Research services

Main findings and recommendations

Service Charters for parliamentary research services

Introduction

A ‘service charter’ sets out what clients can expect, in terms of practical service delivery and in terms of the standards and values the service aspires to. This post is based on the IFLA/IPU guidelines for parliamentary research services and on responses to an appeal for examples to the IFLAPARL mailing list in March 2022.

What the IFLA/IPU Guidelines say

The IFLA-IPU Guidelines for Parliamentary Research Services* (the ‘Guidelines’) strongly promote the adoption of a ‘service charter’. The full text of the relevant chapter of the Guidelines appears at the end of the post.

In summary the reasoning is that:

“parliamentarians and the administration may…have different understandings about the nature and the extent of services to be offered by the research service. Establishing a Service Charter may help to reduce misunderstandings by formally stating the scope of services available”
Guidelines, p. 24

The Guidelines defines a service charter as

“a document that states what the research service will commit to provide to its parliamentary clientele. It includes the parameters that will guide how the products and services will be provided. Typically, it would spell out the services offered, who can access these services and the manner in which they are delivered…[Elements of a charter] include operating principles and descriptions of what is – or is not – within the scope of the research service. From this charter, it should be clear that:
• the research service is offered to support parliamentary duties only;
• there is no support for the educational or academic pursuit of a parliamentarian (or a member of
his or her family or staff); and
• personal financial, medical or legal advice will not be provided”
Guidelines, p. 24

It is not clear, so far, how widespread the use of ‘service charters’ is. Some services have, rather, ‘rules’ which are formally defined by their institution and these may well incorporate at least some of the recommended elements of a service charter. Publicly-available examples of charters and rules are accessible in the links below.

Examples of research service charters and rules

These are available in their original language. (NB Google Translate can provide auto translations even for complete files).

European Parliament – rules of the members’ research service (in English)

Greece – rules of procedure of the scientific service of the parliament (in Greek)

United Kingdom, library & research statement of services (in English)

Lithuania – formal procedure for requesting work by the research service (in Lithuanian)

New Zealand – library and research statement of services (in English)

Belgium – library & research service charter (in French) (in Dutch) (informal translation in English)

Thanks to all the colleagues who provided the examples above. Further examples are welcome! Thanks also to other colleagues who provided examples that are not publicly available, and for their feedback on the topic.

A summary of practice on service charters

What are the reasons for having a service charter?

Reduce risk of misunderstanding of what the service will do, for whom, for which purposes
Spell out what it will not do
Set service standards and manage expectations
Clarify the priorities for service
Promote the service and its specific products
Guide staff and management, and offer them some protection

So, while the most obvious purposes are to demonstrate the quality of the service and to manage the expectations of clients, there can be additional and less-explicit intentions to (a) set standards for staff performance (b) manage staff behaviour, reducing the risk over-delivery as well as under-delivery (c) protect staff and the service from excessive and inappropriate demands.

It is worth noting that at least one service went down the road of a service charter only to find their first version too detailed, difficult to apply consistently and a cause of inflexibility. They stepped back to a more aspirational (values-based) approach, more strategic and less operational. in their promise to clients. There is also the risk that, if promised standards are not consistently achieved, client satisfaction and service reputation might even be damaged by a charter. Adopting a service charter is not an automatic and risk-free step – with the undoubted benefits there is a potential downside. One mitigation is to be conservative in the promise to clients: better to promise less and deliver more than the reverse!

What form of service charter?

The main options in use are:

‘Rules’, formally approved by the parliamentary authority. This gives the document force but it may be a slow process to get initial agreement and to make necessary updates later. There is always the risk of drafts being modified without full awareness of the operational consequences.
Guidelines set by the research service and translated into a communication to clients. This has the advantage of speed (to introduce and to revise) and coherence with service management – what is promised should be deliverable. But it lacks the force of Member decision.
Combination – Main principles in a formal ‘Rules’ but operational standards kept as service guidelines for flexibility.
Inspirational – A statement of the service’s purpose and commitment to certain values and to service quality. This might be stand-alone or might complement any of the three options above

Which option to choose?

The choice of option depends in part on the culture of the parliament concerned. In some, a set of ‘rules’ is the only format that will be acceptable, in others there is more flexibility.

It also depends on why the service wants a charter, for example

To set standards for staff
To make it easier to say ‘no’ to some requests
To promote your service and improve its image
How much flexibility you need
Do you need anyway to review and define your services, products and standards?

