(S9/E4) Scottish Policy Research Exchange: Empowering Equitable Decision-Making

Intro: 00:00:00

Welcome to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast, where in every episode we explore what is research culture and what should it be. You'll hear thoughts and opinions from a range of contributors to help you change research culture into what you want it to be.

Ged Hall: 00:00:23

Hi, this is Ged Hall and I'm an Academic Development Consultant at the University of Leeds, where my specialism is research impact.

And all of the episodes that I contribute to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast relate to that in some way. All of those episodes are available via a playlist, which I've included in the show notes. One area of research impact that nearly all academic disciplines can pursue is policy impact, because policy at all levels, from the very local to international, affects us all in some way.

into my current role back in: 2011

For researchers and academics, there are a range of organisations that try to make the process of engaging with policy more transparent, and maybe a little bit easier. For instance, many universities now have teams with policy expertise to help. At Leeds, ours is called Policy Leeds. We are really imaginative.

and he joined SPRE in April,: 2021

Catherine-Rose has extensive research experience in health, social care, social services, and public health interventions. She's also an experienced knowledge mobiliser and evaluator. We all really need her skills, don't we? And joined SPRE as its other Co-director in February 2024. Dave and Catherine-Rose, welcome to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast.

Catherine-Rose Stocks-Rankin: 00:02:57

Thanks so much for having us.

Dave Blackbell: 00:03:00

Yeah, thanks, Ged. Great to be here.

Ged Hall: 00:03:02

Well, thanks for saying yes to the interview, because as I said in the intro, I've been fascinated by policy for ages. And that means I've also been fascinated by the array of actors and organisations that are part of that ecosystem. So to help our listeners kind of situate where SPRE is in that ecosystem, Dave, as you've been with the organisation for the longest, maybe you could give us a potted history of SPRE.

And then maybe CR, if you could follow up and tell us a little bit about SPRE's aims and the kinds of things you get up to.

Dave Blackbell: 00:03:32

Great. Thanks, Ged. Um, so SPRE, um, as we, uh, call the acronym, uh, was created in 2019 and launched, I think just shortly after UPEN launched as well. So part of this growing area of, um, intermediary organisations to support capacity for research policy engagement.

h, led the organisation until: 2023

We've also worked very closely with a variety of different policy institutions. Um, Most notably, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament, and various local authority organisations. But we've also had, um, engagement and collaboration across the UK as well. Um, and on the policy side, a lot of what we offer in support is, I guess, insights and advice about how best to engage with academics.

But also some of that brokering role as well. So we've developed, um, quite a relatively large network for this field, um, but also a very close relationship with this network where we sort of cast the net out wide to say a call for expert or through collating and sharing all of the current inquiries that are published across the devolved nations for policy institution, um, and to that network.

erts as well. Um, I joined in: 2021

Um, And I guess a lot of the ideas that are excited that excited me that I brought into my role was really thinking about, um, the implication of what we know about complexity. This is a complex relationship between science and society, between research and policy, knowledge and action. Um, and part of that complexity is awareness that, uh, not only do we want to encourage academics to speak truth to power, but we also need to attend to and understand and navigate the ways in which power shapes that so called truth as well. So there are processes that affect, um, both the production and use of knowledge and the mobilisation in between so we can really learn from expertise and evidence ourselves. So we really started to develop our thinking around, um, What role we can play, what messages we were, um, communicating policy and practice and knowledge mobilisation audiences and what resources and support we could provide, um, through some of that learning.

And I guess through our development to maturity, we shifted from becoming, uh, I should have said at the beginning, actually, we established as part of the Academy of Social Sciences, um, as a sort of pragmatic way to create the project, a bit of a startup. Since we had this model and our thinking a little bit more developed, um, we decided that a better fit would be for us to be an independent charitable organisation.

So in: 2022

So we worked with this, um, consultant, Brianna Pagato, um, to develop a bit of our thinking about our mission, vision, values to engage in a recruitment process that reflected that. To hire a new board of trustees, establish our new governance set up, and then once that new board of trustees were in place, um, we pitched and, uh, refined and committed to this new direction of travel, which, um, internally, I guess, and externally, just to share it through our processes, we're referring to as a values led intersectional practice, but I realise that's a lot of jargon.

It's important for us because it is, I guess, really honouring and referencing some of the insights that we're trying to draw on. Um, but perhaps a shorthand way of describing that in more accessible terms is that we're really trying to understand and apply, uh, insights on the importance of relationships, on the importance of understanding and navigating uncertainties through learning and advancing equity in how we do that as well.

Recognising that there are differences in power relationships, and we are conflicted within those as we act as knowledge mobilisers. So we need to attend to What our influence is, um, through this commitment of a new direction of travel, um, we decided as well that a better model for an organisation like SPRE and more values led model would be a co directorship rather than a single directorship.

Um, and on that basis, we went through internal recruitment to recruit me into a co director role and then went through quite an extensive and rigourous external recruitment exercise. through launching, relaunching SPRE as an organ, new organisation. Um, then over the summer, uh, recruiting what ended up being Catherine-Rose into the role.

Uh, I'll hand over to you now. CR.

Catherine-Rose Stocks-Rankin: 00:09:58

Great. Yeah, thanks, Dave. Um, I always love his listening to the history of SPRE and I suppose there's a few things to pull out in terms of what we're doing now. So, 1 of the things we're still a new organisation and I think it's important to signal that and we're taking time to formulate the strategy.

So 1 of the agreements we have with our board is to spend this year as in the. 24, 25 financial year developing our strategy, and that's not to say that we aren't very busy and a lot of how strategy is developed at SPRE is actually through the culture that we're building as an organisation and the practices that we have, which we'll speak more about as we go on.

But in terms of the bread and butter of what does it look like to work at SPRE day to day? And what do we do? Um, we're very interested in the ecosystem in Scotland, the knowledge ecosystem in Scotland, and how decisions are made. And so that includes higher education institutions, so all of the higher education institutions in Scotland, as well as the major governing bodies.

