Translating research for policy: the importance of equivalence, function, and loyalty

The paper begins by addressing the longstanding challenge of making academic social science research more useful for governments. Despite considerable effort and institutional links, significant frustration persists over the limited impact of research on policy. The authors highlight the paradoxical nature of this situation: while extensive research identifies consistent barriers across time and contexts, this research itself often lacks influence. They reference existing literature (Weiss, 1975; 1979; Caplan, 1979; Gluckman and Wilsdon, 2016; Oliver and Cairney, 2019; Court and Young, 2003; Bandola-Gill and Lyall, 2017; Oliver and Boaz, 2019) that points to fragmentation in knowledge creation and sharing, ineffective impact strategies, and a lack of focus on crucial issues. The authors propose a new approach, using concepts from Translation Studies, to analyze the research-policy interface, arguing that a more sophisticated understanding of "research translation" is needed to address the systemic nature of the barriers. This approach widens the analytical focus beyond the commonly emphasized personal interactions between researchers and policymakers to encompass all methods through which research reaches non-academic users. Furthermore, it focuses critically on the cognitive content of research outputs during translation, addressing the inadequacy of simplistic, linear models and the extreme transformations emphasized by Actor-Network Theory. The paper proposes a middle way, recognizing the inherent transformations in translation while emphasizing the importance of carrying meaningful content across.

The paper reviews existing literature on research utilization, highlighting a consensus on the importance of political and institutional context, the relevance of evidence, and the nature of links between academic and policy communities. Systematic reviews consistently identify enablers and barriers, many initially identified by Caplan (1979) and subsequently corroborated (Court and Young, 2003; Gaudreau and Saner, 2014; Mitton et al., 2007; Nutley et al., 2007; Oliver et al., 2014; Oliver and Cairney, 2019). Solutions proposed also show remarkable consistency, focusing on factors like access to relevant research, collaboration with policymakers, and relationship-building (Oliver et al., 2014). However, the theoretical underpinning of these solutions is considered insufficient. The authors discuss the conflicting perspectives within the literature regarding the research-policy relationship. One perspective adopts a linear, rational model, viewing research as providing evidence for policy decisions. This model is criticized for its inaccuracy in depicting the complexity and political nature of policymaking. The alternative perspective recognizes the complexity and political dimensions of the process and emphasizes the multiple roles research plays, including enlightenment, political bolstering, and symbolic value (Weiss, 1979). The authors discuss the concept of "two communities" (Caplan, 1979; Wingens, 1990), highlighting the different cultures of academics and policymakers and the challenges of intercultural communication. The importance of knowledge brokers and boundary spanners is explored, along with the benefits and drawbacks of individual versus collective models of knowledge transfer (Kislov et al., 2016, 2017; Ward et al., 2009; Bednarek et al., 2018; Pielke, 2007; Bandola-Gill and Lyall, 2017; Dewaele et al., 2021; Penuel et al., 2015; Vindrola-Padros et al., 2017). Finally, the authors critique the common use of "translation" as a metaphor, exploring its varying interpretations from simple transfer to radical transformation within Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and Science and Technology Studies (STS) perspectives (Callon, 1986; Law, 1997; Ingold and Monaghan, 2016; Rhodes and Lancaster, 2019). They advocate for a middle ground, acknowledging the transformation inherent in translation while emphasizing the need to preserve meaningful content.

The study draws on data from two linked research projects funded by the UK Research Councils' Connected Communities program. The first project focused on the impact of academically authored policy briefings within a UK central government ministry (DCLG), employing an interpretive and ethnographic approach. Data collection included interviews with civil servants and academics, observations within the ministry, and workshops on research translation. The second project involved action research, brokering connections between civil service policy teams and academics. Data from interviews, observations, workshops, and emails were analyzed using thematic coding, initially inductive and later guided by concepts from Translation Studies (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Ethical considerations, including confidentiality and informed consent, were carefully addressed and approved by the University of Sheffield Research Ethics Committee. The authors note that due to the sensitivity of the content and the need to preserve anonymity, the data generated are not publicly available.

The paper introduces three core concepts from Translation Studies—equivalence, function, and loyalty—to analyze the translation of research for policy. The authors find that policymakers often have a naïve expectation of equivalence, believing that research can be translated without any loss of richness or nuance. However, Translation Studies shows that complete equivalence is impossible, and the concept's application requires identifying significant aspects of the source that must be maintained. The authors argue for considering the "equivalent effect," aiming for a similar response in the target group (policymakers) as the original had in its intended audience (academics). They discuss the challenges in defining equivalence, pointing out that any interpretation depends on the audience's needs and understanding. The shift in Translation Studies towards functionalism is explored, highlighting the importance of utility and appropriateness for the target audience. This approach rejects the idea of specifying equivalence independently of context. The paper highlights the role of government social researchers (GSRs) as intermediaries, translating research for policy teams. While GSRs act as brokers, their position within the government system constrains their neutrality. The authors find a shared, broad purpose between academics, GSRs, and policy teams in using research to inform policy, but note that detailed needs are dynamic and unpredictable. The authors highlight the crucial role of detailed briefs and interaction between academics and policymakers in producing functional translations, arguing that the lack of clear briefs often leads to inadequate translations. They also emphasize the challenges for academics in aligning with the language and communicative norms of policymakers. Even with clear briefs, different interpretations may lead to inadequate translations. The concept of "loyalty" from Nord's (2018) work is introduced as a resolution to the dilemma between equivalence and function. Loyalty emphasizes interpersonal responsibility and respects the interests of all involved (author, translator, and user). Trust and reliability are key, with interviewees demonstrating trust in academia and methodology. The authors highlight the importance of a "shared endeavor" and mutual understanding, suggesting that a moral commitment to all involved is vital for successful translation. Face-to-face interactions are highlighted as instrumental in creating trust and mutual understanding.

The findings suggest that the "translation" of research for policy is a complex process involving the interplay of equivalence, function, and loyalty. The authors' application of Translation Studies concepts deepens our understanding of how research is reworked and transformed for policy use, regardless of whether interactive methods are employed. The emphasis on loyalty, as a moral commitment to the integrity of the original research while adapting it to policy needs, offers a valuable framework. While existing literature stresses the importance of interaction, this study expands the scope to encompass non-interactive approaches, suggesting that similar translation issues are present in both. The key difference lies in the crossing of boundaries, the actors involved, and the practices employed to address challenges. The authors' analysis has practical implications. Promoting mutual understanding, empathy, and fluency in each other's languages, particularly through face-to-face meetings and detailed briefs, is vital. They suggest that in the UK context, the GSR profession should be more valued and better known within academia. More generally, investment in research transfer should focus on facilitating opportunities for learning, building relationships, and promoting trust, fostering a shared commitment to effective policymaking.

The paper successfully applies concepts from Translation Studies to illuminate the complexities of research translation for policy use. By emphasizing equivalence, function, and loyalty, the authors provide a nuanced understanding that goes beyond simplistic linear models and overly transformative approaches. The findings underscore the importance of mutual understanding, trust, and a shared commitment between researchers and policymakers. Future research could explore these concepts across different fields and institutional settings, further examining the role of various actors in the translation process. The authors note the challenges of directly influencing practice and acknowledge the difficulties inherent in effective research translation.

The study is based on case studies within a single UK government ministry. While the authors argue that the insights are generalizable, it's important to acknowledge that the specifics of the translation process may vary across different contexts and policy fields. The data used in the study is not publicly available due to confidentiality concerns, limiting the external validation of findings.