Government and academia: How government’s relationship with academia has changed

While government efforts to improve researcher engagement have not always successfully kept up with the size and scale of policy engagement initiatives from research institutions, government structures that leverage evidence and expertise have become more prominent in recent years, especially since Covid. The role played by GO-Science, which works with external partners to promote opportunities for researchers to engage with government, has become more sophisticated. ¹⁰³ Government Office for Science, ‘Routes for academic engagement with government’, GOV.UK, updated 10 March 2026, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/routes-for-academic-engagement-with-government/routes-for-academic-engagement-with-government  GO-Science has helped co-ordinate internal civil service networks, developed guidance for officials and promoted a more consistent approach to various mechanisms for researcher engagement based on best practice. Chief scientific advisers are also now present in all departments, ¹⁰⁴ GOV.UK, ‘Chief scientific advisers’, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/groups/chief- scientific-advisers  although they are not always an external appointee ¹⁰⁵ Tetlow G and Bartrum O, The Treasury during Covid: What lessons can be learned from the pandemic?, Institute for Government, 2023, pp. 78–80, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/treasury-during-covid  and they still vary in how much clout they enjoy. ¹⁰⁶ Aston J and Sweetland J, From Sidelined to Systematic: The role of Whitehall’s chief scientific advisers, Re:State [previously Reform], 2024, https://re-state.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/From-sidelined-to-systemic. pdf

Government has different options for how it can encourage greater engagement with researchers and better use of external evidence. One approach is to develop mechanisms that provide a clear route for officials to access expertise in evidence and a framework to underpin these engagements. Another approach is to set expectations for officials about engaging externally and give them explicit permission to do so. However, too often, incentives for officials are geared towards the minimisation of potential risks over external engagement. ¹⁰⁷ Dzimwasha V, Davison N and Hodgkin R, Rapid Policy Making: How civil servants can make effective policies under pressure, Institute for Government, 2025, retrieved 26 February 2026, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/ publication/rapid-policy-making  In reality, both of these approaches are worthwhile and reinforce each other.

At a departmental level, the mechanisms that are used to facilitate academic–policy engagement in recent years have remained broadly the same. ¹⁰⁸ Sasse T and Haddon C, How Government Can Work with Academia, Institute for Government, 2018, retrieved 26 February 2026, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/how-government-can-work-academia  But in some cases they have matured and become more embedded with new schemes and approaches evident across the piece. A stronger suite of mechanisms is a positive development, but there is more that departments can do to improve their effectiveness.

In the sections that follow we provide a summary of how these departmental mechanisms for researcher engagement have developed and set out outstanding issues that weaken their efficacy. The individual mechanisms are explored in much greater detail in a series of deep dives published alongside this report.

The ARI story is broadly positive, but it is not always clear what ARIs are for or what kinds of academic–policy engagement they enable

Areas of research interest (ARIs) are documents designed to flag areas where the commissioner is seeking evidence through a series of questions looking at the medium to long term. ARIs have proliferated across government in recent years. All major Whitehall departments have now published ARIs, although some have become outdated, and arm’s-length bodies, devolved governments and parts of local government have also adopted the model. ¹⁰⁹ Government Office for Science and Cabinet Office, ‘Areas of research interest’, GOV.UK, updated 11 May 2026, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/collections/areas-of-research-interest

GO-Science has led efforts to make ARIs more consistent and robust across government, and some departments are reframing their ARIs around cross-government priorities. ¹¹⁰ Government Office for Science, ‘Writing and using areas of research interest’, GOV.UK, 8 November 2024, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/writing-and-using-areas-of-research-interest/ writing-and-using-areas-of-research-interest  For example, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and the Department for Education (DfE) have published ARI questions that align with the Labour government’s missions. ¹¹¹ Department for Education, ‘Department for Education: areas of research interest’, GOV.UK, 24 April 2025, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/department-for-education-areas-of-research-interest; Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, ‘Clean energy superpower mission areas of research interest’, GOV.UK, 6 October 2025, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-energy-superpower-mission-areas-of-research-interest/clean-energy-superpower-mission-areas-of-research-inter…  Some departments are being clearer about the kinds of responses they want from ARIs and are developing a more robust suite of follow-up activities. DfE signals the range of methods and disciplines it is interested in to attract more diversity in responses, ¹¹² Department for Education, ‘Department for Education: areas of research interest’, GOV.UK, 24 April 2025, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/department-for-education-areas-of-research-interest  while the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is running a series of ‘ARI roadshows’ to drive engagement across the country. There have also been efforts to break through departmental silos that can be built into the documents:

