IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v8y2021i1d10.1057_s41599-021-00873-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Steve Connelly

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Dave Vanderhoven

    (Independent Researcher)

  • Robert Rutherfoord

    (Energy and Industrial Strategy)

  • Liz Richardson

    (University of Manchester)

  • Peter Matthews

    (University of Stirling)

Abstract

The question of how to make academic research more useful to government, and frustration over its lack of obvious use, have long been the subject of policy makers’ and scholars’ attention. These have driven the global development of institutionalised links between the two communities, while also leading to a broad consensus as to why the goal is often not realised. In order to better explain the barriers, this paper takes the concept of “translation” very literally, and proposes an innovative approach, which analyses academic and policy practices using ideas from the humanities-based discipline of Translation Studies. This enables an exploration of what constitutes good translation, and in particular of the tension between keeping faith with the original material and users’ understandable emphasis on functionality. The conclusion is that while some aspect of original research content must be maintained, what this is cannot be prescribed: the appropriate equivalence between original and translation is always context-dependent. This throws the emphasis on the relational aspects of translatorial action for promoting “good translation”. The argument follows Christiane Nord in seeing the core issue as the moral one of a translator’s loyalty to original author and user, and so also of mutual trust between academics and civil servants. This raises important questions about how such trust can be cultivated, and so finally leads to an emphasis on the importance of an endeavour shared by researchers and policy makers, which recognises and respects their different environments and the work involved in creating useful meaning from scholarly research.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve Connelly & Dave Vanderhoven & Robert Rutherfoord & Liz Richardson & Peter Matthews, 2021. "Translating research for policy: the importance of equivalence, function, and loyalty," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00873-z
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00873-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-021-00873-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-021-00873-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Gluckman & James Wilsdon, 2016. "From paradox to principles: where next for scientific advice to governments?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-4, December.
    2. Jessica H. Phoenix & Lucy G. Atkinson & Hannah Baker, 2019. "Creating and communicating social research for policymakers in government," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Christina Boswell & Katherine Smith, 2017. "Rethinking policy ‘impact’: four models of research-policy relations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Rhodes, Tim & Lancaster, Kari, 2019. "Evidence-making interventions in health: A conceptual framing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2019. "Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Alexis Dewaele & Kristof Vandael & Stefan Meysman & Ann Buysse, 2021. "Understanding collaborative interactions in relation to research impact in social sciences and humanities: A meta-ethnography," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 179-190.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sachit Mahajan & Ming-Kuang Chung & Jenny Martinez & Yris Olaya & Dirk Helbing & Ling-Jyh Chen, 2022. "Translating citizen-generated air quality data into evidence for shaping policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    2. Duncan, Michael, 2023. "The influence of pedestrian plans on walk commuting in US municipalities," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frans W. A. Brom, 2019. "Institutionalizing applied humanities: enabling a stronger role for the humanities in interdisciplinary research for public policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Peter Horton & Garrett W. Brown, 2018. "Integrating evidence, politics and society: a methodology for the science–policy interface," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-5, December.
    3. Jonathan Breckon, 2022. "Communicating and using systematic reviews—Learning from other disciplines," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    4. Sachit Mahajan & Ming-Kuang Chung & Jenny Martinez & Yris Olaya & Dirk Helbing & Ling-Jyh Chen, 2022. "Translating citizen-generated air quality data into evidence for shaping policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    5. Foley, Conor & Droog, Elsa & Healy, Orla & McHugh, Sheena & Buckley, Claire & Browne, John Patrick, 2017. "Understanding perspectives on major system change: A comparative case study of public engagement and the implementation of urgent and emergency care system reconfiguration," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 800-808.
    6. Elizabeth N. Farley-Ripple & Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2020. "Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Mark Rickinson & Connie Cirkony & Lucas Walsh & Jo Gleeson & Mandy Salisbury & Annette Boaz, 2021. "Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Valérie Pattyn & Marjolein Bouterse, 2020. "Explaining use and non-use of policy evaluations in a mature evaluation setting," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Betsos, Alex & Valleriani, Jenna & Boyd, Jade & McNeil, Ryan, 2022. "Beyond co-production: The construction of drug checking knowledge in a Canadian supervised injection facility," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    10. Timo Y. Maas & Annet Pauwelussen & Esther Turnhout, 2022. "Co-producing the science–policy interface: towards common but differentiated responsibilities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Massazza, Alessandro & May, Carl R. & Roberts, Bayard & Tol, Wietse A. & Bogdanov, Sergiy & Nadkarni, Abhijit & Fuhr, Daniela C., 2022. "Process evaluations of mental health and psychosocial support interventions for populations affected by humanitarian crises," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 303(C).
    12. Diana Arnautu & Christian Dagenais, 2021. "Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    13. Ruth Mayne & Duncan Green & Irene Guijt & Martin Walsh & Richard English & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    15. Federica Angeli & Silvia Camporesi & Giorgia Dal Fabbro, 2021. "The COVID-19 wicked problem in public health ethics: conflicting evidence, or incommensurable values?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    16. Michelle Farr & Philippa Davies & Heidi Andrews & Darren Bagnall & Emer Brangan & Rosemary Davies, 2021. "Co-producing knowledge in health and social care research: reflections on the challenges and ways to enable more equal relationships," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-7, December.
    17. Yi Ran & Yuanyuan Hu & Shouming Chen & Fangjun Qiu & Ahmed Rabeeu, 2022. "The Impact of Two-Invoice System on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Selling Expenses in China: A Difference-in-Differences Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, April.
    18. Salo, Matti & Hiedanpää, Juha & Orihuela, José Carlos & Llerena Pinto, Carlos Alberto & Leigh Vetter, John, 2023. "Governmentality in evidence? Evolving rationalities of forest governance in Peru," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    19. Megan C Evans & Christopher Cvitanovic, 2018. "An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-12, December.
    20. Alison O’Shea & Annette Boaz & Stephen Hanney & Maarten Kok & Robert Borst & Subhash Pokhrel & Teresa Jones, 2021. "Expect the unexpected? Challenges of prospectively exploring stakeholder engagement in research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00873-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.