Queen's University Belfast - Communicating the Future of Evidence Synthesis.

In this episode, Dr Nibedita Mukherjee discusses the importance of thinking about the need for rapid answers to policy-makers questions, having banks of synthesis at the ready, and the importance of using the breadth of social science so that we move beyond a “...scientific positivist perspective [of systematic reviews] that claim ‘we have the answer’”. Dr Nibedita also discusses her experience of using Delphi panels to help implement the results of research, and how they can ‘take away that social bias and really help in bringing out the more nuanced opinion. And by going through the iterative processes [of a Delphi panel], it's often possible to gain consensus even when the starting points were vastly different’.

In this episode, Joe discusses the value of design thinking for communicating research synthesis - ‘how theory can meet reality’ -  including using co-production, prototyping, visualisation, design games, and different types of research synthesis such as realist reviews. He also stresses how communication of research synthesis is not enough to mobilise it: “academics have made some massive assumptions that issues with communication on the ’reception’ side are because the issues are beyond people; too complex for them to understand and so move to ‘plain English’ or almost ‘dumbing down’ but there are two things that I think they forget: people don’t need it dumbed down - they need it in a form that enables them to make sense of it (in the same what the the researchers went through a sense making process - so too do researcher consumers). Secondly, even then, it has to be something that is perceived to be of value”.

Andy Stirling - who has sat on many government and other scientific advisory panels -  discusses how we need how to confront ‘how science can be more rigorous about how power shapes truth’  It's just saying it's okay to talk about it. In fact, more than okay, it's essential to a democracy that science be more open about how the answer you get from science can depend on the question.” We should be more open to communicating uncertainty to Ministers and public, and not ‘airbrush the uncertainties of science’ or simplistic ‘elevator pitches’ of their research summary findings.  It does not serve society, for science to give simplistic answers to help politicIans and ‘carry the can if something goes wrong’ and we need to keep it complex.