Skip to main content Skip to footer

“There is nothing permanent except change”*: CAPE’s contribution to the evolving academic-policy engagement landscape

⌚ Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Sarah Chaytor

Co-Investigator, Capabilities in Academic-Policy Engagement, Director of Strategy and Policy, University College London

Contributors: Olivia Stevenson and Robyn Parker

This piece draws on discussions amongst the CAPE team at a writing workshop held in June 2024, and on reflections from CAPE’s Advisory Board. I am very grateful to all colleagues who provided input. 

*Quote attributed to Heraclitus.

In the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, I and colleagues at UCL identified two specific challenges: the sentiment, articulated by Michael Gove, that the UK had “had enough of experts”; and the need, as a consequence of the repatriation of hundreds of policy responsibilities from the EU to the UK government, for a massive uplift in expertise and knowledge within Government. This prompted the idea for CAPE: to strengthen the use of evidence in public policy through exploring effective mechanisms for academic-policy engagement, via a collaborative project involving 5 partner universities, Nesta, the Government Office for Science, and the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology.

As we near the end of CAPE, it’s a timely moment to reflect on the evolution of the academic-policy engagement landscape over the course of the project. When we started the project in April 2020, we were in the thick of the Covid-19 pandemic. This had the twin effect of putting the use of academic expertise in policymaking under the media spotlight whilst creating political and policy pressures and constraints. Throughout our delivery of CAPE, we were operating in a changing external environment, with considerable churn in people and institutions throughout national government. The policy map was constantly being redrawn, with the ongoing emergence of new governance structures in the form of combined and mayoral authorities, as part of the continued devolution of government in England. The experience of delivering CAPE has thus been anything but ‘steady state’.  

What were CAPE’s key contributions to the evolution of the academic-policy engagement landscape?

Alongside this political and policy change, we have seen the continued evolution of the academic-policy landscape, with increased activity and investment from universities, research funders and government. This makes for a considerably richer ecosystem than that of early 2020. Over the past four years, we have observed four significant developments to which we think that CAPE has made an important and distinctive contribution. 

1. Increasing the 'legitimacy' of academic-policy engagement

When establishing CAPE, we used the term ‘academic-policy engagement’ to denote interactions between academic researchers and public policy communities. This entailed various conversations with funders, collaborators and wider actors explaining just what we meant by academic-policy engagement and why we thought it mattered. 

In 2024, we no longer need to have these conversations. Over the past four years, there has been growing sense that academic-policy engagement has become a ‘legitimate’ agenda – one which demands serious consideration and merits funder investment.

Part of this derives from Research England’s decision to fund CAPE:  we were the first project funded at an institutional level to build capabilities and structures for academic-policy engagement at different policy levels across England and to bring attention to this endeavour, amongst Research England and more widely.

We can see subsequent evidence of this legitimisation within academia, research funding and within public policy. There is a growing number of university-based policy engagement units, with the Universities Policy Engagement Network (which provides an interface to streamline university engagement with public policy) expanding to over 100 members within 5 years. UKRI has established Policy Fellowships and Local Policy Innovation Partnerships alongside Research England’s introduction of the Policy Support Fund. There have also been significant initiatives within Government and Parliament, including the development of Government Areas of Research Interest (statements of research needs) and the appointment of Thematic Research Leads.

Through CAPE, we have taken the opportunity to convene discussions across the sector and with funders and policymakers on how to strengthen academic-policy engagement and increase awareness of key challenges through roundtables, workshops and public events. Alongside this, we have published a range of outputs from reports and toolkits to blogs and case studies, helping to surface common challenges and share learning. 

All of this points to a more mature academic-policy engagement landscape with heightened awareness of the need to invest in connecting academic research to public policymaking, and the development of new strategies to ensure effective engagement.

2. Catalysing academic-policy engagement activities

Our hope for CAPE was that through testing a range of mechanisms we would provide a ‘catalytic’ effect to stimulate greater volume and diversity of academic-policy engagement. In practice, this meant both developing activities that built on already-established programmes of work and identifying gaps that we could address through new projects. For example, CAPE Policy Fellowships with the Government Office for Science accelerated and further embedded existing work to explore opportunities for mobility across government and on ‘systems thinking’ in government respectively.  In contrast, CAPE’s ‘pop-up’ expertise networks with Department for Food, Environment & Rural Affairs were an experimental approach to mobilising academic expertise in response to short-term policy evidence needs.  

