CIHR KT/KTE. Measures/topics: Perceptions of incentives, reasons for (non)engagement, individual/institutional factors affecting engagement, roles in bringing evidence to decisions, reflections on SPH practice initiatives, and advice for peers/leadership. Socio-demographics and organizational details were collected for context. Analysis: Codebook developed from interview domains and inductively refined; data coded in ATLAS.ti 8; subsample co-coded by three analysts to enhance reliability; themes articulated via framework analysis. Multiple team discussions mitigated bias and assessed saturation. Ethics: JHSPH IRB approval (#00006968); verbal consent obtained.

- Sample profile: 52 faculty from 10 departments; 62% female (32), 38% male (20). Tracks included Professorial (25; 15 Professors, 6 Associate, 4 Assistant), Scientist (17; 4 Senior, 1 Associate, 2 Assistant), and Other (10, including research associates, instructors, Professor Emeritus). 29% held leadership roles. - Varied stances on incentives: • Arguments against: Engagement seen as intrinsic moral/civic duty; fear of compromising impartiality; concerns about reputational risk; irrelevance for basic science; belief that engagement is beyond researchers’ remit; perception that incentives might undermine intrinsic motivation. • Arguments for: Incentives signal institutional value, motivate reticent or uncertain faculty, and recognize/enable ongoing efforts; desire to align incentives with SPH mission on societal impact. - Caveats and unintended consequences (Fig. 1): Potential for perverse incentives (e.g., rushed or superficial outputs to satisfy metrics), disadvantaging early-career, non-tenure, basic science faculty, or those lacking skills; many engagement efforts are non-attributable, confidential, time-lagged, and thus risk going unnoticed or unrewarded. - Types of incentives identified (four categories): 1) Monetary Support (four subtypes) (Fig. 2): - Grants and Awards for policy-relevant, applied projects and follow-on work. - Discretionary funding to seize unpredictable pre-/post-grant opportunities (e.g., meetings, tailored outputs, communications support). - Salary relief/buyout to allocate protected time for engagement (e.g., internal programs, partial appointments with government). - Funder requirements/restrictions shaping KT budgeting and activities (e.g., inclusion of impact plans vs. NIH review constraints; limits on lobbying). 2) Professional Recognition: Internal acknowledgment via newsletters/web; awards; visibility leading to collaborations, student demand, advisory invitations. Concerns about inconsistent valuation (national vs local influence), confidentiality limiting recognition, and perceptions of self-promotion. 3) Academic Promotion: Current A&P undervalues engagement relative to publications and grants; testimony and policy influence viewed as less promotable; calls for clearer, fairer appraisal of practice portfolios (e.g., letters from policymakers). 4) Capacity Enhancement: Desire for practical training in networking, relationship-building, communication with non-scientists, media, advocacy; embedded experiences (sabbaticals, fellowships with agencies), mentorship and leveraging senior practitioners. - Metrics challenges: Engagement is hard to quantify, often lacks public documentation, is time-intensive with uncertain payoff, is contributory rather than attributable, and frequently occurs outside grant timelines. Simple counts (e.g., laws changed) are inappropriate high bars. - Alternatives/adjuncts to incentives: Create a dedicated practice track and revise recruitment to value engagement skills; outsource KT to knowledge brokers/communications experts; strengthen internal KT platforms and university communications/affairs support; leverage centers/institutes as KT platforms. - Institutional supports needed: Clear guidance on permissible activities and conflicts of interest; leadership messaging; structured mentoring; cross-departmental learning; reduce silos; build engagement-ready culture. - Recommendations synthesized (Fig. 3): For SPHs/HEIs (e.g., redesign A&P, measured metrics, capacity-building, dedicated funding, practice track), funders (accept KT budgeting, accommodate lagged impacts), professional associations (CPD, awards), and accreditors/rankers (include KT competencies, impact metrics).

Findings address whether and how incentives could encourage faculty engagement in EIDM by revealing heterogeneous values, disciplines, and career-stage constraints that shape receptivity to incentives. The study shows that simple, uniform incentive schemes risk perverse effects and inequities; instead, a portfolio approach is needed combining monetary facilitation (flexible/bridge funds, time buyouts), recognition, clearer promotion pathways for practice, and targeted capacity-building. The discussion situates results within departmental diversity (from molecular sciences to policy), highlighting that not all research is policy-facing and that engagement expectations should be calibrated accordingly (e.g., REF-like recognition that impact is not universal). The authors propose typologies—choice-disengaged, choice-engaged, and suboptimally-engaged—to guide tailored strategies. Critically, measurement is complex: engagement is relational, time-lagged, often confidential, and contributory, making traditional metrics ill-suited. Thus, the significance lies in advocating for “measured incentives” and institutional engagement-readiness, aligning incentives with mission while safeguarding scientific impartiality and avoiding penalization of non-engagers. The study underscores the importance of institutional context, leadership, and structure in enabling meaningful KT without undermining core academic functions.

KTE activities are increasingly valued for advancing EIDM, but incentives to promote faculty engagement are not straightforward or universally desired. Faculty proposed four incentive domains—Monetary Support, Professional Recognition, Academic Promotion, and Capacity Enhancement—while cautioning about unintended consequences and measurement difficulties, especially since engagement often falls outside grant cycles and is hard to attribute. The paper contributes an empirically grounded typology of faculty orientations toward engagement and a comprehensive, multi-stakeholder recommendation set to guide SPHs and allied organizations. Future directions include developing fair, context-sensitive appraisal frameworks for practice, testing models for flexible funding and protected time, building practical KT competencies, creating and evaluating practice-oriented career tracks, and advancing engagement-readiness at institutional levels without disadvantaging faculty whose work is not policy-facing.

- Single-institution focus (one U.S. SPH) limits generalizability, though constructs may transfer to other HEIs. - Phase II sampling drawn from Phase I participants may introduce selection bias. - Potential social desirability bias during interviews; mitigated via question reframing and probing. - Mode heterogeneity (in-person/Skype/phone) may affect depth or dynamics of responses. - Context specificity (American, high-income HEI) may differ from settings where service is more intertwined with practice or where donors shape KT strongly.