What goes into a service charter?

The list of potential inclusions is long. These are some of the main areas typically covered:

Why – The reason the service exists – mission / vision / values / the essence of what it offers Members and other clients. Essential features such as independence, impartiality, professionalism, confidentiality, and relevance to Members, are likely to be prominent.
What the service offers – the content, the different products and services.
Who the service is for (and by implication or explicitly: who cannot access it). Who can make active use (i.e. submit requests) and who can make passive use (i.e. access the published research products)
How the service is accessed, requested and delivered; description of the request & fulfilment process; if and how research products are published
When the service is available and how quickly it will respond
Exclusions, limits, priorities, conditions – services that are not offered; request types that are deemed inappropriate; limits to topics that are covered (e.g. only those under parliamentary jurisdiction); periods when requests will not be accepted (e.g. elections) limits to effort in response to requests; types of request and client that will take priority, especially in times of high demand; number of simultaneous requests from an individual Member; what research is kept confidential and what is published; conditionalities – e.g. if delivery depends on third parties outside the service’s control (e.g. it requires receipt of information from a government department) then deadlines may be flexible
Commitments, e.g. client satisfaction, confidentiality; impartiality; ethics; quality of content, personnel and processes
What is expected of the client – a sensitive point, possibly, but some set limits on how clients may use research (e.g. rules about misleading representation) and how they behave in relation to staff and to other clients.

The sections of the Guidelines on ‘Adopting a Service Charter’, ‘Managing demands through a Service Charter’ and ‘Sharing the content of a Service Charter’.

‘Raising the profile’ / 8. Do services have a marketing strategy?

Do services have a formal marketing strategy?

What is a marketing strategy? To take a simple definition from Investopedia “A marketing strategy refers to a business’s overall game plan for reaching prospective consumers and turning them into customers of their products or services. A marketing strategy contains the company’s value proposition, key brand messaging, data on target customer demographics, and other high-level elements. A thorough marketing strategy covers ” the four P’s” of marketing—product, price, place, and promotion”. This definition would need some adaptation to a parliamentary research service environment, but considered broadly on those terms, no service reported that they had a marketing strategy.

It is quite likely that services have forms of marketing objectives and measures in their plans and toolkits but do not yet see them as ‘marketing’.

There should, nevertheless, be concern that services have an interest in ‘raising their profile’, or at least taking steps to ensure that Members are aware of them and use them – and they seem to have no defined strategy to achieve this. The absence of strategy does not necessarily mean inaction but it may mean that there is no measure of success. How much effort is justified, what are the exact goals, how do we know if we are effective?

Most services responded with a simple negative or no answer. Hungary described a process of marketing planning for new parliaments; one service described a continuous cyclical process of product promotion, review and revision/innovation; the service in Pakistan relies on its products/services to market themselves by quality/relevance; and New Zealand reported that they were working on a marketing strategy – it would be interesting to hear more about it.

Hungary –

“We do not have general strategy, but before the beginning of a new parliamentary term we always build a particular strategy. We will have elections in spring 2022 and we are already working in promotion: – We are already working on our special publication (Infoscope). – We are planning to launch a new product-line: statistical dashboard on the intra- and internet with interactive infographics and already working on the concept, ordered the software and train the staff (a small group first). – We are planning a leaflet for sure, as we left out in 2018 and missed it later on. – Recently we have finished the survey among MPs and the further promotion strategy is depend on the results (e.g. use of social media, topics of the first interactive infographics on the dashboard). The details of the promotion is going to be elaborated by a working group in January.”

Pakistan – ‘Our Work is Our Marketing’

Anonymised response –

“Four phases seen as an endless circle: 1. Promotion; 2. Monitoring; 3. ‘Feed in’; 4. ‘Products and services’ adaptation; 1. Promotion; 2. Monitoring; and so on… At 3: systematic reporting on client usage; trends in use and in feedback; improved or new ways to support Members’ needs; gathering intelligence on lesser used services; new/improved or tailored client trainings; identifying opportunities for product placement at Member and Group (online) events; feed-back-in references to our products for staff awareness. At 4: Developing new or improved products and services; evaluating the existing range of products and services in view of their relevance for clients and recommend appropriate actions (align priorities, adapt or abolish products)”

Next in ‘Raising the Profile’:

Conclusions

All posts on ‘Raising the Profile’

Checklist of methods

Survey introduction

Most popular methods

Conclusions

‘Raising the profile’ / 7. What is the value to Members?

What do you see as the value of your service to Members – what are the key features that you promote?

In summary, from the responses below, these three elements are seen as valuable to Members:

Quality of information and service delivery: High quality information, evidence, that comes from good sources and is current, objective and impartial, delivered in good time. Professional capability to analyse & summarise. Independence of the service. A trustworthy and reliable source of information.
Customised service: Ability to deliver information that is otherwise hard to find; ability to analyse information to meet Member needs.
Confidentiality: Requests and the identity of the Member making a request are kept confidential. (Responses to requests are also confidential – but the content may be re-used in a different format).

These three points are highly worthy and (obviously) important from a professional viewpoint and in terms of functionality. But do they relate to ‘value’ for Members? If they did, research services would be overwhelmed with demand and would be powerful departments in their parliaments. The anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not always so; and that there are widespread concerns about how known and appreciated parliamentary research (and library) services are amongst their Members.

This survey report is not the place to go into detail on the issue of value – it will be considered in a separate post. It was explored in the case of the European Parliament already ore than ten years ago and that work can be reviewed here. Some lessons were

Our, professional, valuation of ‘information’ is not the same as that of most Members – or many other people. We consider high-quality information as a gold-standard rare asset necessary for serious decision-making, whereas for most people information is a commodity that can be obtained from many sources; and much decision-making has to be on ‘good-enough’ rather than perfect information. We think Members should value high-quality information but often that offer does not resonate with them.
Members may also have easy and quick access to information – from their own staff, other Members, party staff, lobbyists, pressure groups, personal contacts. This information is far more accessible and personalised than most research services can achieve. The sources may themselves use the research service, but that may be unknown to the Member. If the Member does not have the time or wish to read much original material themselves, then an offer of ‘high-quality information’ will not resonate and whatever contribution the research service is making will not be valued.

What is the solution? Well, a couple of the responses below refer to the usefulness of the information provided in the practical achievement of a Member’s parliamentary work. That is more likely to resonate with a Member. We need to approach ‘value’ from the point of view of the client, the Member, rather than from our viewpoint as a professional supplier. What is valuable to a Member is something that can help them be successful in their parliamentary work: make an impact on policy, persuade their fellow-Members, connect better with citizens etc. If the ‘value proposition’ of the research service is expressed in those kind of terms then there is a chance it will resonate with Members.

Another solution is to address the ‘cost to the client’ of the research service offer. Value is basically utility minus cost to the client. Services have focused on product quality and perhaps not enough on utility and especially cost to the client. Just because the service has no direct financial cost to the Member it does not make it cost-free. Can services reduce costs to the Member to improve the value of their offer?

Responses

Malawi – We promote use of evidence in parliamentary debate

Argentina – I think that users value the fact that the information we provide comes always from official and reliable sources. They place value in that we provide impartial and objective information. We promote official and up-to-date information, making sure it is as complete as it can be

Slovakia – “Ability to provide high quality information that is difficult to gather and analyse (e.g. providing comparative analysis on legal regulations in other countries). Cost-effective performance – i.e. ability to professionally cope with more than 300 domestic and foreign requests per a year with just 8 researchers”

New Zealand – “Providing timely and impartial information to help them in their work as Members”

Uganda – “A trusted, dependable and objective source of evidence for strengthening Parliament”

Hungary – “I am convinced the best promotion is providing a product itself. We promote our product lines we provide pro- and reactively (on demand) as well. Providing proactive papers are an effective way to increase demand”

Finland – Analyses, calculations, facts: Members have a service which makes and finds these on whatever subject: evidence-based policy

Pakistan – “Our primary emphases are Research, Legislative, Capacity Building and Public outreach services to Hon MPs. Key features include (a) Research on Demand Program delivering in-time papers which are balanced, non-partisan and follow contemporary research methodology; (b) We have anticipated products such as PIPS Parliamentary Research Digest that is now the most read parliamentary publication in the country, which is send every month to 1500 readers including all Members of National Parliament and provincial (state) assemblies where each issue comprises of researched analysis on three current issues in addition to latest statistics on economy, climate change, covid19, defence, population, health, education and various imperative sectors useful to MPs work. (c) Holding Roundtables on imperative policy areas and current developments e.g foreign policy, Afghanistan Issue, Regional Security, Educational standards, air quality and even parliamentary reforms (d) Legislative Assessment of bills under consideration and Post Legislative Scrutiny of existing laws. (e) Orientation and Knowledge Sharing Sessions on Parliamentary Business and relevant issues for local and international Hon MPs. (f) MPs face to face talk with students, women and civil society including people with disabilities, labor and local body representatives”

Anonymised responses

Independence and objectivity, timeliness and relevance, client-orientation and responsiveness, comprehensiveness of our offer, personalised service, ease of accessibility in-house, outside and ‘on the go’ (mobile).
Updated information, quick answers and personalised advice.
Parliamentary groups request studies on the subjects they wish to get covered and the research service provides them with the requested information. This ability to request information and which key points they want to cover is what we want to promote
Legal-technical elaboration of draft laws, response to highly specific legal/constitutional questions
Independent and impartial research that is customised to the needs of MPs
Members using evidence to argue their points when debating
Our key feature is how responsive we are to the specific needs of members and their staff. Our research is provided in a timely, discreet way. We provide a tailored service by attempting to answer all questions that are asked by Members and their staff in the time frame that they require.
The experience of the service and the staff, the usefulness of the information provided in the legislative activity of the members of parliament.
Amending legislation and argumentation for the debates
As a source of independent, neutral, non-partisan and timely analysis
Independence, Transparency, Reliability and objectivity
We are an impartial, professional and user-oriented service. We ensure rapid processing of requests. We guarantee the confidentiality of the identity of the requesting user and the information we provide. We closely respect the privacy of the user.

Next in ‘Raising the Profile’:

Results in detail. Part 8 – Marketing strategies

All posts on ‘Raising the Profile’

‘Raising the profile’ / 6. Special activities for a new parliament

Marketing measures for a new parliament

Seventeen of twenty-two (77%) respondents mentioned some kind of activity aimed at Members in a new parliament; only one specifically said they did nothing. It is a near universal phenomenon.

Slovakia –

“Induction program and briefing books on how the Parliament works”. The briefing books “are distributed among all MPs and their assistants by email and in hard copy before or right after the Constituent Session of the Parliament. These are the handbook Practical Guide to the Work of the Member of Parliament, publication called How the Parliament Works and monolingual explanatory dictionary of commonly used terms called Short Parliamentary Dictionary. The induction programme for newly elected MPs and their assistants is organised by the department of the research service and “One of the topics covered in these seminars is the presentation of parliamentary administration including the roles and responsibilities of the research service. Last year after the parliamentary elections of 29 February 2020, due to the situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the traditionally organized introductory seminars for the MPs and their assistants were held online in an innovative way using modern technologies through a series of narrated presentations available on the intranet (internal network) of the Chancellery. These presentations provided practical information on the legislative process, oversight function of the Parliament, the competence of the Parliament in the EU affairs, the position of the Chancellery, and the scope of the Department of the Parliamentary Institute and its units. When playing the video-presentation there was not only the possibility to see individual slides of the presentation but also to listen to the lecturer’s commentary with explanations, demonstrations, and answers to practical aspects of parliamentary work (e.g. how to submit a draft law or interpellation). With the release of epidemic measures in summer 2020, the Department organized additional in-person seminars for parliamentary groups, tailor-made to their needs”.

Israel –

(a) “At the beginning of the term of each Knesset [parliament of Israel], the Knesset organizes general training sessions for the new MKs [Members] in order to introduce them to the work of the Knesset and its various units. One of these sessions is devoted to the RIC [Knesset Research & Information Centre], and in it the Director of the RIC and the Head of the Budgetary Control Department (which is part of the RIC) impart information on the Center, our various products and services and how to request them.” (b) “After the inauguration of the current Knesset, the RIC organized further training sessions for MKs, dedicated to specific topics, such as education, employment, budget etc. Each session was
instructed by the relevant RIC Team Leader and researchers, and gave the participating MKs insight
into the basics of each topic, as well as to the importance of the professional services which they
can receive from the RIC for their parliamentary activities.” (c) “At the beginning of each Knesset term the Director of the RIC also sets up personal meetings with each of the new MKs. Each meeting is specifically planned to include the Team Leaders with expertise in the specific topics that each MK is likely to focus on during his/her tenure. Similar meetings are also set up between each new Committee Chair, the RIC Director and the relevant Team Leader.” In addition, the Head of Information Services in the RIC meets each new assistant [presumably new arrivals during the term as well as at the beginning of the parliament – IW] “in order to make sure they are aware of the products and services available from the RIC, guidelines for requests, the RIC Service Charter, etc.”

In New Zealand, they noted that induction activities at the very beginning may not work too well for research services – Members minds are focused on other matters. They are more receptive a little way into their term:

“Parliamentary Service runs an expo type induction event for new Members over a few days. The Library has a booth at this event. New Members at this point are receiving a lot of information on all aspects of Parliament and are most interested in IT arrangements, setting up electorate offices and finance matters. The Library endeavours to talk to the new MPs at this time, but they are often distracted. Six weeks after the election we contact new Members and offer to provide a one-on-one induction to let them know how the Library can help them and set up alerts and news monitoring services for them. We find at this stage; Members are often still not at a stage where they are interested in Library services. After the 2020 election, for some Members we did this one-on-one induction several months after they had been elected and at this point, they were very receptive”. The New Zealand service has also moved to a more personalised form of policy briefing for new Members: “We’ve also produced research briefs around election time that we use to promote our research skills to new MPs. Following the 2011 and 2014 elections a publication with a selection of research briefs was sent to each MP. However in recent elections we’ve moved away from a print publication, and while we still produced some research briefs, we’ve focussed on using individual briefs in inductions with new Members”.

Canada –

“Early in each new Parliament, we communicate the many ways we can support new and returning parliamentarians with their work, emphasizing the research support we provide to parliamentary committees and associations as well as our customized research services to individual parliamentarians by sending a letter of welcome to parliamentarians, by participating in service fairs managed by the administrations of the Senate and the House, and by sending a series of timely newsletters that introduce our products and services to clients”.

Pakistan –

“holding 2-3 days New Members Orientation on working with the Parliament at the Institute along with publications customised in [English and the local language] helps make early inroads to introduce [the research service] as MPs own research and capacity building facility; It takes good few months of preparation so that it is done professionally and MPs naturally get attracted towards the non-partisan service where they can [look for] any parliamentary service or product they need during their tenure as MPs”

Argentina –

“At the beginning of each new Legislative Session, our office contacts Deputies and Senators in order to inform them about the services we provide exclusively to them, their advisors and work teams. At present, we are working on a publication for new Senators and Deputies regarding the functioning of Parliament”

Uganda –

“Induction of Members on the use of research services and face to face engagements” and the “research week”.

Hungary –

“An information package for the MPs at the beginning of a new term” consisting of “a leaflet on our services – (previously) on office usable gadget (e.g. notepad, pen-drive) with logo and contact information”. In 2018 and for the forthcoming (2022) parliamentary term: a “Special publication with an overview of policy issues for a newly-elected parliament” (titled ‘Infoscope’ and based on the “Key issues” publication of the UK House of Commons Library)

Finland –

“Training sessions [for] new Members and their staff as a part of the general introduction programme”

Anonymised responses include:

We prepare resources for all new members and provide these in an informal setting that permits one-on-one discussions between members and our staff. This is complemented by a structured presentation and overview of our services to new members and meetings between the Director/senior staff and new members if required. To summarise, we attempt to meet directly with every new member at the commencement of each parliamentary term and discuss our service in a one-on-one setting. We also prepare and provide materials to new members and ensure all members have, at least, attended the presentation/overview of our service.
Presentation of services to groups of Members – but also individually – as well as to their assistants. Introductory training sessions on Research Service and Library products and services by policy area (‘knowledge sources info sessions)’ – but they continue throughout the term. Interviews with Members.
To contact them and their groups offering and explaining our services.
At the beginning of every parliamentary term, the research service compiles…a book [with] practical information on various subjects such as rights and duties of MPs, how to register in the plenary voting system, what products are available and where to find them, absences, insurance, legislative procedure, electronic equipment…” “one copy is given to every MP” whether new to the parliament or a returning Member. In addition, the research service – with the publishing department – “publishes and provides all MPs [with] up-to-date relevant parliamentary legislation”
We do a short presentation on the Research Service at the start of a new parliament, and we invite new members to have individual meetings to discuss what the research service can offer
Production of brochures describing the activities of the [research service] and the practical procedures for requesting documentary material. Online training with parliamentary assistants of new members of parliament and other parliamentary bodies (political groups, committees, etc.) with a concrete presentation of the research service’s database…etc
Presentation of services to groups of Members

Next in ‘Raising the Profile’:

Results in detail. Part 7 – What is the value to Members?

