Making an Impact: Misreading, Misunderstanding, and Misrepresenting Research Does Nothing to Improve the Quality of Public Debate and Policy Making

Abstract

In a recent commentary for this journal, Haughton, Deas, and Hinks (henceforth HDH) discuss the dangers involved when trying to use academic research to influence policy. First, it is argued, there is the danger of co-option by wider (‘neoliberal’) political agendas. Second, and related, is the danger that researchers are “seduced in to providing provocative analyses in order to gain the attention of policy makers” (page 269). Some of my work, which in turn builds on the research of the Spatial Economics Research Centre (SERC),(1) is used as an example to illustrate these dangers. In particular, HDH focus on work claimed to represent the “orthodoxy that infuses much of contemporary thinking about local and regional economic development in Britain … what might be described as a mix of agglomeration boosterism and antipathy towards planning” (page 265).(2) This commentary is, in part, written as a response to the criticisms raised by HDH. That task is complicated by the fact that these mainly take the form of vague accusations, assertions, or insinuations, while more specific criticisms seem to arise from misreading, misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the research they criticise. I give some examples of these issues below. The commentary also addresses some of the wider, substantive issues, around agglomeration and planning as well as briefly reflecting on the broader impact agenda and the issues this raises.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.