• the Clean Energy Superpower Mission ARI lists 10 departments that were consulted as part of the commissioning process ¹¹³ Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, ‘Clean energy superpower mission areas of research interest’, GOV.UK, 6 October 2025, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-energy-superpower-mission-areas-of-research-interest/clean-energy-superpower-mission-areas-of-research-inter…  
• GO-Science has sponsored a central ARI database bringing together live ARI questions in an accessible format ¹¹⁴ Overton, ‘ARI database’, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, https://ari.org.uk  
• the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) has established an online hub for ARIs within and beyond central government departments. ¹¹⁵ Universities Policy Engagement Network, ‘Areas of research interest’, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, https:// upen.ac.uk/programmes-areas-of-research-interest/#explore-aris

There is still some confusion about what ARIs are for and how they can be used to address evidence needs. This often centres on timescales – ARIs can be used both to service immediate evidence needs and to create a pipeline of evidence for the medium to long term by influencing research generation. They have often been marketed as ‘conversation starters’, reflecting their potential to generate further researcher engagement. ¹¹⁶ 14 Sasse T and Haddon C, How Government Can Work with Academia, Institute for Government, 2018, retrieved 26 February 2026, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/how-government-can-work-academia  A 2024 study that sought to identify alignment between ARIs and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) grants found that 81% of ARIs correlated to at least one existing UKRI grant. ¹¹⁷ Oliver K, Shamash K, Tamame ALJ, Adie E, Mulligan C, Cuccato G and Boaz A, ‘Assessing the overlap between UK government knowledge priorities and funder portfolios’, SSRN, 24 October 2024, retrieved 16 June 2026, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4998285  There is clear scope to use ARIs to leverage existing research, but policy makers and researchers alike are not always clear about whether departmental ARIs should be used as such. Furthermore, in some cases, departments may be less willing to be open about more immediate or politically sensitive evidence gaps, relying on ARIs to inform longer term evidence needs.

Departments should have clear goals in mind when publishing ARIs. For those seeking to build a longer term evidence base, facilitating engagement on live policy issues is less important. But for those who want to use ARIs to create more timely interactions, they need to be explicit about what they want from the process and how they want researchers and officials to engage with the ARIs. Some departments are starting to be clearer about what they want to see from ARI engagement. For example, DfE’s ARIs have moved beyond problem definition to signal the kinds of policy outcomes that they want ARIs to contribute towards. ¹¹⁸ Department for Education, ‘Department for Education: areas of research interest’, GOV.UK, 24 April 2025, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/department-for-education-areas-of-research-interest  If departments fail to state clearly what ARIs are for and what outcomes they want to see, there is a risk that they are seen as intangible and process-orientated.

Secondment opportunities have become more frequent – but relatively few departments manage and run dedicated schemes

Secondment schemes where researchers are loaned to a government department – usually on a part-time basis so that they can continue their academic or research responsibilities – have proliferated in recent years. Through these schemes, researchers have been used to address capacity gaps, upskill officials or bring particular specialisms and skills into government. Policy-to-research secondments, where officials spend time at research institutions, are also becoming more prominent. The Evidence Exchange (EvEx) project, which has been funded to develop policy-to-research infrastructure across a consortium of research institutions, attests to this.

While secondments have become more common, they take different forms within government. Some are part of permanent structured schemes, while others are opportunistic one-off initiatives. External bodies manage many secondments, such as the UKRI policy fellowship, and these schemes provide a less onerous option for departments that wish to draw on existing structures to host researchers. But some departments have also developed their own secondment infrastructures. For example, a dedicated group of officials in the Expert Exchange Programme (EEP), launched in 2023 following a successful pilot, manages the DSIT fellowships.

For secondments to work well for secondees and the host organisation, there needs to be clarity about what the secondee is there to do and dedicated support to help embed them within the department and to manage change over the course of the placement. ¹¹⁹ Tofts A and Parker R, Research to Policy Fellowships: Six pillars for optimising success, CAPE, 2024, retrieved 29 June 2026, www.cape.ac.uk/2024/07/30/research-to-policy-fellowships-six-pillars-for-optimising-success  Interviewees highlighted how, in some cases, opportunistic secondments can be less effective precisely because secondees do not have the support that comes with more structured schemes – in such cases, the effectiveness of the placement can be limited for both the secondee and the host organisation.