So as Dave said, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament, local government networks, but a range of other actors in that space. So, um, Health and Social Care Boards, for example, or other public bodies that might be making decisions. So we recognise that policy making decision making is happening, you know, at all levels of our society.

It's happening within higher education institutions as well. And that research evidence, but not just research evidence. Knowledge of different kinds can be used to support that decision making and make sure that it's just and equitable. So I suppose what motivates Dave and I every day is to focus on how we tend to and nourish that ecosystem.

Um, some of that looks like convening people together to have conversations and do work together. So. For example, we convened an event with Scottish Government, um, and a range of academics and researchers and knowledge mobilisers, knowledge mobilisers across Scotland, uh, to have conversations with each other.

And it was a, it was a wonderful event, just in the spirit of let's connect, let's network, let's talk about what is going to help us to work well together. We also do lots of capacity building, which looks like training. Um, So we support academics and knowledge mobilisers and universities to think about how they can go about engagement, think about impact, embedding impact into their work, uh, think about, um, different practices of facilitation.

So there's lots of that, which is about support, um, for people trying to do this engagement work. And one of the things we really emphasize is that this is a career long practice. So we offer. Capacity building training support at any range of career stage, um, and try to tailor it as best we can to the context that people are working in.

So that might be the specifics of their academic institution, or the kind of policy work they're hoping to engage in. And then, as Dave said, we also have this other role in terms of brokering. So we have this network called the brokerage. And we send out a weekly newsletter, um, but it's a wonderful network.

It's really engaged and people do a lot of amplification. So we also get asked to share information or put calls out for opportunities to engage with Parliament or Government, um, through that network. Um, and maybe a final thing to say is that we try to model what we think, um, the ecosystem could do more of.

So Dave and I really emphasize learning, reflective practice, the values work that Dave spoke to with Brianna, um, shout out to her book, which we can put in Make Good Trouble. Um, there's a lot of people in Scotland doing this work, and we are just trying to be part of that activity. And so we try to model as best we can what it looks like to work in an organisation that's very intentional and aligned, uh, that puts values at its heart, that thinks about equity and justice.

Um, so we'll say more about that as we go on as well, but yeah, it's a wonderful place to work and it's still emerging and changing as we go.

Ged Hall: 00:14:06

Thank you both for that. amazing tour around the, around the corridors, uh, and, and the thinking and the brains of, uh, that are in this space. And, and the heart, it, it sounds like, you know, the heart is very much in this organisation at a, at a, at a deep values level.

And, So we'll, we'll come on to that recruitment that you mentioned in a little while, you know, as I was fascinated by that, but we'll leave that for, for the next, uh, next question. But I just kind of wanted to kind of situate for people who were outside the UK maybe, um, in terms of, you know, the Scotland Act that started modern devolution in the UK in terms of, um, kind of returning powers, I guess, to Scotland after the, after the Act of Union 300 odd years ago.

st Scotland Act was passed in: 1998

And I can't remember who said this, but I, you know, I heard it in one of those events, uh, that, that we go to, to kind of go, how, you know, how does academia and policy work together? Well, um, it was on one of those events and it, and it said that that relative newness, because the, you know, the, the ossification of the, of the culture in, in, in the UK government, you know, we're being much older, um, more established, and, and, you know, these are the ways we do things, um, just hadn't really, you know, is still happening in, in Scotland.

So I just, I just wanted to get your kind of take on that. Does that, does that mean academics in Scotland have, you know, Is it an easier time? Is it, is it, is it easier for you as an organisation to kind of influence those relationships? So, CR, I'll come to you and get your take on it and then and see what Dave has to add to it.

Catherine-Rose Stocks-Rankin: 00:16:19

Great. Yeah. Thanks. It's a great question. Um, I suppose there's a few dimensions to this, uh, that I think are helpful to highlight. So one, anybody who works in the Scottish context, Also, of course, is working in the UK context. So one of the things that we always say when we're working, um, with researchers or academics, people trying to engage in governance is that we have 2 governments, 2 parliaments, and it's important to understand the distinctions between these and the powers that are reserved and the powers that are devolved to the Scottish Government and Parliament.

There's something about the both and in Scotland where we're always holding the reality. Of course, we just had a national election. Um, you know, so there are, of course, representatives from Scotland in the UK Parliament. You know, there are a number of policy issues which are retained by that parliament and by the UK Government, which we need to be aware of.

Um, And I guess what I would say is that much of that power holding, you know, hasn't changed. There's there's certain elements, of course, with the Scotland Act that that have created all of these powers. But the sense of of Scotland being a country with inside a wider country, this kind of doubleness is something that's sort of baked in to Scottishness.

And so I think the sense of pre-devolution of having to navigate and make policy at a local level. All of that has been here for a long time. Local governments would have always had certain powers. Um, there would have always been, you know, health organisations or other organisations, public bodies, things like that that predate the parliament.

So. Universities as well, of course, are very old. So University of Edinburgh, these institutions are very, very old, um, and have a long history and have and have continuously engaged, I suppose, with policymaking and governance. So there's something that we like to do, which is to slightly trouble the, there is a little bit of, um, a conversation that sometimes happens about Scotland about it's smaller, the parliament is new, the government is new, um, is it more progressive?

Does it mean that everybody knows each other? I think to a certain extent there is an element of that, but I would say there's these caveats that I would put around it, which is that as soon as you start to travel, Um, up into Shetland or Orkney, you know, there are a whole set of communities in Scotland who don't necessarily feel that it is closer or easier to engage, uh, with the Government or Parliament.

Um, and that for them, local government, regional, um, regional actors are the most important and the most dominant players. So I would say that, and I would also say there's a very interesting conversation happening right now about, we've just had the kind of 25 year anniversary of the Parliament. Um, so there's a lot of thinking about what is it like to now move beyond, you know, this quarter century mark and that there are people who work in the Parliament who still remember it being built, uh, who were part of the foundations of creating what it is now.

