Policy Briefs – Increasing the Societal

Impact of Research?

Jari Lyytimäki

Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE

Twitter: @lyytimaki

Email: jari.lyytimaki@ymparisto.fi

University of Helsinki, Doctoral programme in

interdisciplinary environmental sciences DENVI

Helsinki, 27.3.2015

● More than brochure, less than report, different from

article

● Aims to influence decision-making

● Timely and topical

○ Well connected to current societal debate

○ Presents fresh research-based information

● Clear and concise

○ Focused to certain topic or viewpoint

○ Concise (2-4 pages)

○ Easy-to-read but informative

What is Policy Brief?

YES, they can induce societal benefits!

● Helps policy-making by providing the latest reliable

knowledge in easily digested format (knowledge

brokerage)

● Improves the quality of decisions (or at least makes it

more difficult misuse knowledge)

YES, they can benefit the knowledge producer!

● Increases the visibility of the knowledge producer (PR

function)

● Enhances the self-awareness and understanding of the

knowledge producer (don’t outsource too much!)

● Improves the societal impact of research more

generally

Policy Briefs – can they really be useful?

● Does it take resources (time, money) away from

research and development?

● Is the right target audience reached at the right moment

and in a right way?

● Can misleading interpretations based on simplified

messages avoided?

● What kind of reputation risks are involved for the

knowedge producer?

● Based on one-way dissemination – what about genuine

interaction?

Potential weaknesses of the Policy Brief

approach

Example: Potential non-intended effects

● Publication of policy brief does not guarantee use

● Use of policy brief does not guarantee effects

● Effects are not necessarily the ones intended by the

knowledge producer

More fuel for scepticism…

BUT REMEMBER:

● In some cases, the use may be more

wide and effects much better than

expected!

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/135969

An example: SYKE

policy brief

focusing on

circular economy

Some guiding questions

Evaluate policy brief by glancing (in about 15-30 seconds):

● Is the outlook appealing?

● Can the key message be easily grasped?

Evaluate by reading (in 2-4 minutes):

● Is the structure well organised? (key results/claims

first, methods/bacground last)

● Are the issues and claims well presented, logical and

thought-provoking?

● Is the focus well justified? (What is taken in, what is left

out?)

● Is there a balance between text and indicators or

illustrations?

● Is relevant supporting information included? (contact

info, links, references )

What constitutes success?

Upload statistics of can give

some useful information

about direct use, but:

● Printed copies are still

important!

● Communication through

different informal social

networks and other

services such as ISSUU

Indirect use by:

● Media, social media

● Public speeches &

presentations

● Private discussions,

lobbying

Different forms of use and influence

The influence of research-based knowledge is often

indirect, unanticipated and systemic:

● Instrumental use: Policy brief has a direct impact on

decision-making (often assumed, rarely occurring?)

● Conceptual use: Policy brief catalyses social learning in

the long run (let’s aim for this?)

● Symbolic or ritual use: Policy brief substitute action and

deflect criticism (something to be avoided?)

● Political or tactical: Policy brief used to support a pre-

determined position (often happening, but does not

advance the debate much?)

KEY CLAIM:

Policy brief is not a product

but a process!

Use can be also misuse: Therefore it is vital to

follow the debate(s) and participate actively!

Thanks!

● Lyytimäki J., Tapio P., Varho V., Söderman T. 2013. The use, non-use

and misuse of indicators in sustainability assessment and

communication. International Journal of Sustainable Development

and World Ecology 20(5): 385-393

● Lyytimäki J., Gudmundsson H., Sørensen C.H. 2014. Russian dolls

and Chinese whispers: Two perspectives on the unintended effects of

sustainability indicator communication. Sustainable Development

22(2): 84-94. DOI: 10.1002/sd.530

● Lyytimäki J., Rinne J. 2014. Ympäristönsuojelun vaikutukset esiin:

Vuorovaikutteinen viestintä arvioinnin apuna. Suomen

ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 36/2014. Suomen ympäristökeskus,

Helsinki. 52 s. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/144174 [In Finnish]

● Morse S. 2015. Developing Sustainability Indicators and Indices.

Sustainable Development Doi: 10.1002/sd.1575

References and further reading: