The new government has set out a mission of national renewal, with Keir Starmer’s first speech as prime minister emphasising that “the work of change begins – immediately”. And so universities have a renewed opportunity to get their expert academics and research to inform the thinking of the new government.
Universities already host over 46 different policy engagement bodies with titles like policy lab, @policy, or centre for public policy. Many of these have specialist skills, contacts, and resources for public policy knowledge exchange.
But our new report for the Research England-funded Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement found that academic policy functions don’t always have senior buy-in. As one senior university staff member put it, vice chancellors and others need to have “faith” in setting up and growing a policy centre. Some interviewees shared how they had benefited from direct vice chancellor sponsorship and discretionary funds. Without that faith, impact could be limited.
But finding a champion was not easy, as we heard how pro vice chancellors could have “more and more stuff lumped on their plate” – which can mean academic public policy engagement gets lost.
A sustained approach
We also heard how senior support needs to build a more sustained systems-level approach. Some universities are doing this by supporting areas of research interest (ARIs) with local and national government. First suggested by the Nurse review of UK research councils as a “more systematic expression of government’s own research needs”, ARIs have continued to grow across all of Whitehall – as well in the Westminster Parliament and the Senedd – championed by CAPE. With university support, they are also growing in local and regional government, including Leeds City Council, Greater London Authority, and North East Combined Authority, supported by bodies like CAPE, the Universities Policy Engagement Network, and the Government Office for Science.
According to Kathryn Oliver and Annette Boaz, both former UKRI Fellows in the Government Office for Science, the true value of ARIs may be in “joining the dots” and illuminating the ways in which the research-policy system is connected, and how we can intervene most effectively to support this system. In this sense, they provide a useful signal to universities, funders, and academic researchers as to common policy and research needs.
Less laissez-faire
But there also needs to be a fresh approach to incentives and systems for academic leadership. A review by Matt Flinders at the University of Sheffield for UKRI has rightly said we need to take a less laissez-faire approach to research leadership and have the incentives and structures “to increase the flow within the ecosystem.” This flow might involve more direct working in government.
Senior officials frequently mentioned that they valued working side-by-side with academic policy fellows, secondments, and placements, building mutual learning and trust. Although there is a limited supply of such fellowship schemes, the “porosity” and mobility across the research leadership could be grown so that, according to Flinders’ review of leadership, “the circulation of people, ideas and talent to avoid stagnancy.” For this to truly take off, better recognition in career and funding incentives is required, as well as greater consideration of how to leverage the benefits beyond individuals to support greater institutional porosity.
Another reason for senior support for policy functions is financial. The REF 2029 initial decisions suggest that greater emphasis will be needed in showing rigour in research impact on policy engagement, to sit alongside reach and significance.
Exactly what is meant by rigour is unclear. But according to the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement, it is likely to reward the “professional care taken to realise impact.” For example, case studies and statements may have to show the role of EDI and ethical practices in knowledge exchange.
The moral case
Regardless of REF, there is a moral case to diversify academic-policy engagement. Currently, our system relies too much on serendipitous impact by the “usual suspects” who know how to navigate the labyrinth of Westminster and Whitehall. But as the incoming science and former government chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance has previously noted:
You don’t achieve [effective scientific advice] if everyone comes from the same background, everyone has the same discipline, everyone has the same way of thinking, and everybody around the meeting agrees with each other because they’ve all got exactly the same set of experiences.
So we need to foster a pipeline of fresher faces – through training, mentoring, support, and through making it easier for policymakers to access a greater breadth of experts and expertise. Providing opportunities for regular interactions and making concerted efforts to involve early career and under-represented researchers in interactions can help here.
The challenge for all of us is giving this dedicated and sustained support, so that universities – and indeed the whole research community – can do their best to ensure that policymaking is informed by evidence and expertise in the months and years to come.
Academic-policy engagement doesn’t happen by magic – for it to be more systematically embedded and more inclusive, universities will need to invest in institutional capacity alongside senior leadership support. The government has set out its intention for longer-term mission-based plans to avoid “sticking plaster” policies. We should also follow suit and engage the government in a deeper, more sustained, and longer term way.
