Contemporary History of Whitehall - Follow-on project
Lead Research Organisation:
Institute for Government
Department Name: Research and Learning
Abstract
This project, which follows on from a previous project looking at the History of Whitehall 1979-2010, centres on the promotion of more systematic knowledge exchange between academics and policy makers on the public policy, institutional and governance issues facing the UK. Through a website and a network we aim to provide a bridge between policy makers and academic research which is relevant to Whitehall. This project will join up academic research across disciplinary boundaries and HEIs, making it relevant to government through the IfG's access into and understanding of government.
This proposal sets out what the original project achieved; the opportunities that have stemmed from it; the new impact and engagement activity that we now propose to undertake; and initial options for making this work sustainable in the long term.
This proposal sets out what the original project achieved; the opportunities that have stemmed from it; the new impact and engagement activity that we now propose to undertake; and initial options for making this work sustainable in the long term.
Organisations
People |
ORCID iD |
| Catherine Haddon (Principal Investigator) |
Publications
Haddon C
(2018)
How government can work with academia
Sasse T
(2019)
How academia can work with government
| Description | The question of how to improve academic engagement with government and public policy impact has been explored by many actors since the introduction of REF. Universities now undertake a range of new activity to increase their engagement. However, less well explored is how government seeks to engage with academia - what mechanisms it uses to engage and how successful they are. This research sought to explore that activity in greater depth. Through a combination of data analysis of spending and activity by government departments, interviews with civil servants in key government departments about how they engage, and literature reviews on a range of mechanisms, we found that civil servants still engage in very ad hoc ways and that this is felt by both civil servants and academics to have an adverse impact on policy understanding, access to expertise and duplication of effort. Our key findings have therefore been on the need for much greater monitoring of successful initiatives, leadership and coordination both within government and in academic quarters to support and sustain initiatives and greater understanding on both sides on how they can work together to maximise results. |
| Exploitation Route | Our findings are very relevant to academics and academic institutions looking to maximise the impact of their research. We are developing our findings into clear lessons for funders but also build on lessons produced through the Institute for Government for academics on how to engage with government. We are keen to engage with others working in this area to build on these lessons and make practical improvements to how this engagement occurs. |
| Sectors | Communities and Social Services/Policy Creative Economy Digital/Communication/Information Technologies (including Software) Education Environment Financial Services and Management Consultancy Healthcare Government Democracy and Justice Culture Heritage Museums and Collections |
| URL | https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/government-must-get-better-working-academia |
| Description | This project focuses on how to ensure initiatives to improve engagement between policy makers and academics are more successful and more sustainable. Our findings have been presented at multiple workshops facing both policy makers and academic/ research council audiences. We began this impact work early in the project - the aim was to be able to pass on our early findings so that they could influence or be used by other initiatives that are also attempting to improve engagement. They have been incorporated into reforms inside the civil service to improve engagement. Since the report was published we have also presented to a number of Whitehall departments and to multiple universities, Research Councils and UKRI. They have also been incorporated into training sessions we run with academics on how to improve their engagement with policy making. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2017 |
| Sector | Education,Government, Democracy and Justice |
| Impact Types | Cultural Policy & public services |
| Description | Ongoing influence on Institute for Government delivered training |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Policy Influence Type | Influenced training of practitioners or researchers |
| Impact | One academic attending the 2023 AHRC-funded Engaging with Government course run by the IFG specifically mentioned our two reports as having guided his thinking. The IFG Academy is looking to expand the delivery of training to academics and to consider other ways in which it can support academics and increase meaningful engagement between academics and government to further address the problems identified in our original research. The IFG more generally keeps under review the problems discussed in the paper, the solutions proposed and how the landscape of government and the ways in which it engages with academia are changing. It also continues to have close involvement with officials inside government who are also thinking about these problems. |
| URL | https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/ifg-academy/engaging-government/academic-researchers |
| Description | Blog - Government still lacks a strategic approach to research |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Media (as a channel to the public) |
| Results and Impact | Blog assessing government's approach to research. This was also re-posted on the UCL Constitution Unit Blog. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| URL | https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/government-still-lacks-strategic-approach-research |
| Description | Blog - can the government's chief scientist transform the role of expert advice in Whitehall? |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Blog on new GCSA's plans |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| URL | https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/can-governments-new-chief-scientist-transform-role-ex... |
