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 said at the British Academy last year.

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 (people who work either in government or universities to better integrate research and policymaking) to deepen mutual understanding and build the relationships that make evidence use more possible.  

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

WHO 

Origins and Stewardship 

A small CAPE pilot with the Government Office for Science (GO-Science) and UCL demonstrated the value of connecting people across organisational boundaries to build cultural awareness and peer learning spaces. The programme now has scaled across a diverse group of government departments and agencies and universities with over 50 participants.’ 

The scheme is jointly overseen by UPEN’s Professional Development and EDI subcommittees,  and delivered in partnership by UCL, Durham, and GO-Science.  

The shared commitment from all partners reflects a recognition that the academic–policy relationship requires not just ad hoc engagement but sustained and supported partnership. 

WHAT 

A Simple Structure with a Clear Purpose 

The scheme’s design is intentionally straightforward. Participants commit to a year-long partnership involving monthly meetings, shadowing, and participation in three cohort-wide learning sessions. Pairs (and sometimes trios) 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, 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 reflects the core principles behind the scheme. 

Pairs begin with a cohort launch, establishing expectations and establishing initial channels for 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 

The Art of Relational Engagement: Opening the ‘black box’ of academic-policy engagement 

Underpinned by the rationale that meaningful policy engagement is ultimately about relationships, the programme recognises that 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 notes: 

“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 evidence is understood and where expertise has value within government. For civil servants, it brings transparency to how universities operate and what motivates and incentivises academic-policy engagement. 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 catchups 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.” 

As a result, pairs are not only sharing knowledge but creating the conditions for future 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, but how best to sustain the momentum and embed the learning into the next phase. Building the Future of Evidence-Informed Policymaking 

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, trusting participants to shape their own work.

The past two cohorts have shown that relationships are not the by-product but the mechanism by which good academic-policy engagement happens. And that even simple structures can be effective for bridging sectors.

As demand for policy-research engagement 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.