This news story is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Insight for knowledge brokers: factors predicting relationships with federal staffers’.

When it comes to furthering the reach of scientific evidence in policymaking processes, a large body of research has shown just how crucial personal relationships between researchers and policymakers can be. These personal relationships can help offset the overloading workload of policymakers and their staffers, especially considering they often rely on trusted sources for advice and information. However, there are often group norms, systemic differences, and other obstacles standing in the way of relationships between policymakers and researchers initially forming.

While there exist intervention models used by knowledge brokers to overcome these barriers and form relationships, they frequently use an all-encompassing approach where groups of policymakers are targeted based on a shared characteristic such as working on the same topic area (e.g. child and family wellbeing) or serving on the same committee. Despite this approach having demonstrated success at both the federal- and state-level with different models, it may not be sustainable long-term considering the scarcity of federal and institutional funding for research translation work.

As a result of this lack of funding, there is a pressing need to optimize these intervention models and one way to do that is by understanding what types of policymakers and staffers are more likely to engage and form relationships with knowledge brokers who are implementing these models. Our Evidence & Policy article reports on person- and office-level characteristics of 749 federal staffers who were contacted between September 2021 and August 2022 during a trial of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) model. We wanted to know which characteristics predicted increased odds of both the staffer meeting with knowledge brokers and developing a sustained relationship with them.

Staffers who were in mid-level positions, such as legislative aides, were three and a half times more likely to initially meet with knowledge brokers compared to lower-level staffers (e.g. intern) while Democratic staffers were one and a half times more likely to meet compared to Republican staffers. Additionally, we found that staffers were less and less likely to meet with knowledge brokers later down the road (i.e. less sustained engagement) for each additional year their boss was in office. While these findings occur within the context of a singular intervention model, they have implications for any knowledge broker looking to effectively translate research into policymaking.

By better understanding the influence and nuances of staffer seniority, political affiliation, and office tenure, knowledge brokers can more effectively focus their efforts which helps to ensure they engage with policymakers and staffers who are most likely to be receptive to their work. Specifically, our results suggest knowledge brokers should look to build relationships with mid-level staffers, particularly those working in offices with shorter tenures. Additionally, it may be easier to schedule meetings with Democratic staffers in general, but there’s no guarantee those staffers will be the right people to meet with on any given project. Whereas, for meeting/working with Republican staffers, knowledge brokers can expect to invest energy in establishing credibility perhaps in person or via social connections. Regardless, it is important to maintain a bipartisan balance in many knowledge brokering efforts if we are to connect with policymakers and their staff.

Overall, our study highlights the importance of strategic relationship-building in the policymaking process. We help to provide valuable insights for knowledge brokers on how to navigate the complex landscape of federal policymaking, where personal relationships and trust are key to influencing decisions and ensuring that research is effectively integrated into policy. By leveraging these insights, other knowledge brokers can enhance their impact, contributing to more informed and evidence-based policymaking that better addresses the needs and challenges of society.