| Description | Blog - government must get better at working with academia |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Blog on government's knowledge exchange framework |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| URL | https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/government-must-get-better-working-academia |
| Description | Blog arguing Government should work better with academia |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Media (as a channel to the public) |
| Results and Impact | Blog setting out how government should work more with academia. Read by civil servants and third sector orgs. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| URL | https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/government-must-get-better-working-academia |
| Description | Civil Service World Blog - How Government can work better with academia |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Blog on report launch |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| URL | https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/opinion/how-government-can-work-better-academia |
| Description | How Government engages with academia |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | On Monday 4 December, IfG held a roundtable on how government engages with academia. It was attended by civil servants, academics and officials from funding and research organisations. The discussion focussed on current engagement activities, progress across government, barriers and the role of different professions. Key points from the discussion Current engagement activities Participants discussed current approaches to engagement, which Cabinet Office is currently mapping. Several mentioned existing programmes and initiatives. The What Works Network is continuing to expand both its network, with a new centre for Children and Social Care in Cardiff, and its engagement activities across government, with work supporting departmental Areas of Research Interest. The Open Innovation Team in Cabinet Office is helping to connect civil servants with academics in a range of areas. Others highlighted that most engagement happens through informal networks of policy makers and analysts rather than initiatives. But these are hard to capture. Overall Progress Beyond different activities, participants discussed what overall progress had been made on how government officials engage with academics. One participant said they were shocked at how little academic evidence and expertise was used in government when they joined the civil service five years ago. Another said they had not seen much change in the last five years. There was discussion of how much is known about how academic evidence, knowledge and expertise gets used in the policymaking process. Some participants said understanding was poor. Some surveys have been conducted but these are small scale and not that robust. There were only a handful of analyses based on direct experience. There was a broader discussion of the existence of relevant and high quality academic work for policymakers to use. Questions were asked about the extent to which social scientists in the UK were analysing processes in the British government and about the proportion of academic studies broadly that can be trusted by policy makers to be 'of quality'. Barriers There was discussion of the barriers to civil servants engaging with academics more. Capacity was identified as a key barrier - civil servants don't feel like they have time to engage with academics. Often engaging with academics can seem more resource-intensive initially even if it pays off in the long run. A further barrier identified was cumbersome Human Resources and pay. Several participants said getting academics in the door quickly was a problem. Others said that departmental salaries had fallen below academic salaries which made it hard to attract academic talent. Several barriers on the academic side were identified. Academic work being inaccessible was a key barrier, both in the (paid for) journals it is written in, and in how it is written up (with obscure abstracts, long methodologies and minimal policy discussion). This was contrasted with think tanks and other organisations, which research has shown MPs and policy makers use more than academic sources. The reason people like McKinsey reports, it was argued, is because they have a clear number, even if they often don't ask if the McKinsey number is accurate (or have the skills to check). REF was discussed as a tool for encouraging academic engagement. Some said it was a blunt beast that wasn't able to capture many types of engagement. Others agreed with these problems but said it had had a positive effect on academics overall. Participants agreed that it was too early to judge the impact of the emergence of Policy schools. Professions There are a range of debates about relationships between Analysts and Policy Profession. It was argued that analysts maintain good academic connections and networks and there is a big job in upskilling the Policy Profession in analytics skills. In MoJ, it was noted, they have a 'Head of Culture Change in the Policy Profession' to do this job. One suggestion was that policy professionals spend time in academic departments when they start working on new policy areas to develop understanding and start building networks. There was a discussion of different institutional arrangements across professions and disciplines. Participants noted that in physical sciences and engineering the institutions were set up in the late C19 helped to shape how government was then developed. In social sciences, on the other hand, institutions were not set up in the same way. There was a peak of influence in the 1960s which was pulled away during the 1980s. This was reflected in the relatively low influence of social research. One participant suggested there was also a distinction between contested areas (eg. climate change) and non-contested areas (eg roads). |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| Description | How research funders and academic institutions support policy engagement |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | On Thursday 23 November, IfG held a roundtable on how academia engages with government. It was attended by academics, civil servants and officials from funding and research organisations. The discussion focussed on routes to engagement at various levels of government, funding structures, cultural challenges for improving engagement and ideas to take forward. Key points from the discussion Routes to engagement