Building trust through Areas of Research Interest

It’s a busy time to be working on Areas of Research Interest (ARIs) – published documents that signal to researchers the evidence needs of policy organisations. New ARIs are regularly published at all levels of government, UPEN have recently launched an ARI Practitioners Community of Practice, and two insightful reports have come out in the past few months. It’s unsurprising, then, that there was an ARIs buzz in the room at the 2026 UPEN Conference! 

In this blog, find out what we heard about ARIs at the conference, what the new report “A review of ‘Areas of Research Interest’ as a mechanism for research-policy engagement” tells us, and what UPEN are doing in this space. 

What we’ve heard

In a context where Susie Kitchens (Director of Science Diplomacy, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) characterised the relationship between academia and policy as one tinged with “awe and suspicion on both sides”, ARIs can establish a space for building mutual trust through clear communication and collaboration. But as an adaptable tool for academic-policy engagement, we’re still building an understanding of what works and where challenges remain. 

How to encourage engagement with ARIs was a frequent topic of conversation. “What are they?”, “Who are they for?” and “How should I engage?” can seem like obvious questions to knowledge mobilisers, but the answers aren’t necessarily widely known.

What was clear from the ARI Practitioners Speed Networking session is that people want to talk about this! Scores of connections were kicked off, as people sought to find out how others are approaching similar challenges across different policy and place contexts. 

How to encourage engagement with ARIs was a frequent topic of conversation. Launched by UK government departments in 2017, with the first local government ARI published in 2022, they are reaching maturity, but ARIs still aren’t as visible and inviting to researchers as we might hope! “What are they?”, “Who are they for?” and “How should I engage?” can seem like obvious questions to knowledge mobilisers, but the answers aren’t necessarily widely known. 

At the workshop ‘Who gets to be trusted? Early career researchers and inequality in policy engagement’, Dr Charlotte Campbell (CLOSER) shared new research into what facilitates, and acts as barriers to, responding to ARIs. Participants discussed how short explainers, case studies, and better signposting towards the contextual information provided by ARI documents could all be ‘quick wins’ for building trust in the value of engaging. 

What we’ve read 

Two recent reports have focused on understanding what ARIs have achieved over the past decade. Both identify existing challenges and set out a path to ensuring that ARIs meet their potential as they mature as an embedded tool for effective and meaningful academic-policy engagement. 

Hot off the press is ‘A review of ‘Areas of Research Interest’ as a mechanism for research-policy engagement’ (Claire Smithson, Andy Mycock, and Nicky Buckley), which analyses the evidence base for ARIs in terms of established process, resourcing needs, coordination, and evaluation. While highlighting the strategic role ARIs can play in research-policy engagement, the authors identify several structural factors that limit their effectiveness and make four recommendations to address these:  

• That the UK Government ARI database is extended to encompass questions from all levels of government and public bodies, to enable a clearer sense of system wide evidence needs. 

• That universities, funders, and public authorities should support their ARIs with sustained strategic funding to mobilise and translate evidence that addresses identified needs. 

• That confidence in, and engagement with, ARIs can be increased through clearer communication, monitoring, and evaluation of processes, goals, and outcomes.  

• That ARIs must be embedded within a more connected and strategic knowledge exchange ecosystem. 

These insights build upon UPEN’s report ‘Regional Areas of Research Interest: Challenges, opportunities and next steps’, which identified six priority actions to ensure the evolving ARI landscape supports and enables meaningful knowledge exchange and decision making. The report highlighted the need for ARI-aligned funding models and better  connections across the system to minimise isolation and duplication. It also identified the need for a peer-learning network, a collective approach to evaluation, and an adaptable theory of change for ARIs to drive practice forwards. 

What we’re doing 

We’ve launched an ARI Practitioners Community of Practice, so that people working across the university-policy engagement landscape can keep learning from each other. Get involved! 

We’re developing a collective Theory of Change for ARIs and exploring approaches to evaluation at an in-person peer learning workshop in October. Find out more and express interest in joining us in York. 

We want to support innovative ways of engaging with and developing responses to recently published ARIs through UPEN’s relaunched Participation Fund. Read the details and apply.