The catalytic effect of our projects has not always been straightforward. Some of the impacts arising have been diffuse. They may have been less about individual outcomes and impacts and more about a cumulative contribution to enhancing knowledge and relationships – such as the Local & Regional Authority Academic Advisers network.  Some activities saw momentum and spillovers develop gradually. For example, a policy fellowship to deliver local digital skills in Nottingham established a multi-stakeholder network whilst enabling broader community engagement. And our partnership with Islington Council to develop a ‘good work’ agenda has led to a wider collaboration with partners in Sheffield around community unionism and investigating workplace harms. 

As we developed activities, we saw a ‘snowball’ effect across the project. The first six or twelve months of CAPE were about building awareness of the partnership, initiating conversations with policy actors to understand potential needs and opportunities, and developing specific policy-responsive projects.  As we progressed, we received repeat requests, word-of-mouth recommendations, and even ‘cold-calling’ approaches from people who’d come across CAPE. Increasingly, CAPE started to feel like a resource with policymakers could draw on.  For example, we were approached by a team at the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing, & Communities who we’d not previously worked with to co-develop a project around local data compatibility across the UK.  

Collectively and cumulatively, acting as a catalyst has helped to illustrate the many possible approaches to and benefits from academic-policy engagement, and to contribute towards broader agendas, such as strengthening community engagement or considering regional academic-policy infrastructures. And because CAPE has provided a stable resource over time, it has also helped to catalyse greater demand and engagement from a wide range of policymakers in local, regional and national government.  

3. Developing sustainable structures

The catalytic effect described above has been powerful, but we have learnt that catalysing activities is not always sufficient in and of itself.  Establishing sustainable structures to maintain engagement, embed activities and build progress within organisations and systems is critically important.  

CAPE’s work to expand the practice of Areas of Research Interest illustrates this. We supported two dedicated fellowships in the UK Parliament, working closely with the Scrutiny Unit and Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in Parliament, to implement the recommendation of the Liaison Select Committee that Select Committees should establish Areas of Research Interest. Over the course of the fellowships, 8 parliamentary select committee Areas of Research Interest were developed and published, driving a significant increase in engagement from academics who had never previously worked with Parliament.  The subsequent extension and ‘transfer’ of one CAPE Fellow led to the development of a further 7 areas of research interest being developed with the Senedd. Establishing Areas of Research Interest as a structure for communicating evidence needs has provided a powerful means of stimulating wider ongoing engagement between academics and policymakers in both legislatures – and provides a permanent entry point for academic researchers.

Another structural intervention has been within regional policymaking.  A CAPE Policy Fellowship in West Yorkshire, working with Yorkshire Universities and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, delivered a range of collaborative activities and outputs addressing issues from regional innovation to violence against women and girls. The fellowship was also instrumental in building the business case for the Yorkshire Policy Engagement and Research Network (which brings together universities, local councils and combined authorities across Yorkshire and Humber to strengthen place-based policymaking). Other CAPE policy fellowships supported the establishment of the London Policy & Research Partnership to bring together researchers and policymakers across London, whilst CAPE activity led by Northumbria University, helped to shape the development of Insights North East (a partnership between universities in the region, Newcastle City Council, the North East Combined Authority, and the NHS) and to establish the first regional Area of Research Interest with the former North Tyne Combined Authority.  These structures are helping to transform the regional policy landscape and providing a vital intermediary role in connecting research expertise to policymakers. 

4. Foregrounding the value of intermediaries and learning-by-doing

Before CAPE, there was little focus within universities or amongst funders on intermediary or knowledge mobilisation roles working to connect academic research to public policy. One key learning for us is that intermediaries provide a critical, albeit too often invisible, infrastructure. They function as the connective tissue that links the academic and public policy communities, acting as the glue that can make relationships and activities stick. This is essential to build effective and sustainable academic-policy engagement at an organisational level – as has been recognised in recent funder investments in regional infrastructures.

