How does research translate into policy impact?

There is a common myth that good research will eventually find its way into policy. It goes like this: researchers conduct rigorous studies, produce robust evidence, publish it well, disseminate a policy brief or two, and policymakers pick it up. Policy impact then follows.

In reality, things are rarely so straightforward.

Policy engagement is not an ‘end product’ of research

In reality, policy engagement is not a single output or a one-off event. The process itself is part of the engagement. Too often, it needs to begin before the research is even conducted. Policy engagement works best when it is routine rather than occasional, collective rather than purely individual, and strategic rather than reactive. It depends on relationships, translation, trust, and timing.

For researchers, that means treating policy engagement as something to begin earlier, sustain over time, and shape carefully around live policy contexts. For higher education institutions and policy actors, it means creating more spaces and structures that make this kind of exchange possible.

The reality of policymaking that researchers need to understand

People often talk about a ‘policy cycle’. In it which a problem is identified, evidence is gathered, options are developed, a decision is taken, implementation follows and evaluation comes after. However, policy rarely begins with a blank page and almost never unfolds so smoothly. This idealised ‘policy cycle’ model has its uses, but the reality of policymaking is much more complex and messier.

Policymaking is rarely linear. Instead, it is iterative and reactive, responding to changing circumstances and political priorities. It is more like a relay race. A policymaking opportunity takes a few steps, and then the baton is passed to the next window of opportunity, where a little more progress may be possible. Policymaking is shaped by time pressures, electoral cycles, budget limitations, media attention, crises, flagship manifesto commitments, institutional constraints and changes in political priority. Therefore, there are trade-offs to be made between developing sufficient evidence, maintaining a certain ideology that a government might be committed to, practical logistics and competing interests within parties, among key stakeholders and across the electorate. In this context, evidence matters, but politics and feasibility often matter more.

How does meaningful research-policy engagement happen?

Firstly, policymakers need actionable insights.

They need evidence that is concise, actionable, and feasible. They need to understand not just the nuance, but the practical significance. Academic rigour and policy utility are not always the same thing, but nor should they be treated as opposites. Policymaking needs rigorous research to understand what is happening, why it matters, how different stakeholder perspectives come into play, and what alternatives might be the most effective next steps.

In fast-moving policy environments, researchers also need to communicate the ‘so what’ clearly. Storytelling, real-world examples, diagrams, infographics, or a strong headline statistic can all help research to travel more effectively in policy settings.

Secondly, strategic relationship building matters.

Meaningful engagement needs structures and routines that build trust and that support ongoing discussion, planning, and collaboration. If researchers are building relationships with civil servants and other intermediaries at different levels, and are thinking together about shared areas of interest over time, they are better placed to recognise and respond to windows of opportunity when they arise.

However, everyone has limited time and energy. Although there is a real appetite for collaboration within the civil service, in practice engagement often depends on individual connections or short-term funding arrangements, making it personal, uneven, and hard to sustain.

Therefore, it is important to move beyond an arm’s-length model, in which researchers are positioned only as consultants, sounding boards, or technical experts at isolated moments. More strategic and institutional relationship building will help to lead to durable research-policy engagement.

Finally, relationship-based engagement raises important questions about capacity, access, and equity.

The time, networks, and institutional support needed to build these connections are unevenly distributed across the higher education sector. Therefore, it is important to think about how policy engagement can be supported in ways that broaden access, rather than reinforce existing inequalities between individuals and institutions.

Learning from practice: what sustained research–policy engagement can look like

At SKOPE, we have explored how research and policy can be brought together around a shared agenda on tertiary education and the skills system in England. This involved convening workshops, roundtables, and larger events that brought together academics, policymakers, employers, and other stakeholders. The aim was not simply to share research, but to test ideas, surface practical challenges, connect evidence to live policy questions and explore different and sometimes competing perspectives on reform.

Several lessons stood out to us through this process.

Firstly, acting as a neutral convenor can enable more open and constructive discussion, particularly on complex or contested issues. Higher education institutions are often well placed to play this role. Bringing together participants across departments and sectors can also help address the fragmentation that often limits policymaking, enabling more joined-up conversations on cross-cutting challenges.

Secondly, co-development is equally important. Engagement is more effective when researchers and policymakers shape questions, activities and outputs together, rather than working in sequence. Sustained interaction over time allows trust, shared understanding, and responsiveness to develop, making it easier to recognise and act on emerging policy opportunities. It also helps build a more collective understanding of both the challenges and the realistic pathways for reform.

A further lesson was the importance of intentionality in how engagement is designed. Individual workshops, roundtables, or meetings should not be treated as discrete events, but as part of a wider process of building a shared agenda. Without this continuity, even high-quality discussions can dissipate without leading to further collaboration, insight, or impact. Structuring engagement with clear follow-on pathways, whether through ongoing dialogue, co-produced outputs, or future activities, is therefore critical to converting exchange into progress.

Structured mechanisms such as fellowships, secondments, and institutional partnerships can play a critical role in enabling this kind of engagement. By creating protected time, space, and continuity, they allow relationships to deepen and move beyond one-off or transactional interactions. These conditions, such as institutional support, dedicated time, and sustained contact, are relatively simple in principle but often scarce in practice. Without them, engagement risks remaining ad hoc and uneven.

While the example of our work reflects a particular context, the implications of it are wider. Effective research-policy engagement is not just about better dissemination. It is about creating the conditions for ongoing, collaborative relationships in which evidence, perspectives, and policy can evolve together, and where voices that are overlooked or separated out in policy debates can be represented and brought together.