My knee jerk reaction was to reply swiftly acknowledging that I didn’t have any previous experience of this and therefore had limited advice to share. This felt very different from the guidance I would provide to an academic for a Select Committee inquiry for example, and the gravitas and significance of the subject matter made me question if I was the right fit for this responsibility. I later appreciated that for an academic asked to be an expert witness this is also very different from their usual academic work, given its formal and legal nature – and with that it can be lonely and isolating as they have to maintain strict confidence about the evidence submission beforehand.
Thankfully, I took some time before responding to that initial email and after conversations with a couple of trusted public affairs and communications colleagues I realised I had the transferable skills required to provide the right level of support.
From this experience I wanted to share some pointers and advice to set you off in the right direction if a similar request lands in your inbox:
Key messages are still key
As a Public Affairs professional I spend a lot of time talking about key messages with academic researchers, ‘What is it that you want to say about your research?’ ‘Why does your research matter to a busy policy maker and what do you want them to do about it? and the same applies to public inquiry preparation when attending as an expert witness. It is not an interrogation but rather a fact-finding exercise on the part of the Inquiry Chair or Panel and an exploration of the issues, which allows the individual providing evidence to focus in on the key messages they want to make from their original written statement.
Three things for an academic to consider:
- When you come out of the inquiry what are the three main points you want to be sure you’ve said?
- Have the underpinning evidence for each of your main points at your fingertips.
- And don’t be afraid to make practical recommendations based on the above where appropriate.
Minimise as many unknowns as possible
The academic will not know what questions they will be asked on the day of the inquiry hearing, which certainly heightens the need to be prepared for anything. They may be offered a briefing with the barrister who will question them, or one of the wider inquiry legal team. The academic must know their written statement of evidence incredibly well, but that comes with the caveat that it is not a memory test, and they will likely have access to their statement when in the witness box on the day. But what you can do is to try and help the academic be as familiar as possible with how the day will go, this can include:
- Visiting the inquiry venue beforehand, this may be an option given to them or you could ask the inquiry support team.
- Take the opportunity for both of you to build a rapport with the witness support team, drawing on their knowledge and expertise, as well as gaining reassurance, will be incredibly valuable.
- Attend the inquiry with them, there can be a lot of waiting around on the day itself and moral support can go a long way in keeping nerves at bay, as can taking notes and offering supportive feedback afterwards.
As we all know Higher Education Institutions are vast in terms of number of staff and sometimes finding the right people and support in the right part of the university can be challenging, but I’d encourage you to use your internal network of expertise. For example, finding another academic who has provided this sort of public inquiry evidence before, reaching out to your press team so that media training is considered, and speaking with your legal services department who can offer advice on the written statement of evidence and approach to giving evidence at the hearing. Public inquiries carry gravitas, can be sensitive in their subject matter, and are by definition very much in the public glare, so making sure there is a well-chosen network of support and advice around the academic is important.
What I’ve learnt from this experience is that my role as a knowledge broker is ever evolving and brings with it the opportunity to continue to upskill. There is certainly no one size fits all approach as every inquiry is ran differently, but my hope is that the above encourages you to take on the professional challenges that come your way and lean into the opportunity to realise that your already acquired knowledge will continue to put you in good stead.
*It’s called a rule 9 request because it’s made under the power set out in rule 9 of The Inquiry Rules 2006.
