Written Evidence Submitted by

the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN)

(C190065)

1. This is a response from the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN).  UPEN is a community of University policy impact professionals working within their institution to increase the policy impact of research. There are more than 60 universities in the network, representing all four countries in the UK.  As well as sharing best practice among our members, UPEN’s mission is to:

1. Increase the range and diversity of academic voices engaging with policymakers.  By providing a single point of entry for calls for evidence or other academic support, UPEN breaks down geographical, career stage and other barriers to engagement.  
2. To improve the structures and networks for engagement between policymakers and academics.

2. By way of context, the public policy impact of research functions within Universities varies considerably.  Some, Universities have established Policy Institutes, centralised coordinating bodies within Universities with resource and purpose to support policy-relevant research (e.g. inquiries, evidence sessions, events with policymakers). These represent roughly 20% of the Universities that form the UPEN membership. For most of the other Universities represented in the network, the policy remit of their work is fused into other University roles. For these colleagues, only 20% of their time is likely spent on supporting policy impact, and they are likely to be on short-term contracts, working towards REF. 

3. Our response addresses questions 3 and 6 in the call for evidence.

4. UPEN and its members were involved in a number of requests for evidence related to COVID ranging from the very specific to the large scale.  This response focuses on two related, large scale calls which are useful examples of what works and what could be better in the future. 

5. The first was from the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology in March to build a database of academics with insight into COVID-19 and its impact on a wide range of policy issues. 

6. The second was from GO-Science, looking to identify research centres and institutes as well as individual academics who could help inform thinking about COVID-19’s impact across a broad range of policy questions. 

7. In each example, POST and GO-Science were looking to extend the range of academic input beyond the established network already known to Government, particularly when thinking about the “second order” effects of COVID-19 – issues around social and economic recovery, impact on wider health outcomes, and the delivery of existing policy challenges (greening the economy, levelling up etc) in a world changed by the virus.

8. Based on our experience, we would draw the following lessons:

1. For the immediate crisis response, being able to draw on pre-existing networks of expert academic advice (for example SAGE) is vital.  There is a premium on using existing networks to minimise friction in securing advice.  The role of knowledge brokering networks like UPEN in the immediate response is limited, although there is an important role “upstream” by helping ensure that the recruitment of expertise to these networks is drawn from as wide a net as possible.

2. For the “second order” effect response, knowledge brokering networks have a bigger role to play to avoid groupthink and tackling new problems with old solutions.  The crisis disrupts existing approaches and throws up new challenges, which places a premium on being able to canvas widely for input to form responses to new or reshaped problems.  POST and GO-Science were actively seeking to engage new voices to help shape thinking about these second order effect responses.

3. Establishing connections with a wider group of academics also helps to uncover conflicting/alternative academic viewpoints, which may have important consequences for advice to policymakers.

4. There are some ways we think this process could be made more effective in future.  First, for POST and GO-Science to coordinate the creation of a single database of experts and expertise.  This would avoid considerable duplication of effort on the part of Universities to, in effect, compile the same list in two slightly different ways.  A number of academics saw both requests as coming from “Government” and either thought they had already given their details so didn’t need to do so again, or expressed irritation that they were having to do so twice.  Knowledge brokers in University are there to explain the vital difference between the executive and legislature, but in this context a joined up approach would deliver better results without compromising the separation of powers.

5. Whether there is a single or two separate database(s), to build in permissions so that the databases can be shared with other partners who would find them useful.  This will be particularly important in the coming months as local authorities will play a leading role in managing local outbreaks, as well as developing their own strategies for social and economic recovery and quick access to databases of national expertise will be hugely helpful. 

6. The more clarity in what information was needed, and what it would be used for, the better.  Co-designing the call with knowledge brokers like UPEN will also help make sure the requests land effectively in universities and draws the response needed. 

7. In particular, clarity about the terms of engagement is critically important.  For example, what are the expectations on academics who put their names forward in terms of potential calls on their time, and reassurances that maintaining that engagement with Government will not compromise their academic freedom.  The GO-Science call was made in May, at a point when the role of science and scientists in informing policy was under particular scrutiny and a number of academics expressed (unwarranted) concern that putting their names forward would be compromising. 

8. Government in particular should be clear about how academic evidence and insight is used to inform policy decisions.  The emphasis early on that policy was “following the science” created unrealistic expectations that policy would simply reflect evidence.  In practice policy will reflect a best judgement balance between often incomplete bodies of evidence about the various factors that condition a choice, including (legitimately) factors of affordability, and political and public acceptability.  Making this clear upfront avoids the risk of scientific disillusion and disengagement when decisions don’t straightforwardly map on to the evidence. 

9. While academics will want to help shape policy, especially at times of crisis, it is important for policymakers and others to recognise that there is often an opportunity cost involved.  Time spent engaging is time not spent teaching or researching.  So Government and Parliament should routinely provide formal recognition of contributions that academics have made in terms of time and also the impact any contribution had. For example, POST named and thanked academics who had contributed to an initial scoping exercise[1] This kind of recognition can be used in, for example, appraisal, promotion and potentially Research Evaluation Framework (REF) impact case studies.

10. Finally, the calls underline the importance of having capacity in Universities to be able to respond to and coordinate this kind of call, particularly if Government and Parliament are looking to go beyond the “usual suspects” of known voices and to tap into newer voices and research.

9. A further relevant recent development is the CAPE (Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement) programme.  This is a consortium of five Universities (UCL in the lead, with the Universities of Cambridge, Manchester, Northumbria and Nottingham) together with POST, GO-Science, TransformURE and the Alliance for Useful Evidence, supported by almost £4 million of funding from Research England funding.  The programme, which runs for three years, aims to identify what works in knowledge exchange between academics and policymakers.[2]

This contribution was led by Stephen Meek (Chair, UPEN and Director, Institute for Policy and Engagement, University of Nottingham) and Anthea Terry (Head of Policy Engagement, University of Bristol)

(July 2020)