And, you know, within the next 10, 15 years, some of those people will move on and retire and there'll be a new cohort of people who don't remember that. And that's a very important phase of organisational development. which of course within central government, uh, that has long passed. So there is, there is still a freshness, um, but there's a history that that freshness sits within, um, that, that we need to attend to in terms of context.

And I think that's always something that we're trying to hold at That SPRE is the complexity and how people can see things from multiple angles and hold multiple layers, um, so that nothing is quite a straight shot of, I can just walk down the road to the Scottish Parliament. The door will be open to me.

Um, it's, it's sort of both and that story.

Ged Hall: 00:20:12

Yeah, I remember when I spoke to Faith Welsh in an earlier podcast, um, she was talking about that kind of size of, of, of country issue and, and, and she was saying that sometimes it feels like there's less degrees of separation between you and, and it was Jacinda Ardern who was the Prime Minister at that, at the time we recorded that, that episode, but um, you know, so, but, but interesting, you know, I think there's still, you know, no matter how big or small.

Complexity is still, you know, even if you have two humans talking to each other, there's still complexity there. So, you know, I think that's, uh, that's important to, to mention. Dave, I'll come to you in terms of your take on that.

Dave Blackbell: 00:20:57

Um, yeah, I mean, I really agree with all the points that CR just made. I think that, um, is an added complexity on top of our smallness is that, um, the duality of, uh, Position in the UK um, on the smallness. It's something that we often someone always raises. It's almost like a bingo point to score when you're in a meeting like you've described. We're talking about reflecting on Scotland and how best to work together and appreciating that there is it is easier to get more of the relevant people in the same room together.

Um, as CR also mentioned that easyness. Often reflect people who live in the central belt. So there is, you know, Scotland is still very big. There's a lot of travel time between the very north and the very south and across different angles as well.

With the benefit of the smallness as well, I think also comes a little bit of a reputational risk. So if you are engaging and it's not received well, or, you know, we've seen recently, um, sort of political influence coming into, um, sort of critiquing researchers in their roles in particular, um, Governance processes or advisory roles.

Um, there's a risk as well that, you know, once you've been sort of black marked or, you know, people have a view of you, then that spreads very quickly as well. Um, in terms of some of the distinctiveness of Scotland, um, we often hear colleagues in Scottish Government and other people talking about the Scottish approach to policymaking, um, which is a kind of very clear commitment that came with, um, uh, you know, devolution.

Um, And very broadly speaking, that's kind of got three elements. One is this real commitment to being evidence informed in policy and in scrutiny of legislation and formation of that. Um, the other is being strengths based and working with communities who are being impacted by the policies. They're not seeing them in deficit, but working with them, building on their assets and their strengths.

And related to that as well, the third aspect is co production. Largely, we understand that from Scottish Government colleagues as being co producing across societal actors, whereas co production within academic circles very much centres academics as being the key actor being involved, and they're including others in their work.

So, and I think that those, those values of that approach, those angles do hold true, at least at a sort of important rhetorical level, there is chat as well about the importance of scrutinising and examining how well that's playing out in practice, particularly as we're reflecting 25 years on from devolution.

But I think those even at the sort of, um, eye-level policy signalling level, those those aspects of the Scottish approach in some way allows SPRE to lean into that harder as well. So each of those points resonates strongly with how we are articulating SPRE's new direction of travel. Um, and within some aspects of Scottish Government as well, there's been, um, recent articles, I think, uh, some guides published last year on how intersectionality as a feminist, a black feminist derived concept can be applied to thinking about policy development.

Um, now that I wouldn't expect to see in a Scottish, in a UK government setting, um, that might be more. To do with the, um, current, uh, politics of UK and Scotland, um, and the differences there, but, um, and, you know, it's not to say that this is an approach that's been taken across the whole of government, but the existence of those sorts of documents and a commitment to this sort of approach, we feel is quite important for us to be able to, um, Have legitimacy in and be sort of seen and respected and have that credibility in us really leaning into those as well Um, obviously we're able to do things in a way that bigger institutions aren't able and that's got benefits and compromises as well But um, I think yeah at a high level that's quite important for SPRE to be able to exist in the way it does Um, and yeah, I guess lastly there's um There's a lot of talk around, um, how well Scotland has done in terms of the legislation it's passed and the policy it commits to and puts in place, but that there's still this big gap between The policy and the implementation, and I think this is a widespread problem.

Um, but it also, um, I think, connects strongly to SPRE's new direction of travel and real commitment to think more broadly about the ecosystem of relevant knowledge holders and relevant decision makers. So going beyond the academy in terms of research and beyond, um, central and government and parliament in terms of policy actors to think about local government.

public bodies, practice organisations, NGOs, communities as all important in this web of different interactions. Um, so that's, uh, reflected in the activities we're doing, but it's also a direction of travel we're trying to grow into as well.

Ged Hall: 00:26:22

Brilliant. Thanks. And that kind of brings me back to, you started talking about, um, the, the move in the, in SPRE in terms of the nature of your organisation and how that affected, uh, affected the recruitment, which was actually the thing that kind of stood out for me as a really, um, different process.

Um, you know, it was, you know, as I was reading it in terms of seeing, you know, just an initial being drawn into it by an initial advert, and then kind of looking at how you were framing that process and the different stages of it. It, you know, it was, I found it absolutely fascinating. So fascinating, I thought, even though I don't know a great deal about policy engagements, I think I might actually have to apply for this just to feel what it's, just to feel the process in action.

So, without me kind of saying what I know about it, because actually that's just me reading your documentation and having quick chats with you, with the both of you. Uh, previously, I wonder if you could, um, give our listeners, Dave, uh, a kind of overview of that process and why it was important and, and how you got the board of trustees to agree to it.

Um, and all the, all the kind of nuts and bolts of all of that.

Dave Blackbell: 00:27:44

Thanks Ged. And, um, yeah, I really appreciate your interest in it as a process. Um, I guess one aspect that it sounds like it worked is that this was both a really important internal process, not only for, you know, putting in the rigour of recruiting someone that was a really good match for SPRE, but also as a process for us to work through with a brand new board of trustees.

You know, nine brand new trustees learning to work together, learning to figure out what this set of words are in this commitment that we've just agreed to, what does this now look like in practice and how does this also communicate SPRE's, new direction of travel and look and feel and commitment to the wider world.

So I think we were successful in doing all of those things. Um, It had origins in our shift to become a SCIO, a charity, um, and in our sort of experience of recruiting our board of trustees. So a lot of the, um, the thinking and our experience of trying to embed those same values, um, and thinking into recruiting a diverse range of people who are aligned and committed and will bring challenge and difference, um, into the organisation.

And that really set us up, I guess, to, um, I guess the thing I really appreciate about SPRE is that it's both a new organisation and it's established. And in that, um, newness, we're able to, I guess, agree from the very start that this is what we're committed to. This is what we're aligned around. Um, whereas I think both CR and I have, um, And I think most people that work in this space who are committed to, um, you know, trying to advance equity and knowledge production, mobilisation and use.

Normally you're in a position where you're having to advocate that this is an important thing to do. And then, you know, do the best job you can to start shift thinking and practice around it. We were lucky that we were starting with a group of people and an organisation that was de risked enough that we could say, we're going to commit to this from the start.

And the challenges are, how do we do this? Well, Um, and how do we learn our way through that as well? So we're not trying to be perfect. We're trying to, um, embed this kind of auto correction or not necessarily auto, but, you know, bringing in, um, voices from people that we're engaging with and trying to connect with, uh, to influence how we correct ourselves and improve.

Um, so some of it in terms of the process just timed in with when I stepped into the new co-director role when we were relaunching and when I was about to go on to paternity leave. Um, So, um, some of that meant that the first step that we did, we did this, all this thinking about, um, how should the board think about whether or not to recruit me into the role and the standards against which I was being assessed, and then how do we adapt and apply those same standards and improve the standards for external recruitment?

Um, so there was a bunch of work that went in before we launched that kind of got tested out on me. Um, We then had this slightly awkward period of me being off to six weeks. So what do we do in that meantime? And suddenly it clicked that actually that could be quite an important step in our process. Put everything out there.

Just kind of be transparent and accountable to what we're trying to do and say, please give us feedback. If you have thoughts on this, influence what the criteria and what the process should be. And we're putting in place mechanisms that people could do that anonymously as well. Um, and really try to be clear in an authentic and how we are communicating that to, um, I guess, signal as much trust building as we could allow people to feel confident that if they were to give us feedback.

We would listen and adapt accordingly in a, in a, in a responsive way. Um, so a lot of that is in the nuance as well as how we show up, how we communicate, how we create, you know, how we hosted our, our relaunch event. And then there was a series of other steps that I won't go into the details of, but, um, I think you can see it all on our website.

We've not taken it down yet. Um, including, you know, like an interview with me, with a trustee, I really felt it was important that, um, in recruiting a co director that felt equal, that how do we account for the fact that I was recruiting them, or as part of that recruitment process, that I'd been in the organisation for longer.

So there's kind of power I hold in that, that knowledge and that position, um, reflecting my own positionality as well as, um, You know, someone who takes a lot of the privilege boxes, trying to become a leader in a space where we're trying to, um, decentre privilege in a lot of ways and centre the margins.

Um, what would it take for someone to have confidence that I was, um, someone that they would want to work with and that give them a chance to assess me as much as I would assess them. Um, and I guess. Some some guiding principles through all of this was around transparency, accountability and accessibility to allow people to fully engage and understand as much as they could about SPRE, as well as us about them in a kind of as much as possible in this sort of situation, a more equal exchange of assessment, um, and then perhaps finally making sure that, uh, you know, understanding that there are severe limitations in a typical process of handing in a CV and a cover letter.

And then having a single interview. Um, we know there's a lot of, um, accessibility and equity issues around that standard process. So we really worked deeply with our, um, Consultant to think critically about how do we adapt, um, those sorts of processes, make them as accessible as possible, allow people to really shine through what their strengths are and go beyond the criteria that we set to be able to impress us with something that we hadn't thought of.

Um, so Ged, you mentioning that you didn't apply because you didn't feel like you knew enough about policy per se. One thing, perhaps we didn't do well enough is sort of signal that it's not. Not only the knowledge that matters, it's the, um, the practice that you bring in, it's the wider expertise about the processes, because the sort of the facts of the matter can be learned, but also there's too much to learn.

So we, We understand the context of policy in Scotland and the UK, not only from the knowledge we hold, but from the relationships we hold and our ability to to engage with people and learn from them as well. Um, so if you'd mentioned that to me, I probably would have encouraged you to apply regardless.

Ged Hall: 00:34:23

Yes. Yeah, that, that, that, that, that transparency was, was one of the things that just absolutely shone through when I saw the advert and the amount of material you'd put up, um, by Google Docs. You did it via, didn't you, uh, initially, um, which was, yeah, absolutely taking all sorts of feedback from all sorts of people.

And you could see that, see that in the documents. Um, You know, that was, you know, that was absolutely fascinating. You know, we do a whole series on open research in, in, in this podcast. And I don't think there's anything that, uh, that we've ever suggested that has been more transparent and more open than the way you constructed, um, the process.

Um, You know, so, so yeah, gold stars there. Definitely.

Dave Blackbell: 00:35:16

Thank you. It did feel, it was a little bit, um, a little bit unsettled, a bit nervous putting so much of ourselves out there to, you know, really encourage that level of scrutiny. But I think we also received such wonderful engagement and feedback from that as well.

There was, you know, not only have I reflected this same comment, but others on board who are reviewing the applications, but. It was an emotional process to read it. Like some of them really touched me that really made me, you know, feel teary because of the depth of commitment and wholeness in which people were showing up, even in just sort of the application stage.

