Through the looking glass: What does research impact look like from inside government?

At the end of the first day of my secondment to the Academic Engagement Team at the Government Office for Science, my manager Karri ushered me into a lift with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Dame Angela McLean.

Tired from a packed day and a bit starstruck, I hadn’t followed my own advice; I had no elevator pitch prepared about my work. We ended up making small talk about her weekend and her cat, and I vowed to make a better impression as the secondment progressed. It was a surreal end to a busy first day at GO-Science.

Months earlier, I’d seen that GO-Science were looking for a knowledge mobiliser secondee to develop tools that would help government departments monitor and evaluate their own academic engagement. I love untangling a knotty question, so I jumped at the chance to apply. With the support of my home institution, PolicyBristol, I embarked on a six-month, part-time role in government.

Tools for monitoring and evaluation of academic engagement

My project aimed to create a resource that would help departments consider measures and metrics of academic engagement. I began by exploring what data departments were already collecting on academic engagement. After speaking to colleagues from 19 government organisations, I’d gained insights into the academic engagement they do, and the potential engagement metrics they could collect that would be useful, feasible and robust enough for decision makers, but not burdensome for busy civil servants.

By the end of the project, we had developed a toolkit for use across government. Alongside supporting departments to consider measures and metrics of academic engagement, the toolkit also provides them with a guide to collecting their own case studies. Academics face real challenges in demonstrating policy impact. I’m excited by the idea of reversing some of the associated burden with civil servants leading the evaluation of how evidence is used in decision making.  

Civil servants said that the value of academic expertise included broadening perspectives, improving the quality, clarity and policy relevance of the work, and giving officials more confidence in the final output.

‘Policy impact isn’t necessarily a ‘big bang …’

We piloted the case study collection method in GO-Science, with 14 case studies submitted from across the department. All 14 respondents said that academic engagement had developed their understanding, conceptualisation or framing of the issue. Others said it:

• Confirmed or changed policy direction
• Informed regulation
• Led to the adoption of a new methodology
• Improved a public service

Having previously supported academics with policy engagement work, including the development of REF Impact Case Studies, it was interesting to see impact framed from a civil service perspective.

One suggestion that struck me was prioritising pragmatism over idealism – it helps when academics can make their expertise applicable to the system we have, regardless of their views on the system.

Civil servants said that the value of academic expertise included broadening perspectives, improving the quality, clarity and policy relevance of the work, and giving officials more confidence in the final output. These impacts are nuanced and not easily quantifiable, demonstrating the need for narrative approaches, like case studies, to capturing policy impact.

There were also useful suggestions of what makes academic engagement successful from a civil service perspective. One that struck me was prioritising pragmatism over idealism – it helps when academics can make their expertise applicable to the system we have, regardless of their views on the system.

More than the project: the benefits of secondments

GO-Science is an incredibly supportive department, and I was encouraged to make the most of the secondment by seeing other parts of the government science system in action. I wasn’t aware that much of GO-Science’s work is publicly accessible; its research page details Rapid Projects, outputs from the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology, Foresight work and more.

I was struck by the value of turning theoretical knowledge into direct experience. This demystified the workings of government and made Civil Service roles feel a bit more approachable, acting as a good reminder that we’re all just people trying to do complex jobs well. It reinforced the need to foreground empathy and think about what kinds of interaction might be mutually beneficial for any engagement work – and that it’s always worth trying your luck by getting in touch.

If you ever have a chance to do a secondment, grab it – it’s a great way to see an issue from a new perspective.

It also made me reflect on the five Ts of policy engagement that we talk about at PolicyBristol, and how actually timing is probably one of the most important ones. Policymakers and advisers are working to solve specific problems at a specific time, so they will have distinct evidence needs at that moment. A lack of interest in academic work might not be a ‘no’, but rather a ‘not now’.

And in my last week, I was thrilled to redeem my sub-par day one introduction to Angela McLean with an animated in-person briefing about where the project could go next, and much more besides.

It was great to see the enthusiasm for academic engagement within government and, in addition to the main project, contribute to the development of the newly published Academic Engagement Toolkit. This is aimed at civil servants, but outlines comprehensive and insightful guidance for academics and knowledge exchange professions interested in policy engagement. It is well worth a read.

If you ever have a chance to do a secondment, grab it – it’s a great way to see an issue from a new perspective.