All posts on ‘Raising the Profile’

‘Raising the profile’ / 4. Methods identified as effective

Which methods were considered ‘highly effective’?

No single method was considered ‘highly effective’ by more than half of respondents. The only one to achieve a ‘highly effective’ rating from 50% of respondents was “Presentation of the service to Members individually, interviews with Members“.

The methods with the most ratings as ‘highly effective’ are below. These were rated ‘highly effective’ by more than 33% of respondents.

Five methods most often rated as ‘highly effective’

Presentation of the service to Members individually, interviews with Members
Presentation of services to groups of Members
Personal meeting with Member when they request research
Training/induction for staff of Members in how to use the research service, benefits of research
Promotional emails – newsletters, adverts etc

The list above indicates the (presumed) ‘wisdom of the crowd’ – it picks out methods which are fairly widely used and highly-rated. It can also be interesting to consider the methods which are less widely used but are nonetheless highly rated by those who deploy them. Taking into account only the ratings by users of a method, the methods below are rated as ‘highly effective’ by at least 50% of them. Three items are shared with the previous list (italicised), but three new items come into focus.

Six methods rated as ‘highly effective’ by those who use them

‘Open Day’ or ‘Research week’ events
Presentation of the service to Members individually, interviews with Members
Propose in-person discussion to get feedback when research is delivered to a Member
Training/induction for staff of Members in how to use the research service, benefits of research
Personal meeting with Member when they request research
Presentation of the service in Committee meetings.

The first is the most striking – relatively little used (32% of respondents) but highly-rated by five out of the seven users.

Which methods have some effect for all services that use them?

Only three methods were felt to have some effect by all services that used them:

Presentation of the service in Committee meetings
Request for feedback by form when research is delivered to a Member
Presence of research staff in Committee meetings

Only some services are involved with committees so this area of work is somewhat downplayed by the results from the full survey. But it is very important for those who do work with committees. The return from Israel gives a flavour: “When a researcher from the RIC [Research & Information Centre] has prepared a study or briefing in preparation or as background for a committee meeting, the researcher is present in the committee meeting and typically also presents the main findings from his/her work at the beginning of the meeting; this also exposes other MKs in the committee to our products. In cases when no specific research has been prepared for a committee meeting, the RIC can send the committee previous papers or other relevant information based on the acquired experience, expertise and knowledge of the topic, and often the relevant researcher can also present in the committee meeting in these situations”.

For which methods is it ‘difficult to know’ the results?

All other methods had some users who were in doubt about their effect – they found it difficult to know the result. The nine methods below had at least least 25% of their users in doubt as the results:

Surveys of Members (38% of users found it difficult to know the results in terms of profile-raising)
Common visual identity for all products and promotional materials – same ‘look and feel’ (35%)
Provides parliamentary strengthening support to other parliaments (32%)
Branding on all research products (29%)
External engagement/publication by staff research experts (29%)
Promotional videos (29%)
Promotional gadgets, clothing, bags etc (29%)
Permanent displays of hard-copy research reports (25%)
Publication of performance data for the research service (25%)

This does not mean that these methods are ineffective but simply that their use is based on external examples, advice or intuition – rather than concrete evidence of local results – by quite a high proportion of the services using them. Only one from this list (parliamentary strengthening) is in the top eight of methods used.

Next in ‘Raising the Profile’:

Results in detail. Part 5 – Commentary by the respondents

All posts on ‘Raising the Profile’

‘Raising the profile’ / 3. The most popular methods

Which are the most and least popular methods?

These methods are used by 80%+ of respondents:

Presentation of services to groups of Members
Engagement of the service with wider research & professional networks
Promotional emails – newsletters, adverts etc
Research products published/accessible externally
Provides parliamentary strengthening support to other parliaments
Intranet site/pages dedicated to the research service
Presentation of the service to Members individually, interviews with Members
International cooperation with other research services, engagement with international professional bodies

These methods are used by less than 33% of respondents:

Promotional videos
Promotional gadgets, clothing, bags etc
‘Open Day’ or ‘Research week’ events
Advisory board with Members, or similar advisory body
Promotional audio clips, podcasts

The popular methods are not necessarily ranked highly for effectiveness, however. The responses were looked at in more detail to identify methods that were both widely used and credited with some effect on the profile of the service.