Um, so it was a bit scary, but I think it was really, really worthwhile.

Ged Hall: 00:35:59

Yeah, I just want to kind of emphasise that, um, that congratulations on that because, you know, we've, um, we've internally congratulated ourselves in terms of releasing questions in advance and you kind of go, that, that, what you did went to a whole new level, um, way beyond that in terms of even, you know, you know, even having a handle on what, you know, the person being interviewed has probably been able to comment on the direction of what the questions and the, and the, uh, and the activities in, in the process would actually be.

So that, uh, even more, uh, you know, definitely living those co productive values. So CR, what did it, actually feel like as a person applying, as I was too scared to do it.

Catherine-Rose Stocks-Rankin: 00:36:55

Yeah, um I suppose a lot of what Dave has said, yes, is mirrored in my experience. Um, but yeah, I suppose maybe there's a few things to pull out. So, I mean, there was a range of information out there. Um, the, the, the resource that leapt out the most for me is this document, this Google doc, uh, values led intersectional praxis, which is SPRE's new direction of travel.

And it was, um, Launched, you know, as a, as a document that people could comment on. So you can still go to the resource and see comments, some of which are older now, but it's this kind of work in progress. And, um, so there was a few things I suppose about that one for me, I enjoyed something. I enjoyed reading something that was still in development because I guess my vision of a, of a co director would be, I wanted to come in and still be able to shape something.

So I wanted to have a sense that this was malleable. That I could bring my own perspectives to it, that I wasn't coming in to then just deliver a vision that was already agreed, particularly in an organisation like SPRE that's very small. There's a few other things, so one of the points that I've made to Dave a few times is that for me reading through it, there's a lot of references in that document that were things that Were dear to me work that I had engaged with over the last 10 years.

So an ethics of care, feminist ethics of care is explicitly referenced in there, um, which is a resource that I came across through my PhD and spent many years kind of centered on, um, also lots of this kind of knowledge mobilisation or decolonising knowledge, um, thinking about equity. Lots of the knowledge mobilisation literature, the policy literature.

So there was something for me about seeing all of these references held together that felt like that is how I think as well. These are the things that I also feel like I've been bringing together. But, um, in a way, honestly, that probably over the last five, six years, I felt more and more isolated around.

I didn't see, I saw lots of That being mirrored in practice, but maybe not being mirrored in terms of vision and strategy. So I knew people and worked with people who are living out those values and practices, but the idea of centring them in an organisation so explicitly putting them right on the front to say, this is, these are our, this is our lineage.

These are our anchor points, um, really felt like a, like a call to me. Like it felt, I read all of it and then kind of went away. You know, had another job. So I was debating would I leave. Um, and then it kept on feeling like this, you know, call back, um, home, honestly, to some of the founding principles of my own practice.

So I think there's something when Dave and I have shared that, I suppose there is something about, um, that goes beyond knowledge, you know, that and that and even values. It's the combination of things, knowledge, values, practice, culture, um. That really felt like that was what, what I, I needed in order to be able to move into something else.

And I guess there's a few other things that I also clocked early on, you know, so there is something about an organisation that's new. That's only got two employees who are both the co directors, you know, there's a certain amount of risk to coming into an organisation at this stage of its development as there was risk, of course.

To go out for co director, there was a more traditional model that Dave, the board could have chosen and didn't. Um, so, for me, there was something also about the way the recruitment. Um, so, in the application, there's an invitation to critique the values led intersectional practice document and that. Was great because I had views on it and thoughts on it in terms of how it was presented or the concepts that were used or how we could push it further.

So it meant a lot to me to know that my experience was going to be valued right from the get go in that application process that I didn't have to do a, it's all great. Because I wasn't up for that, and I wasn't up for coming to lead, co lead an organisation under some kind of pretense of everything is great because there's a lot of work to do in this space.

Um, and I also just appreciate it. I suppose there was a quite an explicit focus on relationships and how relationships underpin the work we do in this space, especially. Um, so not just what have I done? What have I experienced? What do I know? What are my credentials? Um, More traditional recruitment, but how do I go about forming relationships?

Um, which has been really important to me and something I've spent a lot of time on, but not had so explicitly focused in an, in an application. So that's even before the interview, you know, so that's the experience before you can get to the interview. Um. And yeah, the interview process was really interesting.

We can speak more about about that because I think there was something about the combination of a more standard panel interview with the board. Dave was there as an observer, but not asking questions. So, I did feel like I was being interviewed by a board, which is what I expected. For a co director level, because that's who we report to.

That's our governance structure. And then this more involved paired task, which is, which was for me, the crux of the interview was the interview process was if I got to that stage that there was going to be a task that Dave and I needed to do together. Um, so we can say more about that if it's useful.

Ged Hall: 00:42:45

Yeah. Yeah. I'd love to know a little bit more about that because it kind of joins up the two points that you've kind of both been making. Dave, you were talking about the power you held because you already were co director, already established in the organisation, already knew the board of trustees and all those, all that social capital that comes with that.

So how, how. You know, just interestingly from, from your different positions, how did that kind of, I suppose, imbalance in power, how did that play out in that activity? Because that, that was essentially part of the, part of the assessment, if I've understood it correctly. So yeah, who, who wants to go first on that?

Dave?

Dave Blackbell: 00:43:31

Yeah, it was something that we we quickly identified when we're designing the process that we needed to have something like that. But honestly, we didn't know what the actual task was until the sort of the Friday before the first activity on the Monday. And we, again, we worked with this consultant to design something that was really appropriate.

But it was helpful for us not to know ahead of time. Because we needed to sort of reflect and process what we'd heard from the interviews and really sit with that and just figure out what felt right live and what felt right, um, beforehand. And it ended up being just a very realistic scenario that kind of combined multiple pressures.

It started off with a bit of a sort of a ranking exercise that the candidate had to do themselves because the board wanted to be able to assess something that was a bit more specifically time pressured. And then this collective exercise built on the same sort of storyline that was to do with, um, I guess a threat to our funding.

