How far should public servants be expected to engage with academics, business, charities, media and wider society?
This question is prompted by recent guidance published by the Cabinet Office which suggested that officials should not speak at “sector-facing” public events where media is present or there would be a Q&A session. Organisations including the Institute for Government (IfG), the Science Media Centre, and the Campaign for Science & Engineering have expressed concern at the guidance, which in the words of Hannah White and Alex Thomas at the IfG “implies a very narrow view of what it is that officials do when they engage in public, and a failure to appreciate what the consequences might be of such restrictions.”
I imagine that many people working in the research-policy ecosystem would share this disquiet at the potential impact of the guidance in restricting the ability of public servants to discuss government policy in external fora. We know that good policymaking needs to draw on external expertise and evidence and that academic research is a crucial part of that. We also know that the most effective way to enable research use is often through relational approaches: building connections and enabling discussion between individuals to explore evidence and its implications for policy decisions and implementation. Alongside this, of course, is a fundamental democratic principle that those impacted by policy decisions should be able to contribute to discussions about their development; and that, as public servants, civil servants should be accountable to the public they serve.
The guidance also seems at odds with other government commitments to maximise the benefit to citizens of public investment in R&D. Closing down dialogue between officials, academic researchers and wider society impedes productive collaboration between government and academia – and in turn impedes the harnessing of UK research capability to maximise the benefit of public investment in R&D.
In light of these concerns, I was pleased in my UPEN capacity to co-sign the open letter coordinated by the IfG calling for a rethink on the guidance, published earlier this week in The Times. Encouragingly, the Government has now responded to this, with Research Professional News reporting that the guidance has been “tweaked” to “to prevent any misinterpretation”.
However, it is not clear to me that the tweaks which have made are sufficiently reassuring. It remains the case that the guidance suggests that officials should not speak at events with a Q&A where there is also media present – something which seems likely to discourage dialogue and create a wariness around engagement outside government. Anecdotal reports thus far suggest that officials are now seeking additional approvals to participate in events aimed at promoting discussion with academic researchers.
The longer-term effects of this potential discouragement are concerning for all of us seeking to strengthen interactions between academia and public policy. But it also highlights a wider question about the delicate interplay within academic-policy engagement between different accountabilities: the democratic accountability, via the ballot box, of elected representatives; and the public accountability, via taxpayer funding, of both public servants and academic researchers. Ultimately, of course, decisions are made by elected ministers, and ministers should act as spokespeople for Government policy, in accordance with their democratic accountability. This should not, however, preclude dialogue between civil servants and academics (and indeed other wider stakeholders) to provide evidence-based input into public policy decisions and to illuminate their impact. This is a crucial aspect of their public accountability.
Of course, the elected Government bears the ultimate responsibility and accountability for developing and implementing policy decisions – but the development of public policy must necessarily be a collaborative effort across society. Officials should be empowered to undertake the necessary dialogue, with academics and others, that ensures better public policy making for all of our collective benefit.