The existence of departmentally owned infrastructure helps alleviate the problems that can beset secondments and align them to departmental priorities. The EEP provides induction training and events, with the secondment itself being based around a problem statement, with explicit expectations that secondees co-develop projects with policy makers. It provides a strong bureaucratic infrastructure and a centralised point of contact and expertise within the department. Because such schemes are more than a ‘one off’, officials who manage them are better placed to evaluate their effectiveness and implement improvements over time. Another example is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s (FCDO’s) Research Commissioning Centre, launched in 2023, which tracks the performance of its secondment programme against key outcomes and impacts against an alphabetic grading system. ¹²⁰ Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, ‘Research Secondment and Academic Advisory Programme’, GOV.UK, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, https://devtracker.fcdo.gov.uk/programme/GB-GOV-1-301290/ documents

While the growth of secondment opportunities is positive, more can be done to ensure that such initiatives benefit both the secondee and the host organisation. Departmentally owned infrastructure is still relatively rare, but this approach can create more stable and impactful placements. To ensure that secondments are robust and closely aligned to their priorities, departments should assign responsibilities for managing and developing secondment opportunities to dedicated officials or teams and consider setting up their own dedicated schemes.

The ‘What Works Centres’ landscape remains heterogeneous, for better and for worse

Set up in 2013, the What Works Network – made up of 12 evidence centres “committed to increasing both the supply of and demand for evidence in their policy area” ¹²¹ Evaluation Task Force, ‘What Works Network’, GOV.UK, updated 6 March 2024, retrieved 16 June 2026, www. gov.uk/guidance/what-works-network  – has collectively designed and delivered more than 500 evaluations of interventions and programmes, as well as engaging in extensive collaboration with government departments, public service leaders and front-line staff to ensure cutting-edge evidence informs policy making and service delivery. ¹²² Evaluation Task Force, ‘The What Works Network Strategy’, GOV.UK, 29 November 2023, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-what-works-network-strategy

What Works Centres (WWCs) continue to be seen as a key component of the evidence ecosystem in and around government. They enjoy a high degree of prestige and legitimacy across the system by successfully maintaining a ‘balancing act’ of preserving their independence without excessively ‘rocking the boat’ and placing their funding streams (often coming from government) under threat. ¹²³ MacKillop E and Downe J, ‘What counts as evidence for policy? An analysis of policy actors’ perceptions’, Public Administration Review, 2023, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 1037–50, retrieved 29 June 2026, https://doi.org/10.1111/ puar.13567  WWCs vary substantially in policy focus, funding model, incubator organisation(s) and the types of evidence they tend to work with. While this creates some complexity, it is also a reflection of the diverging needs and resource requirements in different policy areas.

There has also been variation in the evidence centre landscape over time. Of the nine WWCs listed in our 2018 report on how government can work with academia more effectively, ¹²⁴ Sasse T and Haddon C, How Government Can Work with Academia, Institute for Government, 2018, retrieved 26 February 2026, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/how-government-can-work-academia  two no longer exist, one has been subject to a merger and a further five have been set up. In 2023, following the recommendations of the independent review of children’s social care, the Early Intervention Foundation and What Works for Children’s Social Care merged to form Foundations – to avoid duplication and sending diverging signals to the system. ¹²⁵ Department for Education, The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care: Final report, GOV.UK, 2022, retrieved 29 June 2026,www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-childrens-social-care-final-report  What Works Wellbeing closed in 2024 after its funding had dried up due to a lack of sustained ministerial sponsorship for a diffuse remit with no clear departmental home. ¹²⁶ Sanders M, ‘Wellbeing matters to everyone – and no-one’, King’s College London, 19 March 2024, retrieved 19 June 2026, www.kcl.ac.uk/news/wellbeing-matters-to-everyone-and-no-one  And in January 2026, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) launched a joint funding opportunity of up to £15m for the creation of a new What Works Centre for Local Employment Support. ¹²⁷ UK Research and Innovation, ‘What works centre (WWC) for local employment support’, 27 January 2026, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.ukri.org/opportunity/what-works-centre-wwc-for-local-employment-support