One of our funders, um, there being some relational work to do there at the same time as, um, Me being off ill, it being early in the new co director being in post. So the handover process hadn't fully, you know, not the handover, you know, the onboarding process and everyone, you know, I was getting up to speed and then organisational knowledge, not being fully there as well as having to deliver an event that day.

And, you know, so there were multiple things I had to work through. So it felt very real for me because these were all, you know, potential risks that, you know, we were considering actively. Um, and really reflected our day to day activities. Um, and it also felt quite vulnerable to me because I, um, part of it's just, you know, we're role playing and people feel different levels of comfort with role playing.

And, and the other part is what we really intended it to do as well, which is give an opportunity for the candidate to see what it was like to work with me. So I genuinely felt that I was also being assessed at the same time. And although we didn't have anyone else observing it, it was being recorded and we had some members of the board that were going to watch it afterwards to reflect on it.

So, um, yeah, I guess the, the realism, um, really made it feel like I was part of that assessment process as well.

Ged Hall: 00:45:48

CR, what was, how did you feel in that, uh, in terms of the power dynamics going on?

Catherine-Rose Stocks-Rankin: 00:45:57

Yeah, I mean, I, I loved the task. The task was hard. Um, but I a hundred percent came into that task to assess whether Dave and I could work together.

Um, so that for me was, it was a very important part of the process because You know, I, I held, um, a director role in another small charity. I was part of managing an organisation. Um, I was a few years into that role. So there was something for me around. I, I guess I understood some of the importance of dynamics between directors or people in a senior leadership team, the ways that you have to work together, make decisions.

It's also, this is my 3rd co leadership role. So I've had 2 previous co leadership roles. Um, so I have an understanding of, of how. Yeah, I'm vulnerable. You need to be because there's just the 2 of you. There is no really there's no 1 else. You can take an issue to and, you know, with any good relationship that's creative and dynamic and oriented to change.

There will be conflict. So how are you going to work that out? So, I suppose I came into it with my eyes wide open and I knew I was. Like I said, I was moving into an organisation that's at this developmental stage and I love that. And that's what I wanted, but I just really wanted to be sure that the person that I'd be doing that development work with is someone I could work closely with.

And so the task for me. On the 1 hand, it was, um, I think, you know, the task had certain elements that were recorded, but there was a bit of a, uh, kind of landing and ending bit that wasn't recorded. So Dave and I could arrive. And I remember saying, like, I'm going to take this. I'm going to play this. Like, it's real.

Like, I know it's an interview and I know we're meant to be playing a role, but the role that I'm playing is. I'm a director in an organisation. I need to go direct this with you. Uh, that's it. And I, and I, so as far as I'm concerned, if I get the job, we're very quickly, this is all going to become real. Um, so I just played it straight in that way.

And I think you did too, Dave and it, and it was high pressured and I, and I think the design of it was very good in that sense of, I can't remember, I had 10 minutes or something, or maybe five minutes. You've got 10 tasks that you have to orient. In terms of priority, and you've got 3 minutes or 5 minutes to do it.

And then we had this other, I don't know what the problem is, but then there's this other and like, you're going to be told what the problem is. And you've got 5 minutes to think through how you're going to respond to it. And then you and Dave just have to work together to kind of hash it out over a 25 minute period.

Um, yeah, so I, and that honestly, that felt very real to me in terms of the kinds, kind of decisions I was making in a senior role. And so I enjoyed that. It was on par with the experiences that I had in the past, but that Dave and I could just like, you know, figure it out between us. How are we going to really.

How are we really going to work together? And so when I left the interview, I guess I felt, I mean, I know once you get to the 2nd stage of an interview, anybody. You know, probably anybody who was in the first round could have done the job. Certainly anybody who was in that second round could have done the job.

So I just thought, well, I've brought my whole self. They're going to make a decision based on that person, which is what I want. And I felt like, okay, if they give it to me, I can say yes, because I know that I've tested this relationship enough to feel like it's worth. Moving into this, um, into this role.

Ged Hall: 00:49:36

Yeah, that's wonderful to hear because, you know, an interview process is matching, it isn't.

Um, it shouldn't, but maybe nearly always is that the, the recruiter has the, has the power. But, uh, yeah, there's absolutely the power to say no, um, when, when, and that should be true. And you need to test, you need to test your criteria absolutely as the, as the person applying for a role. And it's lovely to see that actually being.

respected by this process. It's been fully respected by this process so that, uh, you know, you could work together going forward and, and respect each other and see strengths and weaknesses. I guess you, you know, that, that emerged naturally for you during that activity that you could see that, yeah, you're nodding away.

So, um, So that recruitment process was a real, it felt to me like a real powerful demonstration of the, of the kind of move of SPRE from its first phase into this, into this new, new phase. And I'm just going to remind listeners what to what your website says about this new phase. So you have an aspiration of supporting the needs of the Scottish policy, Scottish research policy landscape by placing values, equity, learning and improvement at the root of everything we do.

So now that you are working together and, and is it, is it February? You, you came in to post CR? Yeah. Yeah. So, so since, since then, we're now in August recording this. Uh, so the Olympics, uh, uh, going on in the, in the background for all of us. Um, so now that you, you're a few months in, you know, six months in, how's that actually, how are you actually managing to implement that?

that vision in, in SPRE. So CR, I'm going to come to you first as, uh, just to make sure you, you know, everybody knows you've got the power.

Catherine-Rose Stocks-Rankin: 00:51:47

Yeah. Um, well, I suppose there is some, there's a few things that feel quite important. So, um, Maybe I'll just say one of the first things we did, Dave and I, um, because it is co, you know, it is co leadership and we attend to the balance of power quite a bit in the work that we do.

It doesn't mean that we have to do everything the same or everything needs to be exactly equal. Like that balance is from an equity perspective. We've got different strengths and energies and abilities, and we try to play to those strengths and support each other. In the stretch space. Um, but one of the first things we did was tell each other our origin stories of how we've come to be in this work and in this role.

And at this point in our lives, and we spent a whole day doing that. Um, we had, we, we did it online. Um, and we had a long break in the middle, uh, for a walk and things separately. But I think there's something for me, I think beginnings are very important. So how you begin something and what you put in at the beginning, you know, carries through and what you don't put in usually is missing in some way throughout.

So I think for me, the living through of those values of thinking about learning, of thinking about improvement, about thinking about equity. Began in that 1st, piece of work, and there's a few other practices that we have that I think are really important to share. So 1, we try to have some reflective practice, whether it's formalised in a structure of reflective practice shifts and changes.

Depending on our capacity, but the intention of reflecting, debriefing, talking about our experience happens every week in some way. Um, so we always reflect on events that we've delivered or, you know, meetings that we're holding. So there's a lot of adjustment. Around that direction of travel to make sure that it's to make sure that it's values aligned and equity oriented and that we're learning and improving as we go.

Um, we also have this great board who's supporting us and has committed to allowing this space for strategy development this year. There's lots of experiments happening and we're testing lots of things out to see what works. But we have a dedicated working group that's meeting this summer that's helping us think about our strategy and our impact.

And one of the things, the first thing we did in that working group is we took some of the, the kind of offering that we have out the way when we're doing capacity building with academics and knowledge mobilisers and researchers, and we brought that in. So we have these three key messages that we try to land with people when they engage with us about, um, having a focus on purpose.

Um, making learning your strategy and most importantly, starting where you're at. So we did a piece of work with that working group where we just said, we're going to start where we're at, where we're at. These are the experiments that we've got planned. These are the, this is the programme of work we're going to have for the autumn.

How is that work strategy aligned or values aligned in terms of how we've conceived of that strategy so far. So that, that feels great. And The board performs a very important governance function, but the working group sits outside that governance function and allows us to be in a more creative space, which is great.

Um, and to have the expertise of the board come in to the strategy development is very important. And then maybe a final thing to say is that we're still working, you know, it's just Dave and I at the moment as the kind of central employees, but we, we also work with consultants. So Briana Pegado is continuing to support SPRE.

Um, focused explicitly around, um, diversity, equity, inclusion, and will probably help us with some of our policy development. Um, so that's a bit about organisational foundations and learning. And then we're working with another consultant called Ray Cooper, who's helping Dave and I to think about our way of working together.

And for me, having had two other co leadership, um, experiences, that's so important to have a third person come in and help you attend to the way you're working together. Because I guess one of the things I say about co leadership is there's just nowhere to hide. There is no one else to do the work. It is just you.

You're performing all of the roles. You're doing the budget, you're doing the comms, you're doing the delivery, you're doing the development, you're writing the policies, you're writing the strategy, you're answering the emails, you're doing the newsletter. So. If you don't attend to how you're working together, like any partnership, it'll start to fracture.

Um, yeah, so I guess that's, that's just some of the kind of under the hood, so to speak. Uh, I guess picking up your question about what's at the root, this is some of the foundational work, but yeah, Dave, you can say more about how, how we're working.

Dave Blackbell: 00:56:54

Yeah, thanks. CR. Um, I guess some of the really like the practical ways in which the benefits that work really shows up.

Um, It's really nice for me to see an experience because I guess I've got the before and after snapshot within the same organisation and in a lot of ways, a lot of what we're doing is the same. We still deliver a lot of training, but the way that we deliver training has really shifted. So, um, not only are we spending more time being very intentional.

Reconnecting and building the relationships up with the people that we're delivering training with and we're asked to deliver training for, um, really attending to understand their context and adapting things to fit the needs and the purpose they're looking for out of this. Uh, but also when we're in the session delivering it after all of that design and, and pre work, um, we're really shifting it from the typical training approach, which is often, you know, like 75 percent of talking at people and then 25 percent a bit of a Q and A.

We're really sort of, I guess, de centring ourselves as the only experts in the room. We're providing short, sharp provocations that is trying to sort of stimulate the purpose of that. It's less about, you know, really the knowledge we're trying to transfer from us to the participants. But it's more trying to pique interest and understanding and propagate new thinking in order to elicit better quality of conversation amongst the people in the room, but then undertake a series of sort of exercises for people to reflect on questions together.

That explicitly works from questions about what are their strengths, recognising that this work, um, this in between space that we're all doing. Ged, I think you've actually published on this, you know, what are all of the skills and capacities that you need as a knowledge memorizer? And what did you, you found something like 80 different categories of skills?

Ged Hall: 00:58:51

I, I can't claim that that was, um, Julie Bailey, David Phipps, and the first name of the person who alludes me, but I think the surname is Batac. Um, I've never, never met that person. I met David and, and Julie. But yeah, that, uh, that competency framework we use a lot at Leeds to try and get people to think about their, um, yeah, their impact roles, um, and what they need in their team for impact.

Dave Blackbell: 00:59:19

Maybe I've just heard you talk about it then, but, um, anyway, so the point being that we already have a lot of strengths, um, a lot of skills, particularly as researchers that you can then apply to the practice of knowledge mobilisation and positive influencing and engaging the policy. So we really try to work from that base, understand also where are the opportunities in that context they can engage with, where are the networks of people they can engage with.

And then how do they, um, really set clear intentions, understanding the values and the incentives they're engaging with, both within them and in the context they're working in, the dilemmas and the tensions that those can raise. And then how do they, um, understand approaches to making learning their strategy.

So we provide a lot of resources and excellent guides that other people have produced or we produced ourselves and other offerings and opportunities that they can intersect with SPRE and the host institution to get further support along that journey. So it's, it's not only enabling the learning. The co learning and the recognising of people's strengths within the session, but also trying to set people up for this ongoing practice, recognising that any point of intervention we have with a group is never sufficient.

