Sydney alliance puts academics ‘respectfully inside policy tent’

Australia has devised a fresh way of harnessing academic expertise for practical purposes, with a young thinktank claiming to occupy the common ground between independence and influence.

The James Martin Institute (JMI), a fledgling partnership between the New South Wales (NSW) government and three Sydney universities, has enlisted two heavy hitters from public life to help bring academics “respectfully inside the tent” of public policy.

Bankrolled with A$10 million (£5.7 million) of seed money from the state government and an equivalent contribution from the three institutions, JMI brings researchers, public servants and politicians together to generate solutions to problems identified by government, academics or both.

The institute is independent from government, which distinguishes it from initiatives such as the UK’s Open Innovation Team and allows researchers to avoid perceptions of party political affiliation.

At the same time it directly involves government – unlike university collaborations such as the British Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement project – giving researchers a seat at the table of policy development.

JMI is particularly unusual in bringing non-government politicians into the discussions. “I am not aware of something similar,” said former economics lecturer and public servant Peter Shergold. “It really is a significant step forward in democratic governance.”

Professor Shergold, who rose through the ranks to become Australia’s most senior civil servant following a 15-year academic career, has arguably been busier since retiring from the Australian public service in 2008. He has chaired commercial, non-profit and government agencies and authored many reports for federal and state governments.

He has been particularly active in education, chairing groups including the Higher Education Standards Panel and the advisory council to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. He is chancellor of Western Sydney University, one of JMI’s partner institutions, and recently agreed to lead a philanthropically funded inquiry into Australia’s handling of the pandemic.

He has accepted an appointment to chair JMI, partly to scratch an itch developed while he headed government departments. “It frustrated me no end that so much academic research was getting lost in translation,” he said. “People working on questions clearly relevant to public policy were talking only to themselves.”

He said public servants were accustomed to sounding out academics as part of their “desktop research” but excluded them from the ensuing discussions. “You get academic research being interpreted through an intermediary. We often talk about evidence-based policy, but by the time governments get to it, it’s usually policy-based evidence.”

Professor Shergold said the JMI approach enabled academics to translate their work into “concrete, pragmatic conclusions that a government can actually use”. He cited the institute’s report Economic Stimulus Options for NSW, compiled in response to a request for ideas to jolt the state out of its coronavirus malaise.

“It was not looking for a 150-page report on what to do about payroll tax. It was looking for 10 things to focus on – short term, medium term, specific, broad. Not your traditional government report nor traditional academic writing, but something in that neutral space in between.”

The institute’s chief executive, Libby Hackett, said her 20-plus year career – including stints as head or deputy head of the UK’s Higher Education Policy Institute, Russell Group and University Alliance – had been spent trying to bring government and universities closer together. “I’ve seen it done well and I’ve seen it done poorly,” she said.

“When it’s done well, it’s about collaboration based on mutual respect. If we can bring more of our experts effectively into that public policymaking process, then we’re doing something right.”

Ms Hackett credited former NSW education minister Rob Stokes for setting up the institute in a “fully nonpartisan” way. This allowed for “healthy engagement in a full spectrum of policy” while also buttressing the institute’s “longevity” through opposition support. “We want this to be an enduring institute,” she said.

Professor Shergold said “co-design” was also a strength, with policymakers and academics jointly determining not only the research topics but also the parameters. “This is co-design at the beginning, not halfway through after the government has decided the terms of reference.”

He said academics were often “nervous” that translating their research could harm their careers by interrupting publication flow or casting them as “captured by government”. The institute combated both concerns by staying at arm’s length from government while bankrolling researchers’ efforts through competitively awarded “policy challenge grants” worth up to A$100,000 each.

“All we want is a commitment to use your research to influence public policy in a pragmatic way,” he said. “If you’re not interested, that’s fine. But if you are, you can preserve your academic integrity.”

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com