A daunting but valuable process

Dr Claire Lally, a Scientific Advisor for the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST) gave a useful talk for anyone interested in having an impact in parliament. She explained that research evidence is used in numerous areas of parliament – in producing briefings, during Select Committee hearings, and by external stakeholders.

POST, she added, is involved in connecting academics with parliament – it has a knowledge exchange unit, provides training on using research, and works with international colleagues in parliaments around the world to understand how research is being used. One of POST's most recognised outputs are its POST notes – short, evidence-based, politically independent briefings on a topical subject area.

Lally explained that developing these notes takes a huge amount of work. They consult expert academics on each note, examine both academic and grey literature, and make it clear where more research is needed or where research results have been ambiguous. Each note is reviewed by academic experts – Lally said the last she wrote had just over 20 reviewers before it was published.

Lally said engaging with parliament can help to raise the profile of research and broadens the areas where work is disseminated. 'You get different perspectives on your research, and it's also a way for you to consider your research in terms of real-world questions…. you might find that some research questions are already easily translatable to real-world situations, but for other topics it's good practice to be able to stand back and think "where does this fit in with day-to-day life?".'

There are many ways for academics and other experts to get involved with POST – through providing insight into POST notes, applying for POST fellowships, speaking to parliamentarians through events, or producing seminars and private briefings for members of the house. Lally shared some tips for those who would like to communicate their research to parliamentarians – make it relevant to them and ask why this evidence is important now, set your work in the context of the wider evidence base – if you are used to writing for academics ask what other sources can be used, make it accessible to non-experts and be candid about any uncertainties or limitations. Lally also shared some useful practical tips to get started, suggesting reading POST's Research Impact Briefing and browse the Research Impact Web Hub, checking POST's upcoming work programme and checking which Select Committees might have relevant inquiries which you can submit evidence to.

Principal Lecturer Student Experience Dr Louise Taylor (Oxford Brookes University), chair of the BPS Psychology of Education Section and a National Teaching Fellow, shared her experience of submitting written evidence to an Education Select Committee Inquiry into value for money in higher education. Taylor had previously published research showing that students with a consumer mindset were more likely to take a superficial approach to learning and have lower academic performance. 

Having never submitted evidence to an inquiry before, Taylor started by examining the evidence which had already been submitted to the inquiry and followed a similar structure with her submission. This included a short executive summary, a brief biography, and around eight paragraphs summarising the evidence in lay terms, with a final paragraph-long summary.

Unfortunately Taylor's evidence was not explicitly cited in the Select Committee's final report, which concluded that higher education should be more, rather than less, focused on value for money. Taylor, however, was not deterred, and still keeps an eye on parliament's weekly knowledge exchange roundup emails. She encouraged the audience to engage with parliament, to approach evidence submission with low expectations, and remember the value of having policy engagement experience in securing future jobs. 

Dr Gayle Brewer, Senior Lecturer (University of Liverpool) represented the National Association of Disabled Staff Networks at the House of Commons inquiry into Diversity in STEM and shared her experience of delivering oral evidence to that inquiry. 'It was quite a daunting process to give oral evidence, but was also one of the most rewarding and meaningful things I've done.'

Brewer explained that people are usually invited to deliver oral evidence on the basis of written evidence they have previously submitted. Prior to giving evidence, she said, witnesses are given a detailed guide to the process and she said it could be useful to watch prior evidence sessions online to be prepared for what to expect.

During evidence sessions, which usually take place either in the Palace of Westminster or Portcullis House, witnesses are asked questions by committee members. Brewer said, in the face of any questions where you may feel you cannot provide an answer, it was reasonable to submit follow-up answers to the inquiry after the oral evidence session.

She explained the parliamentary privilege that comes with giving evidence to parliament – where you are immune from civil or criminal proceedings based on evidence presented – however this does not mean people are immune from bias or discrimination based on the evidence they give at hearings. The outcomes of inquiries, in the form of reports, are often sent to witnesses prior to public release – but this can take many months to be completed. 'This is a daunting but really valuable process to be involved in, to be able to represent your organisation and to be able to hopefully influence policy.'