Is more policy engagement activity leading to “duplication and confusion”?
A new report from the Institute for Government (IFG) goes over how recent years have seen substantial investments from universities, research councils and learned societies in policy engagement capacity.
The think tank concludes that the landscape has seen many welcome developments – but that there is a risk that this increase in activity is, at times, leading to duplication, or creating confusion among policymakers who would value clarity.
“For government, a fragmented engagement landscape with a ‘rudderless mass of activity’ can create confusion for officials who want clear entry points to academia and may struggle to identify the most relevant entry routes and contacts.”
It’s noted that some of the “proliferation” of policy engagement initiatives stems from competition within the higher education sector, and may be driven by a desire to secure institutional advantage, or even to “boost the profile of a specific researcher or institution.” The think tank observes that this could lead to the pushing of research which is “not entirely relevant for policymakers.”
But the new report – which is accompanied by six deep dives into specific channels of policy engagement – paints a positive picture overall. Research England’s Policy Support Fund is noted as supportive of engagement capacity, alongside the work of groups such as CAPE and UPEN. The IFG also argues that the Research Excellence Framework has been a “significant lever” in this space, in particular by promoting the quest for greater research impact.
The main report directs its recommendations at policymakers and government departments, arguing that the latter must develop “research engagement strategies” which clearly outline what they want from academia – though these should not be required to follow a set template, and can vary with context as needed.
Changes to civil service culture and incentives are suggested as well, including the incorporation of researcher engagement requirements within career progression criteria, and the provision of more space and time for officials to interact with academics.
Engagement channels
Where the IFG turns its attention to areas of research interest, or ARIs, it suggests that these documents – created by government departments to highlight areas where research evidence is required or would be valued – at times fail to provide a clear mandate.
Some policy professionals interviewed for the report are said to have reported “confusion about the purpose of ARIs, describing them as “abstract and intangible” in comparison to live policy issues. IFG highlights examples of best practice from particular departments – in particular the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Education, which connect their ARIs to government missions – and concludes that where departments have failed to state clearly what their ARIs are for and what outcomes they are hoping to see, then there is a risk that these documents are inevitably viewed as process-oriented rather than a truly meaningful form of engagement.
A separate deep-dive into the expanding use of academic advisory groups – often in the form of a “college of experts” – warns that this policy engagement mechanism can suffer from churn within government, lessening the uptake of their recommendations.
Similarly, the deployment of more broadly-configured expert networks is presented as another means of policy engagement which is increasingly finding favour. The IFG’s research saw that these networks were highly valued, conducive to rapid and informal gathering of evidence, and gave spaces where officials felt they could be frank about gaps in the current evidence.
Fellowships and secondments
The IFG observes that secondments into government are another avenue for policy engagement which has proliferated over the past few years – though it notes that there is a lack of good data on how many researchers are seconded at any one time, especially given such schemes’ tendency to “come and go.”
It’s noted that externally-run secondment programmes, such as UKRI’s policy fellowship, are seen as “less onerous” for departments, though several have set up their own initiatives.
Elsewhere this week UKRI published an independent evaluation of said policy fellowship scheme, conducted by a team at University College London led by Huw Morris and Alice Tofts. The evaluation finds that there has been “strong progress” since the scheme’s initial pilot, and that fellows are developing strong networks with policy officials and government partners – who in turn benefit from the connections they establish with academic communities.
Nevertheless, the report makes various recommendations for improvements. The short duration of fellowships, especially given political upheaval such as the 2024 general election, mean that an 18-month fellowship – which typically translates into 12 months of substantive secondment – was viewed by participants as “insufficient for completing scoped projects or embedding learning.” The authors recommend that two years becomes the new standard length, with flexibility over induction arrangements and fellowship extensions facilitated.
Another issue was the mismatch between academic expectations, on the part of researchers and their home institutions, and what government policymakers are looking for. One focus group participant said that various fellows had expressed concerns that the time on the programme could later come across as a “gap in their CV”. Hosting departments were much more interested in “immediate analytical input” from fellows, rather than publication outputs – but this could also mean that the necessary time for induction and relationship-building was not anticipated.