Connecting Research with Policy: Exploring Two Models

Ever wonder how researchers can effectively share their work with the people making laws? It’s a challenge, but organizations like TrestleLink support models designed to bridge this gap. While the specific approaches vary, these models often share core principles, such as acting as non-partisan honest brokers rather than political activists and aiming to provide an independent research service. The goal is to improve how researchers partner with policymakers to answer timely questions without advocating on contrived solutions.

The good news is there are different ways these principles can be put into action depending on an organization’s needs. Let’s look at two examples: the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) and the Family Impact Seminars (FIS).

Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC)

This model can be a great fit for professional societies, research centers, or university administrators that have a full-time policy staff.

• Implementation: It’s implemented by a certified policy staff member and often supported by a team, including leadership and administrative assistance.
• How it Works: A policy associate first listens and understands policymakers’ goals and priorities. They then act as a broker, finding researchers who have a shared interest with the legislator. It’s like a matchmaking service for legislators to connect with people who have timely and relevant knowledge.
• Output: The key output is follow-up meetings to discuss research. Strategic partnerships are created through this matchmaking process.

Family Impact Seminars (FIS)

This model is structured a bit differently and can be appropriate for researchers and organizations with less extensive staffing and resources, such as a fraction of a full-time equivalent (FTE). It can be supported by a smaller grant or be an impact activity within a larger research grant.

• Implementation: Faculty members and/or their staff create a local Family Impact Seminars team.
• How it Works: Unlike RPC full time policy staff are the primary brokers, in FIS, university faculty members are generally the face of the legislative relationships. They act as a hub, inviting contributing researchers to participate as seminar speakers. Legislators identify and select the topics for the seminars, often informed by agencies across the state government.
• Output: The main output is a seminar where policymakers are brought together around a topic on their agenda. This creates a conversation about what the research says on something they are currently working on.

Key Differences & Similarities

Both models involve listening to policymakers and connecting them with research. However, they differ in who primarily leads the effort (policy staff in RPC vs. faculty in FIS), the resources typically needed (full-time policy staff for RPC vs. fractional FTE for FIS), and the format of the output (meetings/partnerships in RPC vs. a seminar in FIS).

Ultimately, these models offer different pathways for research organizations to engage with policymakers, grounded in principles of independent, non-partisan information sharing to address current policy needs.