getting research into public policy

I got my Coelho's The Alchemist. :) My second book in a year :) The first book is Moyo's Dead Aid. But don't get me wrong, I have got an explanation why I only have two books in a year :). And the matter is not about it anyway. The matter is I got my Coelho's The Alchemist using a gift card as a price for winning a group presentation in a summer school  GRiPPS (Getting Research in Publich Policy Summer School).

Anyway, the summer school lasted for two and half days. The idea is how to get research influence public policy making process. Then the discussion started with concept of what constitutes good research and what policy is and all its related issues. Then, it moves to design research, stakeholders mapping and drawing strategies. By and large, that's all about it. 

I think the organisation of the course is quite interesting. Instead of just being passive participants, the students were given slots (sessions) for applying the ideas into a presentation. Indeed, sometimes group working could be daunting for some reasons. But for somehow, in our group particularly, we could manage it to be an interesting excercise. I am not saying that because we won the group presentation best performance :) but indeed I felt comfortable and got some insight from the group members. 

After deciding what the topic for our group presentation, the main issue I think is the idea of how to treat a result of research in its relation with policy decision-making process.  Is it as an advocacy tool or a medium for informing decision makers? Where research ought to be placed? This is a 'hot' discussion in our early group meeting. Personally, in my view, it is a medium for advocating a particular policy. Research is not a 'neutral' entity if there is what the neutrality is. On the other hand, my colleague: Rebecca particularly, regarded that research is research in a sense that it does not belong to any side or wing (right or left wing or other political classifications or identity). Research ends for its sake. 

I disagree on this notion. Honestly. Somehow, I didn't go further to push the idea that research is only be meaningful when it is advocated to be transformed into something. And we somehow made a consensus that our research, in the context of the group presentation, does not either support existing policy or oppose against it.  Borrowing the words from some of the speakers research is "filling the gap".

By and large, the group presentation run smoothly and the positive vibe was there :)