Jane Cullingworth
This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Strengthening the role of third sector intermediary bodies in democratic governance: developing strategies with state and non-state actors’.
We can all agree that evidence needs to shape policy but how do we gather evidence, particularly from the frontlines? With the rise of participatory governance and an interest in the perspectives of communities, the third sector is uniquely placed to play a key role in facilitating and generating this evidence. But given the diversity of third sector stakeholders and multitude of perspectives, how is such evidence understood, interpreted and represented?
Animating knowledge requires intermediaries (known as knowledge brokers) to translate lived experience into action, addressing the know-do gap – that is, a gap between knowledge and policy. Across the third sector there are many intermediary bodies – organisations that support the sector and represent its interests. While these organisations are not typically thought of as knowledge brokers in the policy arena, they play an important role in ensuring that the voices of citizens and civil society groups are included in policy. Many are highly active in networks and partnerships with state actors.
My Evidence and Policy article explores the experience of co-designing a knowledge exchange project with a third sector intermediary body. I use the pseudonym Wychwood Council for Voluntary Services (WCVS), which is located in a large urban centre in Scotland. The goal was to develop collective policy recommendations to strengthen the relationship between the third sector and the state. To achieve this goal, I conducted focus groups and interviews with third sector organisations and public officials in Wychwood, as well as with other third sector intermediary bodies across Scotland. The project built on previous research I had conducted in the community.
While there was interesting learning about the sector-state relationship, the greater insights came from the process of working across disparate stakeholders. I identify two key challenges in attempting to develop shared recommendations:
Working collaboratively with a partner organisation
My interpretation of the findings, particularly from other intermediary bodies, created tensions in my relationship with WCVS. For example, based on my analysis of the focus groups and interviews, I portrayed third sector-state relationships as strained and problematic. In contrast, WCVS saw the relationship as positive based on their own experience in local state relations. As a co-designer of the project, their voice ran the risk of carrying more weight than that of others involved in the process. Navigating the relationship with WCVS and adapting the report to reflect their perspective, without undermining my integrity as a researcher in relation to other perspectives, was a very tricky process.
Developing collective policy recommendations across stakeholders
The goal of creating collective recommendations proved to be idealistic given the diversity of perspectives, which were at times oppositional. Upon reflection, the goal of unanimity seemed rather naïve given the different interests held by the stakeholder groups. The final recommendations were very high-level and, in truth, made only a modest contribution to ideas for strengthening the third sector-state relationship. The richness of the individual perspectives was diluted by the process of trying to create a collective voice.
Two key lessons in co-productive work
There were two key takeaways from this experience. Firstly, a co-designed approach requires a frank discussion about how power will be shared. Questions about analysis and interpretation need to be thought through before the work begins, and a process put in place to figure out how differing perspectives will be negotiated. Secondly, time needs to be taken to consider how research findings can best be presented for policy impact. While there is great appeal in working with stakeholders to turn research findings into collective policy recommendations, there is a risk that the process will water down recommendations, losing the richness of diverse and opposing perspectives. Something that everyone agrees on may be far removed from the lived experience at the frontlines, doing little to address the know-do gap.
Image credit: Hugh Edmund, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Jane Cullingworth is a Research Fellow in Urban Studies and Social Policy at the University of Glasgow. Her research interests include third sector-state relations and disability.
Read the original research in Evidence & Policy:
Cullingworth, J. (2025). Strengthening the role of third sector intermediary bodies in democratic governance: developing strategies with state and non-state actors. Evidence & Policy, DOI: 10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000062.
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading:
Structuring sustainable knowledge brokering in street-level organisations
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Evidence & Policy Blog 