Participants discussed different routes to engagement with government. Some argued that institutions were key. The Centre for Science and Policy (CSAP) at Cambridge was highlighted as a model that creates rich exchanges by facilitating direct face-to-face interaction that creates value for both sides. The growth of Policy Institutes more broadly - there are now around 30 in the UK - was discussed. These are seen to be a positive step although it is too early to tell what makes them effective (or not). There was a comparison made to the growth of business schools. It took a big push in the 1980s - with the growth of business schools and MBAs - but now university-business collaboration is in good shape. At the moment the supply-side for policy impact does not have institutional capacity, but could a similar push on 'policy impact' drive this? Individuals Some participants suggested it was less about institutions than about individuals. They said the system at present rewards 'policy entrepreneurs' - those with soft social skills to thrive in Whitehall. It was pointed out that academics are often more useful for their expertise than their research (one participant had done six select committees and only twice mentioned their own research). Survey research bears out the point that civil servants want academics for their expertise. Some said we should we focus more on supporting these skills than inventing new institutions. It was suggested that policy engagement skills should be integrated into curricula across universities. Devolved government, local government and metro mayors Several participants discussed engagement in devolved, local and city-level government. In Cardiff, there is a very strong connection between the Policy Institute and the Welsh Government, which the Welsh Government sees as a way to support world class academic institutions. In England, however, policy engagement is very centralised. Very little engagement happens at local government level. Devolving more policy would be one way to move influence out of the Golden Triangle. Participants discussed some evidence of this happening in Manchester. In general, though, Metro Mayors have small policy resources and whilst they have big budgets they often do not have mechanisms to commission research. Metro Mayors therefore are sorely in need of policy engagement from academia. The comparison was made with the US, where there is a lot of opportunity for engagement between state universities and state government. The REF Participants discussed the merits of the REF as a lever for increasing engagement. It was agreed that the REF had been a big behavioural nudge and had made it much easier for academics to be rewarded for good practice. But participants identified a range of challenges with the REF. For instance, it tends to push people into competition over safer (ie more provable) types of engagement. There are huge levels of bureaucracy (that government officials and ministers are not aware of). And it is currently quite individualistic and disciplinary and it rewards disciplines that are more quantifiable in their impact. However, participants discussed changes in the next exercise to accommodate many of the problems identified in REF2014, which will require help from community and good communication from HEFCE. Funding structures There was a discussion of academic funding more broadly. It was pointed out that UK Government's commitment to research funding was increasing with the big commitment to move to 2.4% of GDP and the extra commitment of £4.7bn out to 2021. Important context for this was the fact that departmental spending on research has gone through the floor. This change means it is much more about push from academic community than pull from departments, but these requires different skills in government (as well as academia). Cultural differences Participants highlighted key differences that make engagement hard. Policymaking is necessarily interdisciplinary and synthetic in nature whereas the imperative in academia is to dis-aggregate into discipline. One participant asked whether there was a discipline devoted to studying interactions between them, or one was needed. Another said there are lots of researchers working on it but its hard to get funding. Secondments Participants discussed secondment programmes. The secondment programme in the Behavioural Insights Team had been extremely successful. PhD students spent 3-6 months of working on area related to their research: hugely valuable for BIT and for university, when student went back with policy knowledge. How could this be scaled up across Whitehall? What conditions do you need to make such programmes successful? |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| Description | Panel - Stand up for science |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | We participated in a panel on how to use research to inform policy making. The audience was around 80 PhD and early career researchers. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| Description | Presentation - Nottingham engaged - 2018 |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | We ran a workshop at Nottingham Engaged, a university event, on how to engage with policy makers. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| Description | Presentation - UKRI lunchtime lecture |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | We delivered a presentation as part of UKRI's lunchtime lecture series on the connections between government and academia and how these should affect UKRI's work |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| Description | Science week in parliament |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Participated in a panel on evidence and policy making as part of science week. The audience was clerks and other parliamentary staff |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| Description | Workshop - Department for Transport - Engaging with academia |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Workshop held with DFT officials to discuss findings on research on how government can engage with academia and how DFT can improve the way it does this. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| Description | Workshop - how research funders can support engagement |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | We ran two workshops with UKRI staff on how research funders should support engagement, including break out activities |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |