Government and academia: Areas of research interest (ARIs)
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
This is one of five deep dives into mechanisms UK central government uses to engage with researchers. The deep dives are accompanied by a report looking at the big picture of how government can improve its approach to researcher engagement.
These outputs build on past Institute research on how government can work better with academia, and the IfG Academy’s work in supporting academics seeking to engage with policy makers.
| Areas of research interest (ARIs) | |
| What | Areas of research interest (ARIs) were a recommendation from the independent review of UK research councils, led by Sir Paul Nurse and published in 2015. 55 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, ‘Nurse review of research councils’, GOV.UK, 2014, retrieved 8 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/collections/nurse-review-of-research-councils They have become a means for government bodies to articulate their research and evidence needs. ARI documents are published online, often in the form of broad topics and specific research questions. |
| When | ARIs usually signal research needs in the medium to long term. There is no time requirement for an ARI refresh, but it is recommended that ARIs are republished around every three years or following a major change in an organisation’s structure or priorities. 56 Government Office for Science, ‘Writing and using areas of research interest’, updated 8 November 2024, retrieved 8 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/writing-and-using-areas-of-research-interest/writing-and-using-areas-of-research-interest |
| Who | A range of actors are involved in the ARI publishing process. Chief scientific advisers typically take a leading role alongside the heads of policy and analysis and those who work on academic engagement teams. The commissioning process usually involves engagement with internal policy, science and analysis teams and external academic stakeholders such as the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN). GO-Science also provides a supporting role for departments and other government bodies that are producing ARIs. |
| Why | ARIs are broadly designed to identify evidence gaps and signpost areas where a department is seeking evidence and engagement from researchers and other experts. |
ARIs have been rolled out across Whitehall departments and beyond – but some have not been updated in recent years
All Whitehall departments have now published ARIs and parliament, public bodies and different tiers of government – including the Welsh and Scottish governments and local authorities in England – have adopted the model. 57 Smithson C, Mycock A and Buckley N, ‘A review of “areas of research interest” (ARIs) as a mechanism for research–policy engagement’, University of Leeds and Universities Policy Engagement Network, https://upen.ac.uk/resources/report-a-review-of-areas-of-research-interest-aris-as-a-mechanism-for-research-policy-engagement/ Among Whitehall departments, an encouraging number of ARI iterations have been published (or are currently under development). Since the July 2024 general election, more than half of departments have updated their ARIs. There has also been an improvement in quality across the field, particularly with more recent iterations.
Guidance suggests that ARIs should be updated roughly every three years, 58 Government Office for Science, ‘Writing and using areas of research interest’, op. cit. but in some cases they have become severely outdated. For example, while the Home Office has fed in to the development of ARIs – such as the economic crime ARIs published in 2025 with the National Economic Crime Centre – its own departmental ARIs have not been updated since June 2019. 59 National Economic Crime Centre and Home Office, ‘ Economic crime areas of research interest NECC (NCA) & Home Office 2025’, GOV.UK, 2025, retrieved 28 June 2026, www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/who-we-are/publications/755-economic-crime-areas-of-research-interest-ari-report-july-2025/file Since then, there has been a significant churn amongst both prime ministers and home secretaries, Brexit has been implemented and the national conversation around immigration has changed significantly. 60 IfG Ministers Database, retrieved 30 June 2026, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/ministers-database While ministerial churn alone may not justify a refresh, there is a risk that some ARIs as they stand do not reflect departmental priorities. Departmental ARIs that have fallen out of date should therefore be updated to better reflect updated priorities.
Some departments are taking more innovative approaches to structuring their ARIs
While there is now more consistency around ARIs, several departments are charting their own paths in terms of how their ARIs are pitched and structured to meet their evidence needs. Examples where departments are adapting their ARIs include the following:
- Aligning ARIs to the Labour government’s missions: Responding to the Labour government’s mission-driven approach to government, some departments have produced new ARIs that aim to align the department’s externally focused research needs with these priorities. Examples include the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s (DESNZ’s) ‘make Britain a clean energy superpower’ mission ARIs 61 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, ‘Clean energy superpower mission areas of research interest’, GOV.UK, 6 October 2025, retrieved 8 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-energy-superpower-mission-areas-of-research-interest/clean-energy-superpower-mission-areas-of-research-inter… and the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) ARI document, with the DfE using the ‘break down the barriers to opportunity’ mission to underlie the document. 62 Department for Education, Areas of Research Interest, GOV.UK, 2025, retrieved 8 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/department-for-education-areas-of-research-interest
- Being clearer about what they want from ARIs: Some departments are being clearer about who they want to hear from to encourage a wider range of disciplines and methods in responses to ARIs. For example, the DfE’s ARI document specifically signals a range of disciplines and approaches – such as ‘data analytics’, ‘systems thinking’ and ‘economics of education’ – and provides useful steers about what the department would be keen to hear more about. 63 Ibid.
A risk with any departmentally driven process for assessing research gaps is that they replicate departmental siloes. But there are examples where departments are breaking these. One example is the clean energy superpower mission ARI, which includes a list of the 10 departments (with associated policy areas) that were consulted with as part of the ARI commissioning process. 64 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, ‘Clean energy superpower mission areas of research interest’, op. cit.
In addition, GO-Science has sponsored an ARI database, which brings together live ARI questions and topics in an accessible format. 65 Areas of research interest database, retrieved 8 June 2026, https://ari.org.uk The database can be used to inform departments about existing questions as they commission new ARIs and researchers can use it to identify a range of relevant questions outside of the strictures of separate ARI documents.
