Professional task
Research or Policy Brief Format (includes referencing format suggestion)
Overview
Policy brief: provides guidance to policy makers. It must have policy makers (in government, institutions, companies, universities…) as its main target audience. It can make specific recommendations, or outline options for them to consider.
Research brief: summarises research findings (from your research and/or that of others) for non-specialist audiences. It can have different target audiences (politicians, scientists, lay people, patient groups, advocacy groups, farmers, non-governmental organisations…)
However, don’t worry too much about the difference between the 2, they are often used interchangeably.
Suggested format for your brief
Title: make it short, clear and relevant.
You can have a relevant image too, though this is not compulsory.
What the document is and who wrote it: ie. write: A policy/research brief by Nicola Marks
2-5 sentence summary of what the brief is about. Make it clear whether you are making specific recommendations/arguing for a particular perspective, or providing a body of evidence for the reader to make up their mind.
The summary might be in a box, in bold font, bigger letters, or in a side bar.
Key findings or recommendations. These need to be at the beginning of the brief too. They can be with the summary, or in a separate box. 3-6 bullet points.
---
[In theory, if the reader only gets to what’s above, that should be enough for them to know all the main things you wanted to say. You might want all the above to fit on 1 page (if you’re submitting a 2-3 page brief), or in the top of the page (if you’re submitting a 1 page brief)]
[There should be ~100-200 words so far]
[You don’t have to have any references so far; Background and body are where you would have most of your references.]
---
Background/the problem/the gap in knowledge [~150-250 words]
Explain what is at stake and why it’s important to consider it now.
You might want 1 paragraph overviewing the case study/technology/area of science, and 1 paragraph introducing, in a way that makes sense to non-experts, the literature you will be drawing on.
Body (~800-1100 words) [don’t call it that – pick a more specific sub-title]
The body is where you lay out your argument; use references to back up your claims.
Body example A
This research
Outline what research you conducted to inform the issue/address the problem (e.g. what texts you analysed, what public engagement exercise you are evaluating)
Key findings & implications which you connect to the relevant literature
Body example B
Key policy-relevant or public-relevant point 1 from the literature which you link to your research
Key point 2
Key point 3
Conclusions and implication
Key recommendations (~100 words)
As a list.
Be clear if different recommendations are targeted at different groups (patients, scientists etc.).
The recommendations here are more detailed than the ones above.
--
[You should be at 1250-1500 words by now. The reference list doesn’t count.]
--
Reference list [I suggest numbered referencing for this assessment, though you may choose Harvard if you prefer].
Suggested reference format
Footnote: IEEE
See here specifically for guidance: https://libguides.murdoch.edu.au/IEEE/text
[Check out the different tabs for different bits of detailed information.]
An example:
In the text:
It is important to investigate hope and how people imagine the future of biotechnology [1, 2, 3]. Sometimes, people draw on something called ‘the rhetoric of hope’, whereby they use particular words and expressions to present a positive imagined future [1, p. 723, pp. 724-8]. This research identified several examples of this.
[The first sentence refers to all three journal articles in their entirety, so I didn’t include page numbers in the text, just the number of each paper. The second sentence refers to specific bits of Mulkay’s argument, so I included page 723 as that is where he defines what he means by rhetoric, and page range 724-8 as that is where he focuses on the rhetoric of hope.]
In reference list at the end (references are ordered according to the order in which they appear in the text)
[1] M. Mulkay, "Rhetorics of hope and fear in the Great Embryo Debate," Social Studies of Science, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 721-42, 1993.
[2] N. Brown, "Hope against hype - Accountability in biopasts, presents and futures," Science Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 3-21, 2003.
[3] M. Borup, N. Brown, K. Konrad, and H. V. Lente, "The sociology of expectations in science and technology," Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 18, no. 3/4, pp. 285-98, 2006.