The Evaluation Task Force (ETF) acts as the secretariat for the What Works Network, is in charge of the network’s strategy, ¹²⁸ Evaluation Task Force, ‘The What Works Network Strategy’, GOV.UK, 29 November 2023, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-what-works-network-strategy  playing the role of convenor for centres and championing the ‘what works’ approach across government. The network’s goals in the near future include more strongly advocating for the long-term funding and independence of WWCs, which, despite the generous endowments that some (such as the Education Endowment Foundation) enjoy, remain key concerns for most WWCs in a tight fiscal environment. Showing impact and effectively evaluating WWC activity as knowledge mobilisers also remain a challenge, which both WWCs and the ETF are alive to. ¹²⁹ MacKillop E and Downe J, ‘What counts as evidence for policy? An analysis of policy actors’ perceptions’, Public Administration Review, 2023, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 1037–50, retrieved 29 June 2026, https://doi.org/10.1111/ puar.13567; Vallance P, MacKillop E, Downe J and Norman G, ‘Understanding the impact of knowledge brokering organizations: the case of the UK what works centres’, Research Evaluation, 2025, vol. 34, rvaf022, retrieved 29 June 2026, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaf022  As with the other mechanisms for improving government–academia engagement, a more coherent approach to WWCs, supported by the ETF and rooted in clearly identified departmental evidence needs, would help mitigate some of the risks that WWCs face.

Advisory groups come in different shapes and sizes – and departments need to choose wisely

Advisory groups, councils and committees remain one of government’s most direct routes to academic expertise, offering a readily accessible source of scrutiny and specialist advice without the delays of formal commissioning. But the landscape is often unstable as advisory bodies are liable to being reshaped, absorbed or wound down as departmental priorities and structures change. While this is sensible, to ensure that advisory bodies remain fit for purpose as the policy landscape around them evolves, it also makes it important for departments to prioritise building institutional memory and sustaining relationships with experts over time.

There is no one-size-fits-all model. Departments use advisory structures for different purposes and on different timelines, for example:

• standing committees that provide ongoing support – such as the Social Security Advisory Committee 
• time-limited groups that focus on a particular topic – like the HM Treasury and the Bank of England’s CBDC Academic Advisory Group 
• crisis-activated forums that come to the fore in emergency situations – for example, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).

A notable development has been the emergence of colleges of experts, which are flexible pools of specialists that can be drawn on as needed, helping departments widen participation and respond faster to emerging questions. The model’s flexibility – often enabling remote engagement – also supports broader geographic and institutional representation, and can be designed to recognise time commitments through payment where roles require more intensive input. Some departments are beginning to join this model up more effectively with other engagement mechanisms, such as by linking recruitment to ARI-aligned activity or by bringing former departmental policy fellows into their college of experts.

The onus is on departments to choose advisory arrangements deliberately, based on the problems they are trying to solve. That means being clear about the advisory body’s primary function – whether it is horizon scanning, rapid advice, scrutiny or methodological challenge – and designing governance, ownership and support accordingly (including ensuring there is a clear internal lead and routes into decision making). It also means building disciplinary breadth into small groups: advisory structures should reflect the reality that many policy problems require contributions from across disciplinary fields, and that diversity of method, seniority and background can strengthen the available evidence base.

Officials working at pace benefit greatly from extensive expert networks, but access to them continues to be uneven

Expert networks – whether in the form of institutional directories, contacts accessed through external research networks and learned societies, or informal personal contacts – are one of the most valued ways for officials to access timely and trusted academic advice, particularly when policy is being developed under pressure. They reduce the costs of reactively searching for credible specialists and create space for exploratory conversations that help teams frame problems and test assumptions before engaging in more formal work.

In recent years, much of the momentum around setting up expert networks has come from academia. Government efforts to systematise expert networks have grown more slowly, but some departments are taking steps to make access to external expertise easier through knowledge exchange activity and funded partnerships.

A long-standing example is the Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) use of policy research units in the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), which combine longer term research with rapid evidence and maintain dedicated liaison officers to support evidence flows. ¹³⁰ National Institute for Health and Care Research, ‘NIHR awards over £100 million to new policy research units’, 1 August 2023, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.nihr.ac.uk/news/nihr-awards-over-ps100-million-new-policy-research-units; National Institute for Health and Care Research, ‘Policy research programme – invitation to tender National Institute for Health and Care Research [NIHR] policy research units’, 8 July 2022, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.nihr.ac.uk/policy-research-programme-invitation-tender-national-institute-health-and-care-research-nihr-policy-research-units  The Home Office’s support for the ESRC-administered Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST) similarly illustrates how departments can use externally managed networks to access specialist expertise and build capability over time. ¹³¹ Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats, ‘About’, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, www. crestresearch.ac.uk/about