We're only this kind of moment, maybe an inflection point on a trajectory. But how do we build our, um, Support up in a way that allows people to kind of bounce between different opportunities for support as well as opportunities for engagement. So on that side, we've really started trying to lean into playing this convening role around how do we act as a point to bring diverse knowledges together and applying, apply our combined expertise then around designing and facilitating and learning from these sorts of events.

Um, CR mentioned one particular series of events we've been doing with Scottish Government recently. Um, so it's that, you know, we're moving away from being kind of the experts in the room to being the co, the conveners and the co facilitator, the facilitators of co learning. Um, and then how do all our different activities start to weave together to support these different journeys across different career stages and depths of engagement.

Um, So yeah, all of this work that we do in and around that is necessary for us to be able to attend to that with a lot of rigour, and rigour is a word that we keep coming back to in this kind of everyday practice sense, where we're really trying to embed ideas and ethos of an ethics of care, you know, attending to these relational needs.

And I guess just maybe one other reflection is that I've really had this felt. felt shift in terms of the quality of the conversation and, um, uh, engagement that CR have and I have with each other as well as other people that we work with. Where it's not just this sort of rational and objective, um, approach that we're clicking into that we're using.

This is the currency of the space we work in, but we're really showing up and noticing and learning from our emotions and from our embodiment about the activity. We often talk about, you know, what do we have energy for? What don't we have energy for? That can really guide us in terms of how we're prioritising our tasks during the day across sort of the seasons of work that we do, as well as how we're splitting tasks between us.

Um, and noticing the reactions that we get from different interactions as well as a, the guiding sense, um, that we also engage our brain and our critical thinking to make sense of. So it's this, um, we often talk about shifting from technical ways of making sense of the work we do to more relational ways.

And I think that's a nice. tangible example for me of a sort of a technical way of engaging and making sense of how we deliver these things to this much more, you know, technical there being rational and objective, relational being embodied, emotional, rational. Objective and values led, so it's trying to be more holistic in how we, how we do that.

Ged Hall: 01:03:30

Brilliant. And I think, uh, I think in some ways I was going to ask the, what do you hope, um, the impact of SPRE will be long term as a result of moving in, moving in this direction. But I think you've got it. I think you've kind of answered that in terms of, uh, in terms of that, uh, sketching out that, um, that series of activities and how you, how you're operating now, um, but is there anything you want to kind of, this is what, uh, this is what we hope our effect will be on the Scottish policy research ecosystem?

Catherine-Rose Stocks-Rankin: 01:04:04

Um, I mean, what we hope is that we are, we are part of this strengthening towards more just and and equity oriented governance and also that we improve and support support the work that's happening around research culture. Um, Because, as Dave said, the way that research evidence is produced, you know, it is contextual.

It's based on a set of relationships and power dynamics. None of that is neutral. All of that is designed. There are choices around that. And so we're very interested. The reason why we talk about capacity, um, is because we're interested in strengthening what's there already. There's a tremendous amount of expertise and knowledge within higher education institutions in Scotland.

There's a lot of very skilled people, people who are very committed, um, to, to doing their bit, right, to make this world that we're in a better place. And so there is something for us about, we're genuinely interested in supporting people to do that. And to support some of the systems and structures to enable that to be, you know, as nourishing as possible, these roles, these research roles, these knowledge mobilisation roles, you know, the other professional services that are are in higher education institutions, the leadership roles, all of those need support.

And that's an organ. That's what we try to do as an organisation. And. All of that middle space that Dave was describing, that's where we live is in between. So there's something about, we are very much attending to the relationships that get formed there and supporting the way that knowledge and information and expertise starts to inform decision making.

at supports justice. Um, and [: 01:06:00

Like, this is a time where, you know. Much of that was prompted by misinformation. I think we really need to continue to have a conversation about what kind of information and knowledge we use to make decisions. And is that justice oriented? Is that for all of us? And I think SPRE, I feel very fortunate to be working in an environment where we can really have those conversations.

Um, and yeah, grateful to you, Ged, for making space for us to have them right now. It feels really timely.

Ged Hall: 01:06:42

No, thank you very much for, uh, you know, it's been a really fascinating conversation for me. I mean, you know, thinking about, uh, about the podcast selfishly, it gets me access to some really interesting people and I'm, I just love, um, love asking questions and, and hearing you know, the heart and the passion, uh, and the, the direction, um, that the people are presenting when they answer those questions.

And I just wanted to thank you for kind of exploring how you've, um, how you've recruited and, you know, and demonstrating the openness about that and the You know, my quizzicalness about it, you know, uh, you know, being open to that and, and how you're changing as a, as an organisation, uh, and, and, and thank you so much for telling our listeners all about it here on the Research Culture Uncovered podcast.

So I'm going to. Leave it to both of you to say goodbye. So, um, CR, I'll come to you. So whatever you want to say goodbye in terms of, you know, maybe, uh, uh, another language or anything like that. Don't want to put too much pressure on you.

Catherine-Rose Stocks-Rankin: 01:07:54

Um, I'll just say, yeah, thank you very much for having us. And yeah, it's always lovely to be, even though Dave and I are in these conversations with each other, it is lovely to be in these conversations in such a way and facilitated, uh, the way you've done.

Thanks, Ged.

Ged Hall: 01:08:09

And Dave, you say goodbye to our listeners too.

Dave Blackbell: 01:08:13

Yeah, just again, echoing that. Thanks so much, Ged. It's been a pleasure engaging with you prior to this and today chatting with you again, um, big fan of the podcast. I think it does really important work. And so, yeah, hi to all the listeners, uh, would love if anyone's interested in speaking more with us, interested in collaborations or just to be co learners as well, please just get in touch.

Um, you'll find our details, uh, if you just Google us. Yeah. Looking forward to connecting.

Intro: 01:08:42

Thanks for listening to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast. Please subscribe so you never miss out on our brand new episodes. And if you're enjoying the discussions, give us some love by dropping a five star rating and written review as it helps other research culturists find us.

And please share with a friend and show them how to subscribe. Thanks for listening. And here's to you and your research culture.