Intermediary roles are also important to provide capacity. Much academic-policy engagement can be operationally intensive, with poorly developed processes and complex, inter-dependent pathways. Intermediaries provide much-needed capacity to navigate the ‘nuts and bolts’ to ensure smooth programme delivery and support effective collaboration. 

Our approach to embedding reflexive practice and to sharing our ‘learning-by-doing’ has also helped to stimulate wider conversations about effective knowledge mobilisation practices. In particular, we think CAPE has helped to illuminate the operational complexity of this inherently complex and messy work.  Many of CAPE’s toolkits have sought to address practical and pragmatic challenges in order to build and discuss effective practice with other intermediaries.

Looking to the future

As we turn our attention to the future evolution of the academic-policy ecosystem, we have identified six areas that need attention to move our practice and our impact forward. These have implications for individual professional staff and academics; for university leaders; for research funders, and for policy actors, who each have a role to play.  

1. Integrating ‘knowledge exchange’ and ‘engagement’ spheres.

Universities still tend to approach research engagement with other sectors (business, publics, policy, health, communities, and so on) as separate enterprises. But there is much to gain from a more integrated approach and we can learn from different methodologies and practices across these different specialist areas. This requires universities and funders to think about knowledge exchange less in sectoral siloes and more in terms of supporting – and maximising opportunities from – intersectoral engagement. 

2. Broadening our conception of public policy engagement across the UK

A common default assumption in universities is that engaging with public policy means engaging with Westminster and Whitehall. However, the UK comprises a complex and multi-layered system of government across its nations and regions, with a particularly urgent need strengthen absorptive capacity for academic evidence and expertise at sub-national levels to help address imbalances in policymaking.  Academic-policy engagement with local councils and combined authorities matters just as much as with national government.  We also need to better recognise the range of intermediary and civic organisations which can be informed by academic evidence and expertise, which goes well beyond policy officials and politicians. 

3. Move beyond simplistic ideas of ‘impact’ on public policy

We need to articulate the complex interactions between academic research and public policymaking better. Rather than simplistic ideas of research impact equating to effecting policy change, we should value the full breadth of engagement routes and policy functions where academic expertise can contribute. This ranges from early thinking and shaping dialogues, to illuminating problems, to scrutiny and evaluation of policy, to detailed policy design – and many more besides. This complexity and nuance needs much clearer articulation in assessment frameworks to reflect ‘successful’ research impact on policy. 

4. Think long-term

Much academic-policy interaction remains in a transactional mode which focuses on one-off or time-limited activities (often due to funding constraints). This impedes meaningful, long-term collaboration and the development of sustainable ongoing relationships. It also makes relationships vulnerable to individual points of failure.  We need a shift from a focus on the success of individual projects to a focus on supporting long-term, more multilateral, relationships, which then underpin specific interactions and activities. This will better  ensure that academic contributions are made at optimal times and are genuinely demand-led. 

5. Value the role of professionals connecting research to policy

The growing number of individuals playing ‘intermediary’ or ‘knowledge mobiliser’ roles, whether in universities or in government and other policy organisations, make a crucial contribution to the academic-policy engagement ecosystem. We need to understand their skills, attributes and competencies better. This requires a shared language to articulate what is involved in knowledge mobilisation, as well as better recognition, enhanced career pathways, and greater integration of knowledge mobilisation and academic-policy engagement into research activity. 

6. Build institutional infrastructure

Investment in individuals and individual projects is not sufficient. Institutional capacity in both academic and policy organisations is a critical enabler of academic-policy engagement. It underpins individual activities, ensures the necessary agility to respond to policy needs and emerging opportunities, and sustains long-term relationships. Strengthening institutional infrastructures, both within individual organisations and to support greater collaboration, is essential for the future health of academic-policy engagement. 

Looking back to the start of CAPE, we can see considerable progress has been made – within our partnership and within the academic-policy landscape overall. But we are only at the start of developing a truly sustainable infrastructure to support systematic academic-policy engagement across the UK. That should be the focus of the next 4 years – and beyond.