In some departments, there has been a greater focus on follow-up activities after the publication of ARIs
It has become standard practice across departments to have a shared email inbox that officials manage as a point of contact for those wishing to get in touch about published ARIs. 66 Smithson C, Mycock A and Buckley N, ‘A review of ‘areas of research interest’ (ARIs) as a mechanism for research-policy engagement’, op. cit. Some departments, such as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, use an ARI engagement survey for registering interest and provide a template to guide researchers to help them prepare submissions of interest. 67 Department for Culture, Media and Sport, ‘DCMS areas of research interest’, GOV.UK, updated 26 May 2026, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/dcms-areas-of-research-interest/dcms-areas-of-research-interest Maintaining a system that is responsive to researchers and able to broker connections with policy officials and analysts in the department is crucial to the success of ARIs. But some departments have pioneered a wider suite of follow-up activities. The Department for Work and Pensions runs ‘ARI roadshows’, which include visiting research institutions to spread awareness of the ARIs as well as roundtables, workshops and other outreach events that help facilitate connections with researchers. As well as publicising the ARIs, we heard examples of how the ARI workshops helped facilitate networks between academics and officials producing outcomes, ranging from a collaborative PhD on algorithmic bias to the department being invited to participate in a relevant academic project.
For ARIs to be more effective, departments should draw on existing best practice to ensure they are breaking siloes, encouraging a wider range of responses and developing a robust programme of follow-up activity.
GO-Science has helped develop ARIs as a more robust mechanism for academic–policy engagement
While ownership of ARIs sits firmly within departments, the role that GO-Science and the network of departmental chief scientific advisers play has become more prominent. GO-Science has developed a strong specialism around the ARI process, maintaining an ARI engagement team and an ARI officials’ network and publishing detailed guidance on how to develop and communicate ARIs. This has helped generate greater consistency in terms of quality and approach across the board. This is borne out in recent ARI documents, which in terms of content and structure are broadly more consistent than before, along the lines recommended in GO-Science guidance.
The ARI story has been generally positive. Co-ordinating work that GO-Science has undertaken and a greater focus on ARIs among individual departments has led to the creation of more detailed ARIs that are more consistent with each other, but also flexible enough to respond to departmental priorities. This helps make departmental ARIs more accessible to academics, who increasingly know what to expect from them. The creation of the ARI database has further supported greater accessibility.
Still, not all stakeholders fully understand the purpose of ARIs
ARIs have become more systematised and coherent, and they have emerged as a strong mechanism for government to facilitate greater academic–policy engagement. Different organisations will use ARIs with different aims in mind, but they are typically used to help guide researchers to produce and share evidence that government needs in the medium to long term through, for instance, signalling how researchers can develop and pitch funding bids. The identification and communication of evidence needs are therefore at the core of the ARI model. However, key stakeholders do not always understand the timescales involved and how much of the focus is on novel research generation.
As ARIs have become more prominent, they are often seen as ‘conversation starters’ – this reflects the potential for ARIs to create opportunities for more direct academic–policy engagements and their role in guiding research generation. 68 Haddon C and Sasse T, How Government Can Work with Academia, Institute for Government, 2018, p. 51, retrieved 30 June 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. 69 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’, 2024, available at SSRN, retrieved 8 June 2026, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4998285 There is scope to use ARIs to leverage existing research, but a common question among academics who seek to engage with ARIs is about when they should get in touch with departments and whether departments welcome existing research.
But we have also heard criticisms that ARIs are more focused on process than on outcomes. Some policy professionals reported confusion about the purpose of ARIs and described them as abstract and intangible when it comes to the live policy issues that were occupying their time. Generating enough internal buy-in remains a challenge for some departments. In departments where the chief scientific adviser leads on the development of ARIs, their status and their relationship to policy teams will determine how far the wider department engages with the ARI process. There were also concerns that departments may be reluctant to be too transparent about their evidence needs in public-facing ARIs, especially when they relate to sensitive political priorities or matters of national security. It is understandable that some government departments with research evidence needs find limitations in the ARI process, even if publishing ARIs as ‘conversation starters’ raises questions relevant to security and resilience that require significant internal consultation before publication. 70 Oliver K, Boaz A and Cuccato G, ‘Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last?’, F1000 Research, 2026, 11, retrieved 30 June 2026, https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1509 But this could mean that, in some cases, published ARIs do not reflect the full range of departmental research needs.
If departments want to use ARIs to guide their longer-term research and evidence priorities, then the fact that some officials feel like they do not tackle more immediate policy issues in a timely way is not necessarily an issue. However, this would be a missed opportunity for more effective academic–policy engagement – as an important mechanism for engagement, more work can be done to use ARIs to encourage direct interactions. 71 Ibid. Key to this is departments being clear about what they want to see from such engagement in terms of research content and what format such engagement should take. There are examples where this is starting to happen – the DfE’s ARIs make a concerted effort to move beyond problem definition to solutions by signalling the kinds of policy outcomes to which it hopes the ARIs will contribute. 72 Department for Education, Areas of Research Interest, op. cit. Departments can also be clearer about how they want responses to ARIs to be formatted when researchers are submitting evidence – this could take the form of a template ‘executive summary’ for written submissions or a list of questions to help structure conversations between researchers and officials.
More could be done to align timescales for researchers and policy makers
Getting the balance between using ARIs to address longer-term and immediate priorities is not impossible and more could be done to create agile and responsive documents. The current guidance is for ARIs to be updated roughly on a three-year basis or as circumstances change. Using existing ARI documents, departments could identify a group of core questions for priority input on a yearly basis. Decisions on priority questions could be made in conversation with policy teams that are keen to bring better evidence into their work or could be based on those ARIs that have not received sufficient uptake.