Investing in what makes academic-policy engagement work 

“Expertise may be under attack from some quarters, but the system that I lead has no alternative but to continue, without fear or favour, to provide evidence-based, rigorous, multi-disciplinary advice where we can – also flagging where the evidence is weak or non-existent and explaining how those gaps can be filled.” – Professor Dame Angela McLean, Government Chief Scientific Adviser. 

Rigorous advice requires not only strong research, but clarity on where gaps lie and how they can be filled. Those of us who work across the policy–research interface know that evidence does not move into policy systems on principle alone. It moves through people, trust, shared understanding, and the practical connections that enable ideas to travel.

The Government–University Pairing (GUP) Scheme—now nearing the end of its second cohort—began life as a small pilot funded by CAPE (Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement), but has grown into a national programme bringing together knowledge mobilisers and government officials to deepen mutual understanding and build the relationships that make evidence use possible.

The result is a growing body of learning, impact, and cross‑sector collaboration that could not have emerged without deliberate investment in people.

WHO

Origins and Ownership

The scheme originated as a CAPE pilot in 2023/24, designed to test whether structured, relational pairing could strengthen the connective tissue between universities and government. Delivered in partnership by UPEN (the Universities Policy Engagement Network), GO‑Science, Durham University and UCL, the pilot paired six participants who quickly demonstrated the value of a protected space for honest exchange and peer learning.

On the back of this early momentum—and clear demand from across the country—the scheme was expanded significantly. This year’s cohort brings together 53 professionals from government departments, non‑departmental bodies, and universities of every kind, from research‑intensive institutions to post‑92s.

The scheme is jointly stewarded by UPEN’s Professional Development and EDI subcommittees, with strategic support from GO‑Science and delivery input from UCL and Durham.

The shared commitment from all partners reflects a recognition that the academic–policy relationship requires more than ad‑hoc engagement: it requires sustained, supported connection.

WHAT

A simple structure with a clear purpose

At its core, the scheme is intentionally straightforward. Participants commit to a year-long partnership involving monthly meetings, optional shadowing, and participation in three cohort-wide learning sessions. Pairs are matched carefully based on experience, region, thematic interests, and seniority, with diversity and balance in mind.

From the outset, participants are encouraged to shape their own priorities. Rather than pushing toward predefined outputs, the model creates space to understand organisational cultures, working practices, and motivations. As Sinéad Murphy, a Policy Engagement Coordinator at UCL puts it:

“It’s relatively unusual to find initiatives which explicitly recognise the value of less‑formalised conversations between professionals as a means of better understanding one another’s respective organisational structures, operating systems, and key drivers.”

This emphasis on conversation and curiosity sets the tone for the entire scheme.

Pairs begin with a cohort launch, establishing expectations and opening up initial channels of communication. After that, the rhythm is driven by them. Some choose structured agendas; others opt for more open exploration. All are supported by the coordination team through guidance, crowd-sourced discussion topics, and opportunities to learn from the wider cohort.

WHY

Bringing people together to open the ‘black box’

The rationale behind the scheme is simple: meaningful policy engagement is ultimately about relationships. Without sustained connection, research remains abstract, and policymaking remains opaque.

Participants consistently highlight how valuable it is to demystify each other’s systems. Ruth Marshall, Head of Futures Capability at GO‑Science, reflects that it is “Always helpful to learn more about other sectors we work with. [I] have particularly enjoyed talking to my scheme partner about impact case studies and what looks like success when engaging with government.”

Others emphasised that the scheme provides a rare environment for honest questioning. Megan Marsh, Senior Public Affairs Officer at LSE noted:

“I have enjoyed being able to ask specific questions to my pair on live activities and plans we are looking at putting together, especially in timely policymaking contexts as a sounding board that would not otherwise be so easily accessible.”

This ability to safely explore the “black box”—the drivers, pressures, and processes shaping decisions—has been one of the strongest outcomes of the scheme so far.

For academics and knowledge mobilisers, it clarifies how and when research can land. For civil servants, it brings transparency to how universities operate and what motivates researchers. And for both, it lays the foundations for future collaboration that is grounded in mutual understanding rather than transaction.

HOW

Relational work in practice

While simple in design, the scheme has generated a rich diversity of activity. Because every pair or trio shapes its own journey, no two partnerships look alike. Activities have included:

• Visiting each other’s organisations to see systems and teams in action
• Acting as sounding boards on live challenges
• Exploring organisational differences in incentives, pressures, and impact
• Making connections across departments and faculties
• Scoping future collaborations and shared projects.

For Liz Osborne, Head of Science Strategy and Delivery at the Department for Transport, the informality of the model has been a strength:

“Our monthly catch-ups have provided a productive space to exchange perspectives, as we work on similar challenges in academic and government engagement but from different points in the system. The informal format has been particularly helpful, enabling open and constructive discussions at the working level.”

Others have already begun to see the early signs of longer-term collaboration. Juliet Harrison, Research Impact and Policy Engagement Manager at Leeds Beckett University, describes how her pairing is becoming embedded in future plans:

“I am planning to attend the annual research conference that he runs, and he will also be coming to Leeds Beckett University after the conference to present on opportunities for academic collaboration. We hope that longer term, this will lead to more extensive collaboration across the two organisations.”

Similarly, Dr Ahmad Al‑Hiari, Lecturer in Leadership and Management at De Montfort University, highlighted the direct learning facilitated by the scheme:

“It’s been a great experience learning about how the public sector engages with research … and how the science advice mechanism works and contributes to evidence-based policymaking.”

The cumulative effect is clear: pairs are not only sharing knowledge, but creating the conditions for future, tangible cross‑sector work.

WHEN

Learning in real time and looking ahead

As the second cohort moves into its final months, learning loops built into the scheme are helping refine its future shape. Regular pulse surveys, feedback channels, and cohort workshops allow the coordination team to adapt session content, guidance, and communications to match the needs emerging across the partnership network.

An upcoming World Café session at UCL will bring the entire cohort together to capture learning, explore opportunities beyond the scheme, and strengthen shared understanding across participants.

The question now is not whether the scheme adds value—participants’ experiences make that abundantly clear—but how best to sustain the momentum and embed the learning into the next phase.

WITH WHAT

Modest resources, meaningful impact

One of the scheme’s most striking features is how much has been achieved with modest, light-touch resourcing. Rather than building complex infrastructure, the model invests in people and relationships—and trusts participants to shape their own work.

The past two cohorts have shown that:

• Relationships are not the by‑product of good policy engagement
• They are the mechanism by which evidence gains traction
• Even simple structures can create profound connective tissue between sectors.

Participants repeatedly emphasise that having a trusted peer—in the civil service or in academia—changes the way they navigate their roles. As Megan Marsh put it, having access to real‑time advice “that would not otherwise be so easily accessible” has shaped active policy work.

And across both cohorts, the message is clear: when supported space is created for curiosity, candour, and shared problem‑solving, evidence does not merely inform policy in theory—it shapes decisions in practice.

Building the future of evidence-informed policymaking

The GUP scheme began as a small experiment in relationship‑building. Two cohorts later, it has become a national demonstration of how to strengthen the foundations of evidence use across government and academia.

Its success has emerged not from metrics or mandated outputs, but from investment in the people who translate research into policy impact every day. What has been learned so far—about systems, cultures, incentives, and collaboration—is now shaping plans for the scheme’s next evolution.

As demand continues to grow and participants carry their learning into their organisations, the opportunity is to build on this momentum: widening the network, deepening its impact, and continuing to connect the people who make evidence work.