Building the case for local and regional Areas of Research Interest

Areas of Research Interest (ARIs) are increasingly viewed as an effective co-ordinating mechanism to bridge the realms of knowledge production (evidence), knowledge use (mobilisation), and subsequent implementation (policy).

A meeting held on the 23rd of April at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds (under the Chatham House rule) brought together funders, local and regional civil servants, and higher education knowledge mobilisers to discuss how the relatively mature ARI ecosystem in West Yorkshire, underpinned by the West Yorkshire Higher Education Compact, might serve as a test-bed for ongoing development.

The session was valuable in highlighting several prerequisites for further work: a consideration of the steps required to maintain momentum; approaches and mechanisms for sharing best practice; further iteration of the ‘test, learn and grow’ approach utilised by policy partners; pathways to extending the reach of existing work beyond the region; and potential future routes to support local and regional ARIs in the context of recent developments within the UK research and innovation system.

1. The West Yorkshire landscape

Participants outlined significant differences in how local and regional ARIs had been conceived and delivered, compared to their national equivalents. It was also noted that ARI work in West Yorkshire, whilst established, had grown organically rather than by design. There was significant interest in how the work outlined could integrate with the wider ARI system, whilst at the same time retaining the inherent relationality and flexibility vital in stimulating the work in the first place.

This mode of interaction, highlighted by Liz Shutt in a recent Wonkhe blog, is characterised by ‘meaningful engagement’ that “rarely conforms to tidy systems or repeatable pathways. Instead, it often requires highly bespoke combinations of expertise, relationship-building and judgement, demanding significant skill, capacity and institutional support.” Crucially it was felt that the West Yorkshire ARI ecosystem is not quite at the stage where the underlying structures underpinning the work are strong enough to withstand churn, political turbulence, or the Higher Education funding crisis. In accordance with this observation, there was broad agreement that a focus is required around five key areas.

1. Building enabling structures: These are vital in binding regional stakeholders within a framework that can be supported and monitored, ensuring leadership buy-in – with the West Yorkshire Higher Education Compact providing this function, not least in supporting ARI work emerging from the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA). Compacts and memoranda of understanding (MOUs) are likely to be increasingly important mechanisms as the priorities of policy responsive research and critical academic inquiry are balanced within evolving regional research and innovation systems.
   
2. A shared strategic approach: This is necessary to link ARI work to ongoing academic inquiry, the existing research base, and an array of higher education assets. This means having a wide range of clear real‑world examples that show how ARIs link research and evidence to practical policy needs, from early ideas through to decisions and delivery. The overall aim is to build a stronger and more reliable system, based on good relationships and trust. This can be done through a ‘test, learn and grow’ approach that fits with how local and regional decision‑making actually works, while still allowing space to challenge and question priorities when needed.
   
3. The funding system needs reform: Short-term funding cycles remain a problem. Notwithstanding its uneven distribution, participants noted the value of Research England’s formula-based Policy Support Fund (PSF) and stressed that future allocations, however structured, must balance support for strategic investment with funding for research-related activities. There was broad agreement that additional oversight would be welcomed in exchange for funding security, and that funding mechanisms should build in policy partner buy-in at the earliest possible stage.
   
4. The utility of theories of change: A well-constructed theory of change has the ability to bring together different impact requirements from stakeholders, build consensus on key areas of consequence, and frame the changes stakeholders wish to see within the context of available tools and resources. ARI approaches thus have the potential to usefully blend visioning exercises undertaken with citizens, with top-down requirements and/or constraints. Momentum can be maintained by follow-up and consistent refresh; ‘this is what you told us… this is what we’ve done… this is what we’re doing next.’ Similarly, the importance of how ARI work is communicated was repeatedly stressed.
   
