How to Develop University Political Engagement Functions

The new government has set itself a mission of national renewal, and Keir Starmer’s first speech as prime minister emphasised that “the work of change begins – now”. So universities have a fresh opportunity for their academic experts and research to inform the new government’s thinking.

Universities already host more than 46 different policy bodies, such as a policy lab, @policy or centre for public policy. Many of them have specialist skills, contacts and resources to exchange knowledge on public policy.

But our new report for the Research England-funded Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement programme found that academic policy functions do not always have the support of senior staff. As one senior university staff member put it, vice-chancellors and others need to have “belief” in establishing and developing a policy centre. Some interviewees shared how they had benefited from direct sponsorship from vice-chancellors and discretionary funds. Without this belief, their impact could be limited.

Finding a winner wasn’t easy, though, as we were told that vice-rectors could be taking on “more and more responsibilities” – which could mean that engagement with academic public policy will be lost.

A balanced approach

We also heard that legacy support needs to build more sustainable approaches at a systemic level. 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 Whitehall – and in Westminster Parliament and the Senedd – supported by CAPE. With university support, they are also growing in local and regional government, including Leeds City Council, the Greater London Authority and the North East Combined Authority, supported by bodies such as CAPE, the Universities Policy Engagement Network and the Government Office for Science.

According to Kathryn Oliver and Annette Boaz, former UKRI Fellows at the Government Office for Science, the real value of ARIs may be in ‘connecting the dots’, shedding light on the ways in which the research and policy system is linked, and how we can most effectively intervene to support that system. In this sense, they provide a useful signal to universities, funders and academic researchers about shared policy and research needs.

Less laissez-faire

But we also need a new approach to incentives and systems for academic leadership. Matt Flinders of the University of Sheffield’s review for UKRI rightly says we need to take a less laissez-faire approach to research leadership and have incentives and structures to “increase the flow through the ecosystem”. This flow could include more direct work in government.

Senior officials often mentioned that they valued working with academic policy fellows, secondments and placements, building mutual learning and trust. Although the number of such fellowship programs is limited, the “porosity” and mobility in academic leadership could be increased so that, in the words of the Flinders Leadership Review, “people, ideas and talent can circulate to avoid stagnation.” For this to really take off, better recognition in career incentives and funding is needed, as well as greater consideration of how to leverage benefits beyond the individual to support greater institutional porosity.

Another reason for seniority for political roles is financial. Initial decisions from REF 2029 suggest that greater emphasis will be needed to demonstrate rigour in the impact of research on political engagement, to combine reach and relevance.

It’s unclear exactly what rigor means. But according to the National Coordinating Center for Public Engagement, it likely rewards “professional diligence toward achieving impact.” For example, case studies and statements may need to demonstrate the role of EDI and ethical practices in knowledge exchange.

Moral issue

Regardless of the REF, there is a moral case for differentiating academic and political engagement. At present, our system relies too heavily on the random influence of the “usual suspects” who know how to navigate the maze of Westminster and Whitehall. But as the new Chief Scientific Adviser on Science, and former government official Patrick Vallance, has pointed out earlier:

You’re not going to achieve (effective scientific advising) if everybody comes from the same background, everybody has the same discipline, everybody has the same mindset, and everybody in the meeting agrees with each other because everybody has exactly the same set of experiences.

So we need to encourage the flow of new faces – through training, mentoring, support and facilitating access for decision-makers to a wider range of experts and expertise. Providing opportunities for regular interactions and making concerted efforts to engage young and underrepresented researchers can help here.

The challenge for all of us is to provide such committed and ongoing support so that universities – and indeed the entire research community – can do everything they can to ensure that policy in the coming months and years is informed by evidence and expertise.

Academic-policy engagement does not happen by magic – to make it more systematically embedded and more inclusive, universities will need to invest in institutional capacity, with senior leadership support. The government has set out its intention for mission-led long-term plans to avoid the ‘plaster-on-plaster’ approach. We should follow suit and engage government in deeper, more sustainable and longer-term ways.