Does relevance matter in academic policy research? A comment on Dredge

This section of the journal encourages discussion between several authors on a policy-related topic. The same question may, therefore, be addressed from different theoretical, cultural or spatial perspectives. Dialogues may be applied or highly abstract. The Dialogue in this issue starts with Dianne Dredge's contribution here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2014.990661

The question of relevance regularly seems to arise in academic fields of research, with authors generally reflecting on the lack of influence in the (public) policy arena. As an example, the discipline of Geography has regularly experienced such debates at least from the 1970s (Berry, 1972, Blowers, 1974; Harvey, 1974), through the 1980s (Knight, 1986; Steed, 1988), the late 1990s and noughties (Martin, 2001; Peck, 1999; Phelps & Tewdwr-Jones, 2008; Ward, 2005, 2006) until now (Jakob & Marques, 2014). Contributions are often used to call for a (re-)focus towards particular academic research approaches in order to concentrate on ‘what matters’ and thus for academic research to make an active contribution to society. However, this often results in a ‘narrowing’ of research (Ward, 2005) towards a particular kind of research which individual authors deem to be ‘relevant’. Upon reading the invitation to contribute to such a relevance debate in tourism policy, I was dreading an argumentation for such narrowing of research into tourism policy and was pleasantly surprised to read Dianne Dredge's argument ‘ …  that there are multiple versions of what might constitute “relevant policy research” … ’. The debates about relevance may thus serve as reflective moments that might lead to reflexive practice (see Hall, 2004 for a discussion of reflexivity in tourism research). Such a reflective analysis of tourism research should be encouraged with a view to providing space for other, alternative meanings of research and for wider interpretations of who may constitute the publics for our research. Going beyond Dianne Dredge's call for more efficiently communicating the value of our research, such a reflection requires a consideration of different approaches towards research and their possible implications for research practices, for example, deciding what matters (research themes) as well as whether and how to engage (not just communicate) with certain publics.

The main differences between academic approaches are (a) the reason we engage in creating knowledge and (b) for what public the findings are intended. Burawoy (2004, 2005) uses the distinction between instrumental and reflective knowledge as a basis for categorizing academics into professional and policy academics (instrumental research) and critical and public academics (reflexive knowledge). See Table 1 for a list of characteristics highlighting the division of academic labour. Instrumental knowledge is created to solve seemingly clear-cut, often simplified, pre-determined problems without considering the potential complexity of the problem by critically questioning the reasons for conducting the research, the various meanings associated with the research problem and the wider values behind the research process (contract research can be an example for the creation of instrumental knowledge). In contrast, reflexive or situated knowledge discusses the meanings and values attached to knowledge and the positionality of the researcher: ‘all knowledge is produced in specific circumstances and  …  those circumstances shape it in some way' (Rose, 1997, p. 305).

Table 1. Division of academic labour.

Instrumental knowledge	Professional academic	Policy academic
Knowledge	Theoretical/empirical	Concrete
Legitimacy	Scientific norms	Effectiveness
Accountability	Peers	Clients/patrons
Pathology	Self-referentiality	Servility
Politics	Professional self-interest	Policy intervention
Reflexive knowledge	Critical academic	Public academic
Knowledge	Foundational	Communicative
Legitimacy	Moral vision	Relevance
Accountability	Critical intellectuals	Designated publics
Pathology	Dogmatism	Faddishness
Politics	Internal debate	Public dialogue

Source: Burawoy (2005, p. 1607).

Similarly, the publics for our research can be different and may consist of multiple and fluid publics, such as policy-makers, non-governmental organisations, practitioners, the general public, research participants, other academics and students. Strategies of engagement and communication will vary depending on the constellation of the particular publics for a research project.

According to Burawoy (2004, 2005), professional academics generate instrumental knowledge by combining theoretical with empirical knowledge. Their work benefits the wider field of study by extending research into particular areas of enquiry by successive and interconnected research projects and in the process further developing and testing research methods and conceptual frameworks. These can be used by policy and public academics as a legitimate basis for their research. In contrast, policy academics are concerned with providing solutions to specific problems pre-defined by clients, sponsors or research programmes with particular themes. The relationship between the academic and the client is usually regulated via a contract and the research process clearly defined from the outset and potentially less flexible depending on the client. The focus lies on answering the question posed even if the complexity of the problem may require the posing of different questions. The research theme is not generally defined by the researcher and the danger may be that independence is ceded to the client in terms of research design and analysis. In contrast, critical academics question and analyse the internal foundations of research (in particular aspects of power as well as the implicit values and meanings associated with common research practices) and highlight the responsibility that academics have towards under-represented groups of society with a view towards a progressive academic praxis. Public academics engage with particular publics outside the academy on matters of current societal interest with the aim to participate in public debate and thus intervene in public policy. By publicising certain topics and bringing these to the attention of the general public via non-academic media channels contributions, they seek to generate public support and thus exert public political pressure on policy-makers.

Clearly, this categorisation is an oversimplification and the approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive or opposed. The current landscape of higher education has eroded the clear separation of the different categories with most researchers engaging to varying degrees in several (if not all) different types of research. Yet Burawoy's (2004, 2005) model serves to highlight the divergent approaches to research and the division of academic labour which may contribute toward a thriving field of tourism research by providing a balance between the four types of academic categories. A strong bias towards particular categories will likely harm tourism as a wider field of study. For instance, the increasing trend towards so-called entrepreneurial universities (Hall, 2010) rewards the procurement of third-party funding (sometimes requiring contributions from partners) to the detriment of maybe more critical academics who may help the wider field of study by (a) analysing implicit value judgements in tourism research and (b) generating knowledge for and in collaboration with publics on the margins of society.

There are many different ways to undertake quality research which benefits different kinds of publics, some from an embedded position within a particular community and some from an external viewpoint. It is important to critically examine how our particular stances or approaches towards research and engagement with publics may affect our academic practices: from choosing a topic or issue, methodology, mode of communication, etc. In other words, what are the terms of engagement with our publics (Jakob & Marques, 2014)? Are we bound by certain restrictions, explicit or implicit, emanating from the public or from our own ethical or moral standpoint? Questions of influence on our research are not only pertinent when engaging in contract research, but also when the researcher is embedded within an organisation or group. While this allows for unparalleled access to information, the ethical considerations may be more problematic as the question arises whether and how to use informal, privileged information. For instance, although tourism policy research from an insider perspective is rare, Thomas (2011, pp. 494–495) decided not to use his position as non-executive director of the Yorkshire Tourism Board for retrospective academic analysis as ‘the consequences of any additional insights to policy-making that I might proffer could easily be outweighed by the potential damage (reputational, career or emotional) that I might cause by revealing certain relationships, practices or attitudes'. Clearly, as academics we need to reflect on our approaches to research and consider the benefits that a plurality of approaches (consisting of a combination of professional, policy, critical and public approaches) brings to the field of tourism.

In this response, I have aimed to provide space for academic plurality and to discuss how the field of tourism may benefit from the creation of different kinds of knowledge and engage with and communicate to different publics. A ‘one size fits all’ list of promotion criteria or communication strategy is not conducive to a healthy plurality within tourism policy research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.