Ideas hardly ever travel on a linear path from A to B, and knowledge is rarely transferred directly from original innovator (or inventor) to an ultimate end-user. Instead, a number of intermediaries have emerged whose role is to absorb the reams of information coming out of academic disciplines, and present cogent analyses for interested parties. In the process these intermediary organizations and actors almost universally seek both to add their own ‘value-added’ and to receive a return for their costs, time and investments. Some examples of intermediaries in the social sciences include:
- Think tanks
- Consultancies
- Specialist or ‘close to policy’ media
- NGOs and pressure groups
Universities, departments and academic researchers often dislike having to rely on mediated communication of their ideas for two reasons. First, they see themselves as the original inventors of or investors in particular experiments, techniques, ideas or innovations, who risk being ‘ripped off’ or exploited by late-in-the-game but better-connected middlemen. Secondly, universities and academics dislike how intermediaries simplify, re-package, and aggregate research, viewing them as simplifications of complex materials that verge into mis-representation.
But however lamentable some of these developments may be, academics and universities must recognise that these social processes are not going to become less complex over time. The are ways that universities can foster ‘disintermediation processes’ (i.e. cutting out the middle man) but it is important that universities and academics work with a differentiated and realistic notion of what influence they can acquire by working in tandem with interface organizations, and what they can hope to achieve directly.
For more on think tanks see Getting research into policy: the role of think tanks and other mediators by Professor Judy Sebba.
This is a good point. When one considers the mass-market and how things (ideas, products, even personalities) are disseminated there, it strikes me as natural for academics to avoid entering that fray. There’s something distasteful about the showmanship that goes into making a product palatable to the wider public, especially if the product is detrimental to society generally, such as sexualized children’s clothing, unhealthy foods or similar.
Still, pragmatism and practicality are crucial if real changes are to be made. Ideally change comes from the grassroots – but even then, the grassroots needs to be informed, and (if you can indulge the metaphor!) it’s a long way from ivory tower to the grassroots! Principled think tanks, pressure groups and consultancies know what they’re doing, and can prevent years of research from disappearing without a trace.
I myself worked on a campaign (Lighter Later) that backed one academic’s lifetime research, and through working collaboratively with him at every step, we made sure that his reports became thoroughly integrated with a parliamentary Bill. That Bill is now coming up to its third reading, and so the academic’s ideas are the closest in twenty years to being implemented in government policy.
My point is that if academics choose an organization they can trust, they can be sure that their ideas are being marketed intelligently, accessibly and – most importantly – with maximum possible impact. Those who are suspicious of spin are right to be cautious, but ultimately, it can be for the greater good. It’s a win/win situation for academics, intermediary orgs and the general public, given the right circumstances.
Thanks for a great comment Suki, it’s interesting to hear what it’s like from the other side!