Knowledge exchange formats organised by government can also help. Officials cite regular events and seminars as a practical way to expose teams to research, identify new contacts and build informal networks. An example is DWP’s ongoing ARI roadshows and its monthly link seminars – a knowledge exchange series run by a volunteer team of analysts. ¹³² University of York, ‘Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) link seminar series’, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, www.york.ac.uk/policy-engine/eventsandopportunities/link-seminar-series  The Evidence and Partnerships Hub in the Ministry of Justice, which convenes a large academic network and runs regular seminars aligned to departmental priorities, ¹³³ Ministry of Justice, ‘Areas of research interest: knowledge exchange impact 2020–2025’, GOV.UK, (no date) retrieved 19 June 2026, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68d274f0e65dc716bfb1dc48/MoJ_ ARI_Knowledge_Exchange_Impact_2020-2025.pdf  similarly shows how a dedicated function can institutionalise connections and knowledge rather than leaving them to individual initiative. There is also evidence of more cross-cutting governmental efforts in this space through the Open Innovation Team and the Evaluation Task Force.

Building broader, more diverse networks – and giving officials time and permission to maintain them – would make it easier to access expertise quickly when it matters most. But access remains uneven and more could be done to make these networks efficient and sustainable. Steps could include:

• embedding a system of rapidly obtaining priority baseline clearance for academics when needed for a particular project  
• supporting an organisational culture that values and rewards institutional relationship building 
• maintaining access to networks that can be leveraged as needed.

Policy reviews and commissioned research continue to play an important role in the academic–policy engagement landscape

Previous Institute for Government research has already delved more deeply into other researcher engagement mechanisms. In 2025, we published a report about independent policy reviews, ¹³⁴ Paxton B and Rutter J, Lessons from Past Independent Policy Reviews, Institute for Government, 2025, retrieved 29 June 2026, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/lessons-past-independent-policy-reviews  looking at how government can learn from past experience to more effectively and strategically commission reviews and deploy them in the policy making process. Ensuring that reviews have the required capabilities, that they receive enough support from officials, and that they are commissioned and conducted in ways that are systematic and predictable, is central to their success. It is also instrumental in making it easier for academic researchers, and other external experts, to offer their input.

Government also continues to use commissioned research to help service some of its evidence needs, particularly for areas requiring highly specialised external insight. But there is an emerging preference in many departments for building internal analytical capacity and eschewing over-reliance on external commissions. While part of the rationale behind this move may be about containing costs, a recognition that government procurement can be too slow and cumbersome is also driving it. Government frameworks, such as GO-Science’s Futures Procurement Framework, ¹³⁵ Government Office for Science, ‘Futures Procurement Framework’, GOV.UK, updated 4 June 2026, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/guidance/futures-procurement-framework  go some way to addressing this challenge by providing officials with pre-cleared lists of suppliers and removing the most significant administrative hurdles normally associated with public sector procurement. There is space for expanding the number of, and participation in, these procurement frameworks, and including more academic institutions on them.

There are alternative routes for commissioning shorter, specific pieces of research from experts. Some of the most effective examples of this are joined up with other academic engagement mechanisms available in government. For instance, the Evaluation and Trial Advice Panel (ETAP), which the Evaluation Task Force (ETF)vmanages, allows teams across the civil service to acquire targeted, time-bound expert input into evaluation projects while bypassing onerous procurement processes. ¹³⁶ Cabinet Office and Economic and Social Research Council, The Rise of Experimental Government: The cross-government trial advice panel: Update report, GOV.UK, 2018, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/ publications/the-cross-government-trial-advice-panel-update-report

The story of individual mechanisms for researcher engagement is broadly positive. While the mechanisms have remained largely the same, in some places they have matured and become more embedded, with examples of best practice emerging across government. But this is not a consistent picture and, in some departments, less thought appears to be given to how mechanisms can be set up, drawing on best practice or what outcomes they are designed to deliver. One of the takeaway messages is the importance of clarity and strategic thinking – departments need to think about what these mechanisms are being set up to do and how this aligns with existing evidence needs and priorities. There is a risk that researcher engagement structures bear more of a resemblance to a group of ad-hoc initiatives rather than a cohesive and strategic ecosystem.