The UPEN Annual Conference 2024 was a powerful reminder of the importance of collaboration, community, and action in the realm of policy engagement. As someone relatively new to the landscape of academic policy engagement, the conference, hosted at the beautiful York Guildhall, provided a unique opportunity to connect, share, and learn from fellow policy engagement practitioners across the UK.
While the plenary sessions, panel discussions and structured engagement sessions brought out numerous insightful topics and themes, there were two debates that stayed with me long after the conference.
- Novelty vs Need
A recurring theme throughout the discussions was the need to rebalance research priorities to address real-world problems. The current competition-based funding model often rewards novelty over necessity, sidelining issues that impact people’s daily lives. Participants agreed that forming coalitions rather than fostering competition could drive more meaningful research outcomes. By prioritizing needs over novelty, we can ensure that research addresses the pressing challenges faced by society.
The need to address the problems that affect people in their day-to-day lives through research and academic policy engagement was echoed throughout the sessions. Research should not be divorced from reality and the everyday social problems affecting ordinary citizens. Hence, it is vital to recognize the role communities and local and regional institutions play in policymaking. The solution lies in centring people and their lived experiences at the heart of research and policy interventions.
Balancing strategic needs and priority areas in research funding was another critical topic. We need a pipeline for diverse stakeholders and actors to contribute to academic policymaking. Experimental thinking, decentralizing knowledge, and democratizing opportunities for engagement were highlighted as crucial steps. The impact of austerity measures on regional Academic Research Institutions (ARIs) was discussed, highlighting the need for ARIs to adopt a more integrated approach. Using ARIs as a guiding framework can help organize academic policy engagement activities and ensure that research aligns with government and policy priorities.
- Capacity vs Capability
Another cross-cutting debate that was highlighted in the panel talks and discussions was about the capabilities of knowledge mobilisers and the institutional capacity of academic organisations. It was widely agreed that capability is not the real issue; it’s the capacity of our existing institutions and networks to mobilise the available capability to take on challenges and new projects. While universities possess significant capabilities, these resources often need to be better aligned with strategic priorities to use the available institutional capacity well.
“Complexity is not a reason for inaction”, noted Jon Gleek, from Doncaster Council in his panel discussion. The need for navigating complexity by embracing it, rather than shying away from it was also recurrently discussed through the day. Complexity should be seen as an opportunity for innovation and collaboration, not a barrier. The panel speakers also echoed the need to ‘deliberately blow boundaries’ to break down the silos and to create collaborative opportunities. This approach requires a deliberate effort to equalize the playing field and democratize opportunities for engagement.
Another key takeaway was the need for democratising opportunities for engagement and embedding connectivity within and between institutions can foster innovation and address systemic issues. By deliberately breaking boundaries, we can create a collaborative environment that supports diverse stakeholders in contributing to academic policy-making.
The consensus was clear: it is high time for coalitions to form and for institutions to bolster their capacities as knowledge brokers. While networks play a crucial role in bringing people together, we must now focus on finding new ways to incentivise people to come up with innovative solutions.
