Research Centres as evidence-providing resources for planners and policy makers

Abstract

Universities feature a mix of rigid structures and fluid relationships which can make accessing them and finding relevant research somewhat difficult for those in planning and policy roles. There have been many attempts to bridge those gaps, often through professional or disciplinary organisations and publications, like Planning Quarterly, Policy Quarterly and Impact Connector. Indeed, the Lincoln Planning Review is an attempt to provide a two-way bridge between academia and practitioner. These tend to be one-way delivery mechanisms and used by relatively few academics. University research centres may provide an alternative mechanism.

Research centres usually represent areas of internationally recognised research strength and capability and are used by universities to enhance recognition and the impact of those strengths in innovative research. This focus on research, however, raises questions as to their utility to address the more mundane research needs of planners and policy makers – practitioners who usually have to address problems as they arise based on existing knowledge and research rather than have the time to seek robustly researched evidence on which to base decisions. For planners, these are often place-based issues for which generalised models may be less important than local empirical evidence and data.

In this field note, I look at three of the 17 research centres at Lincoln University. These three could be providing evidence to inform planners and related policy makers. Two of these centres, the Centre for Land Environment and People (LEaP) and the Waterways Centre, were established more than a decade ago. The other, the Sustainable Property Research Centre (SPRC) is very new. Each is quite different in character and activity.

This note is essentially a critical reflection, based on being a researching member of all three centres, but viewing them from my planning and policy analyst practitioner perspective. My intention is to draw these centres to the attention of planners and policy-makers and encourage them to consider how they might best utilise such centres, while at the same time taking a critical look at the nature of the centre activities and what they may need to do to be more relevant.