This blog post was originally published by Evidence & Policy Blogs, and is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘EDI in academic–policy engagement: lived experience of university based knowledge brokers and marginalised academics’.
Equity, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI)[1] in the world of Higher Education, public policy and everything in between has received increasing attention over the past few years especially. Within academic-policy engagement specifically, key actors have identified the need to diversify participation and knowledges (Morris et al, 2021; Hopkins et al, 2021; Walker et al, 2019). Additionally, Oliver et al (2022) reported that there is currently a ‘busy but rudderless mass of activity’ within knowledge mobilisation, and called for further practice that is informed by ‘existing evidence and theory’ (694). Notwithstanding the high level of activity, a gap in understanding what EDI in the context of academic-policy engagement really means still exists. Alongside this, there is a gap in understanding and knowing how EDI is understood and experienced by knowledge brokers, how university knowledge brokers drive it, and what strategies are being used to ensure EDI is embedded within academic-policy engagement activities (and what it even means to do this!).
In a new paper published by Evidence and Policy, and informed by both academic research and practice experience, we build on work from UPEN and set out a summary of findings from two studies conducted in 2023 interviewing a total of 20 knowledge brokers (Study A) and marginalised academics (Study B) on their lived experiences of academic-policy engagement through an EDI lens.
We set out to find:
- What strategies are currently being used to embed EDI and how effective are these?
- What is the lived experience of academics who identify as marginalised in experiencing these strategies?
- What is the role of the knowledge broker to consider EDI principles within academic-policy engagement?
And how do these questions and findings challenge, affirm, subvert or clarify assumptions, knowledge and principles we already hold as knowledge brokers?
The Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) report on Surfacing EDI outlined key recommendations for UPEN members to:
- Create a space for and facilitate sustained dialogue…[to] enhance EDI in academic policy engagement (Morris et al, 2021;13)
- Take proactive responsibility and create a set of EDI principles…for member institutions to adopt within their local context’ (13)
- Share examples of EDI academic-policy engagement best practice….to champion progress in this area (13).
The studies aimed to be a small step toward gathering evidence that can inform recommendations to design and implement equitable academic-policy engagement strategies, and our hope is that it provides a launch pad for reflection, constructive discussion and further research and work in this space.
Key findings
Conceptualisations of EDI
Overall, we identified different ways participants conceptualised what EDI means to them and within their work. This included focus on representation and visible diversity, epistemic and knowledge diversity, and questions around what exactly diversity means, in what context, and for whom? Generally, participants in the two groups felt that there was an overreliance on visible diversity as a sole indicator of what ‘good’ equality/equity, diversity and inclusion practice is. There were calls from some participants that knowledge brokers could be more critically reflexive around what diversity actually means, what we are using particular strategies for and what they really tell us (e.g what does EDI data really say and not say?), and to be careful around conflating diversity of people and diversity of knowledges. In the words of one of our colleagues, Dave Blackbell, we would benefit from ‘slowing down’, and asking ourselves these questions authentically.
The role of the knowledge broker
Participants in the group of knowledge brokers reflected on their own positions of power (as well as lack thereof) and there was a general consensus that knowledge brokers are not and should not be just ’empty vessel that moves things around’. One participant noted that since knowledge brokers are ‘essentially trying to be a bridge’, there are vital choice points of whose voice and what knowledge is heard that needs ethical consideration, and critical reflection on what good looks like is key (Oliver et al, 2022). However, there was clear tension around understanding and deciding what values are allowed to underpin their academic-policy engagement activities, especially if it is not in line with wider institutional culture, boundaries or rules. For example, where there may be university research that, if supported to access decision makers, this could potentially cause serious harm. There is an ethical question on how far knowledge brokerage is complicit or can ever be ‘impartial’ in said consequences, and thus, what role knowledge brokers play within the wider system of knowledge production and use from an EDI lens (Durrant & MacKillop, 2023; Harris, 2002).
Navigating values and tensions
Being aware of our own values and navigating potential tensions when conducting academic-policy engagement activities also raise epistemological and ethical discussions on the politics and power of knowledge generation, how morality can be attributed to knowledge and research, and how knowledge mobilisation interacts with this. This is a tricky area for many of us, in particular within the culture of navigating the nuances of free speech discourse and academic freedom, and the values and expectations of our institutions (Harris, 2002).
However overall, it was clear within this study that knowledge brokers would benefit from being allowed to draw reasonable (a standard that is yet to be well defined) and ethical boundaries, and lead with values that challenge the notion that any evidence and any actor is or can be completely neutral, objective and separate from the small p politics of the space (Oliver et al, 2022; Blackbell, 2023; Haraway, 1988).
[1] Otherwise known as DEI, D&I, etc.