Ranking of methods by popularity + effectiveness

The various methods can be ranked according to their assessed effectiveness. Responses were scored 3 for ‘Highly effective’, 2 for ‘Moderate’, 1 for ‘Little or no impact’ and 0 for ‘Difficult to know’ or ‘Not in use’. This is one way to access the (presumed) wisdom of the crowd, as the result is affected by both the popularity of a method and its assessed effectiveness. Methods at the top of this ranking are widely used and are seen by many as contributing something to raising the profile of the service. Four of the top five methods, and six in total of the ten, concern some form of personal contact with Members or their staff. Three refer to internal and external publication of products and service information, and two refer to wider engagement by the service. Promotion of the service by emails, leaflets, display of products, websites with information and products – these are typically the first thought in ‘profile-raising’. They are indeed widely used and are seen as having some effect – but are not assessed the best solution. The two on wider engagement by the service are the least obvious for a ‘top ten’ and so perhaps the most interesting. A service engaging in wider professional networks and international cooperation is not directly promoting itself in-house, yet a number of respondents recognise such engagement as a fairly effective way to raise their profile.

The top ten by popularity + effectiveness

Presentation of services to groups of Members
Presentation of the service to Members individually, interviews with Members
Promotional emails – newsletters, adverts etc
Training/induction for staff of Members in how to use the research service, benefits of research
Personal meeting with Member when they request research
Research products published/accessible externally
Training/induction for Members in how to use the research service, benefits of research
Engagement of the service with wider research & professional networks
International cooperation with other research services, engagement with international professional bodies
Intranet site/pages dedicated to the research service

Next in ‘Raising the Profile’:

Results in detail. Part 4 – methods identified as effective

All posts on ‘Raising the Profile’

‘Raising the profile’ / 2. Main findings

Introduction

This post gives an outline of the main findings; reflections on the findings are in the ‘Conclusions‘ post.

This post, and others, may be revised based on feedback and review. The results of the survey are being shared only with the respondents in the first instance, and your feedback on the report are very welcome. This and forthcoming posts with detailed results may be published more widely at a later date.

Main findings

Methods in use and their effectiveness

From a menu of forty possible methods, eight are used by 80%+ of respondents. These eight are not, however, all seen to be highly effective. An overall ranking based on popularity and rating for effectiveness identifies a top ten of methods: predominantly those involving direct personal contact with Members; some involving publication of products and service information; and some acting indirectly to build the reputation of the service.

Focusing only on users of particular methods, there are methods which are not widely widely used but are highly rated by those who deployed them. These minority choices might be seen as a partial corrective to the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ identifying the most popular methods . The most striking example of this is ‘open days and research weeks’ – used by only seven services, but five of them rated it as ‘highly effective’.

Three methods were felt to have some effect by every service using them: two concerned work with Committees, the other was requesting feedback after work had been delivered.

By contrast, for many methods there is difficulty in knowing what impact they have – nine methods had 25% or more services unsure about the results (in terms of raising their profile, at least). For example, the method ‘Common visual identity for all products and promotional materials – same ‘look and feel” had 35% of users uncertain of its effectiveness. This implies that around one-third of use is not based on direct local evidence of effectiveness but on evidence/advice from other contexts, or on intuition.

What do services know about their profile with Members?

At least four out of five services know the volume of use by Members and which Members are regular clients. Just over 70% know which Members never use their service.

Far fewer claim to know how much their research is used and for what purposes.

Less than half of services claim to know what image Members have of their service. Less than 20% say they measure the impact of their promotional activities. Most services, however, do take steps to find out Member views (such as through surveys) and a large minority request feedback after delivering work and use interviews to get more detailed and personal intelligence.

Special methods for a new parliament

Almost every service reported taking special promotional measures for a new parliament. Once again, it may be that those using more personal forms of contact are getting better results. The other notable insight is that, in some parliaments, the immediate post-election period is not conducive to promoting research services – Members have other priorities – and an approach later in the term can be more productive.

What do services think is valuable in their offer to Members?

The responses here tended to be on the lines of ‘impartial service delivering high-quality objective information’.

Do services have a marketing strategy?

No service reported that they had a marketing strategy, recognisable as such. One service reported it was developing one, and other services reported approaches to marketing – but not a strategy.

Next in ‘Raising the Profile’:

The results in detail beginning with Part 3 – the most popular methods

All posts on ‘Raising the Profile’

‘Raising the profile’ / 1. Introduction

What methods are in use to raise the profile of parliamentary research services, and which methods do the professionals consider to be effective? These were the questions opened to subscribers to IFLAPARL’s mailing list – and the professional community beyond that – in the winter of 2021/22. An initial request round produced four very useful full-text responses from Israel, Slovakia, Canada and New Zealand. Based partly on these responses, a survey form was designed and this had 22 respondents. The report’s statistics are based on the survey responses but the full text answers have been used where relevant in the commentary.

The full commentary was provided initially to the survey respondents in the first half of 2022 and they were given the opportunity to comment on the findings. Following that period of review the commentary was released to the wider public in July 2022.

What does ‘raising the profile’ mean?

‘Profile’ is about more than volume of use or reach amongst the target audience. It is also about intangibles such as reputation amongst Members and other decision-makers, the strength of the brand and the authority which its products command. There is a distinction between direct clients – typically support staff of Members and operational staff of the secretariat – and decision-makers – Members and senior officials of the secretariat. It would be possible for a service to have a high profile and very good level of success in terms of volume of use and satisfaction amongst direct clients without achieving a high profile amongst decision-makers – and vice versa. A high profile amongst decision-makers is a useful asset and arguably an essential to the service being truly valued in the institution. The focus in the survey was on the profile amongst Members.

‘Raising the profile’ has at least three main kinds of activity:

Direct promotion of service use
Indirect promotion of service use
Building the reputation or brand of the service

‘Direct promotion of service use‘ is straightforward advertising of specific services or products to target clients – with a priority to Members and their offices, but often extending to parliamentary officials, specialist external audiences and even the general public. This can be seen as similar to ‘sales’ advertising.

‘Indirect promotion of service use’ concerns promotional actions which advertise the service without a direct message about use – creating awareness of service availability amongst target clients rather than the ‘selling’ of a particular service or product. The use of social media to broadcast research products externally may be done with an aim of eventually reaching clients internally. The intention is to increase readership of a particular product but also to create awareness of service availability. A simpler example of indirect promotion of use is giveaway branded gadgets, clothing or stationery.

‘Building the reputation or brand of the service’ refers to promotional actions which are not about direct ‘selling’ or awareness of specific products or services. For example, the involvement of a service in parliamentary strengthening projects elsewhere is one way to raise its profile within its own parliament. This may be because it brings the institution prestige, or because it validates the expertise of the service, or because it is seen to be ‘doing the right thing’ and gains reputation as a result. Another example is the publication of academic articles or academic conference presentations by research staff – it makes no direct contribution to service delivery or advertising, but it might enhance the reputation of the service.

Some actions can work on more than one plane – a seminar or workshop on research around a policy issue might build the reputation of the service as an intellectual centre while also including indirect and even direct promotion.

The survey and respondents

The survey form asked about forty different methods for profile-raising. The responses led to the identification of additional methods – the complete list is here, with links to examples in some cases. The survey also covered special measures adopted for new parliaments; how the profile and marketing methods are measured; and marketing strategy.

Respondents were given the choice to be identified in this report or to remain anonymous; and for those identified to have any description of their service or quote from their responses to be identifiable or to be anonymised. Of the 22 services responding to the formal survey, 18 agreed to be credited (see below) and of those 10 have allowed the content of their responses to be identifiable – all else is anonymised. If particular services are named or quoted and others not, it may be as a consequence of those choices rather than any other reason. The responding services are from across the globe.

Credited contributors in the first and/or second round: Slovakia (Department of Parliamentary Institute); Israel (Knesset Research & Information Centre); Canada (Library of Parliament); New Zealand (Parliamentary Library); Andalucia, Spain (Parlamento de Andalucía. Servicio de Biblioteca); Portugal (Divisão de Informação Legislativa e Parlamentar); Sweden (research service); Uganda (Department of Research Service); New South Wales, Australia (New South Wales Parliamentary Research Service); Zambia (Research Department), Queensland (Queensland Parliament – Research & Information Service); Hungary (Information Service for MPs (research service); Finland (Internal Research Service); Romania (Directorate for Studies and Legislative Documentation); Burundi (Cour des comptes) [This is not a parliamentary research service in the conventional sense, but it does undertake research for the parliament] ; Malawi (Parliament of Malawi research service); North Macedonia (Parliamentary Institute); Pakistan (PIPS – Pakistan Institute for Parliamentary Services); Lithuania (Research Unit of the Information and Communication Department of the Office of the Seimas); Argentina (Dirección Servicios Legislativos).

Contributor services requesting anonymity: Four, not listed above.

All posts on ‘Raising the Profile’