5. Place prioritisation: It was recognised that building community voice is not the same as delivering a serviceable set of ARIs, and there was agreement that the system works better when groups of diverse and representative stakeholders are consulted around place-specific evidence gaps. This, in turn, must be aligned with broader research questions and their application to place-relevant evidence needs. It was also recognised that engagement across the policy-HE divide is often uneven and there may not always be capacity, capability, or even willingness to address emerging issues in an optimal or thorough manner. Accordingly, the value of allied mechanisms, Civic University Agreements (CUAs) being one example, were noted in helping places to unearth and frame priorities.

2. What do we need to (re)consider?

Building upon this broad consensus, discussions highlighted four areas where further thinking was required.

1. Activities vs. Infrastructure. It was clear that further consideration is required to separate out how project work is funded, and how we collectively support evidence-to-policy infrastructure. Thinking specifically about investments that might provide a bridge between the two domains, secondments, fellowships and other forms of staff mobility were seen as vital – and it was noted that the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) policy fellowship scheme had not yet fully engaged with local and regional policymakers. Given the range of existing funding mechanisms that are under review (in addition to PSF), questions remain around the role of HE intermediaries and representative bodies who provide connectivity across local, regional and national HE-policy systems, including the Yorkshire & Humber Policy Engagement & Research Network (Y-PERN) and nationally the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN). These bodies can usefully support research funders in discussions around how allocations could be structured, modelled and disbursed, alongside how proposed changes can be rendered actionable and palatable across the sector. Key to unlocking this conversation will be further discussion around the various barriers to collaboration and shared infrastructure funding.
   
2. Focusing on outcomes and mobilising best practice. When working with local and regional governments, it is imperative that outcomes can be evidenced (e.g. around service improvement and better service design). A ‘test, learn and grow’ approach, alongside robust monitoring and evaluation and the open sharing of best practice is therefore vital, and also requires dedicated resource. It was highlighted by more than one participant that an iterative or step-by-step approach to ARI deployment, within such a framework, has the potential to enrol initially sceptical stakeholders as early benefits are realised.
   
3. Diverse routes to engagement. A wide variety of approaches have been piloted in West Yorkshire at a range of scales, with each incorporating the views of stakeholders in different ways. Whether driven by community imperatives, or framed by economic necessities, participants felt it was essential that ARIs were co-owned and did not simply replicate corporate planning or uncritically reproduce government priorities. Entities such as National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs) offer one sort of advantageous and trustworthy locus of engagement, providing dedicated resource at policy officer level for local authorities, a level of independence (and by extension elected officials with ‘cover’), and a solid foundation upon which to retrospectively link research assets and outputs.
   
4. Managing flux. It was clear that policymakers had chosen to embrace ARIs within a context where evidence gaps were a moving target. The world is not going to stand still, and there are significant lessons for the academic community to take on board around the delivery of robust research outcomes within these parameters. A key example was the need to support the bridging work, promoting mutual understanding and maintaining relationships, required to mobilise health-related ARIs, within the context of an NHS undergoing significant internal change.

3. Developing a new approach

The intrinsic value of this meeting was that it brought together a range of stakeholders who all understood the need to tackle thorny issues within place-based research and innovation and work together to develop new approaches.

Crucially, there was clear evidence of a shared desire to demonstrate the value of local and regional ARIs and a recognition of the necessary change in culture and direction required to underpin this work. This builds on Bec Riley’s recent observations within an Local Policy Innovation Partnerships Hub blog post, that contended inter alia, that “future funding will reward clusters, not individuals; ecosystems, not excellence alone… Too often, engagement relies on a handful of enthusiastic academics, personal relationships, or ad‑hoc project teams. UKRI wants that era to end. What they’re calling for is institutionalised partnership capability, with civic partners embedded in governance, data structures, outcome frameworks and long-term strategy… The future is partnership-led, cluster-driven and regionally grounded.”

In understanding that ARIs are part of an interconnected evidence system, we should not lose sight of the fundamental ‘resource allocation’ questions that sit alongside this observation. A recent UPEN publication has explored these. However, in some ways this issue is secondary to an initial set of questions around how we develop new ways of working, support culture change, and demonstrate value – each of which will necessitate specific forms of investment, both new and within the existing resource envelope.

4. Next steps – continuing the conversation

UPEN’s collective offer is broadly in line with University UK’s recent proposal to operate as “constructive partners as UKRI develops its thinking, and to make clear where unintended consequences may arise from any approach… stand[ing] ready to work with UKRI on a more catalytic place agenda and the support needed to achieve it.” Before considering the consequences of future interventions, for West Yorkshire’s ARI activity to mature as an integrated and connected system three risk factors should be taken into account.

Firstly, the need to reduce fragmentation and smooth out processes – recognising linking evidence across places will be necessary in order for the true value of this work to be realised.

Secondly, a shared recognition that momentum could be lost without HEIs taking a long-term view on the value of this work, and building support for knowledge brokerage into ‘business as usual’.

Thirdly, the risk of a ‘responsibility gap’ opening up in the context of tight budgets and a lack of clarity around system-level research priorities.

With this in mind, the following five questions will frame the next iteration of this conversation, an invited workshop to be held at the University of Huddersfield on the 15th of June. This will provide a further opportunity to consolidate learning, build momentum and shape the next phase of ARI development across the wider Yorkshire and the Humber region.

1. How do we build local capacity that is appropriately integrated? Building on discussions around how ARI work supports new ways of working within place, there is a need to consider the shape and capacity of the wider evidence-to-policy system. This includes the role of local agreements, quadruple helix partnerships, and civic university agreements in framing research priorities that are place-sensitive, current and deliverable. It was a consistent refrain that resource, leadership and ‘permission’ are required to even get people into the correct headspace to engage, never mind the infrastructure to build capacity and capability to undertake the work.
   
2. How do we demonstrate real change? Unlocking funding will require evidence that ARIs, and the infrastructure that supports them, delivers benefits at a range of scales, and lives have been tangibly improved. Accordingly, a consideration of new funding models will need to balance oversight, engagement and agility, recognising the potential for local initiatives to influence national policy priorities, including but not limited to economic growth. From a West Yorkshire perspective, participants stressed the hope that this might generate a ‘virtuous circle’, with national policy influence bringing increasing interest and investment into regions.
   
3. How do we support those who do the work? Much of the infrastructure underpinning this activity relies on knowledge mobilisation professionals, many of whom operate within precarious or time‑limited roles. However, this challenge extends beyond a single group, requiring sustained investment in the skills and capacities of the wider academic and policymaker workforce. In this context there is an onus on the higher education sector to commit, more systematically, to roles and career pathways that support regional evidence systems, as well as promoting career mobility, alongside institution‑specific research activity and outputs.
   
4. How do we best communicate the value of this work? In the first instance, there is still uncertainty about what ARIs are for, and working towards a collective agreement on their use value, including how they feed back into the research system, will go some way towards addressing this issue. Beyond this, there is also a much more cohesive story we must construct around the value of an evidence-informed approach to place and placemaking, alongside a sense of how researchers are also able to draw value from this form of engagement in terms of institutional and professional recognition.
   
5. How can higher education and policy actors best support the research and innovation system? The question of how place-based ARI work fits into UKRI’s ‘bucket’ approach to research and innovation funding is one we must unpick together. For too long the higher education sector has perched itself above the fray, and by extension created unnecessary distance from the funding system that supports it. There are good historical reasons for this, but it has led to a model that has become fundamentally unworkable. Central to UKRI’s mission-led approach is a recognition that funding allocation ‘buckets’ need to serve society, not simply the higher education status quo. As we sought to do in this meeting, a good place to start is to look at how existing place commitments, models and approaches have historically been supported, how we can learn from them, and how we might use what we have learnt to scale-up and build value through outcome driven infrastructure across the sector.