Paul Nurse’s review of the research councils in 2014 had a significant effect on the UK’s research landscape. It led to the formation of UK Research and Innovation, an £8 billion a year behemoth, and, in turn, to the creation of the £834 million interdisciplinary Strategic Priorities Fund. Not a bad result.
One of the lesser-known suggestions of the review was that “research should be at the heart of government, with an effective dialogue and understanding between researchers, politicians and the public, so that policies and strategies are in place to bring about research that benefits society”.
It may seem strange that such a thing as “an effective dialogue” did not already exist, but government departments do not necessarily have a long and glorious history of transparency and, well, admitting they don’t know everything already.
The creation of ARIs
The recommendation of the review led to the creation of departmental areas of research interest, or ARI. You may not have come across these before, but if you want your research to have impact and relevance beyond academia, they are like a cheat-sheet for engaging with policymakers.
Most government departments now publish ARIs on a regular basis every two or three years. They include the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Some non-ministerial agencies also produce ARIs, including the Health and Safety Executive, the National Archives and the Financial Services Authority.
So how are ARIs actually developed? Let’s take an example. The Ministry of Justice published its latest ARI in December 2020. The part of the ministry responsible for them is a team within its Data and Analytical Services Directorate, a body of some 400 or more professional analysts who turn the methodological wheels and understand where there are gaps in their knowledge.
The team itself is the Evidence and Partnership Hub. The hub’s role is to collaborate and partner with academics, researchers, networks and funders. They produce the ARIs, they host events, seminars and workshops, they facilitate secondments and—hopefully—they help unlock funding.
What do ARIs look like in practice?
The Ministry of Justice’s 2020 ARIs build on those it initially published in 2018. Some of them remain very similar to the originals, reflecting long-standing and complex evidence needs; others are new or have heightened significance against the current social and political context.
The ARIs summarise the ministry’s evidence needs over the next three-to-five years. A high-level narrative aligns the various ARIs to six strategic objectives for the justice system. Within each of these areas there are a set of questions. These aren’t exhaustive, definitive or prioritised; rather, they reflect the range and scope of the evidence needed.
The six areas cover everything from ‘access to justice’ to ‘prisons’ and ‘reducing reoffending’. Taking the example of ‘access to justice’, there are a series of sub-themes which look at issues around people, families and children, legal aid, the justice system, and legal support and advice. Here are examples of the ARIs within two of these:
- People: What are people’s experiences of dealing with justice problems? How can they be supported to access and navigate the justice system, enforce their rights, and achieve the best outcomes?
- Families and children: What are the long-term impacts on children’s developmental outcomes of placements made under public law orders in care proceedings? This includes care orders, placement orders and special guardianship orders.
The future of ARIs
Although ARIs have been overwhelmingly positive in opening up government departments, they can still be developed further. Two recent government reports set out issues that need to be addressed, or areas where they could be improved.
Realising our Ambition Through Science (November 2019) suggested there should be more funding, and that it should be better coordinated; it made the point that research spending was “a fraction of one per cent of total spend” in some departments. In addition, though it welcomed ARIs, it stated that “there is a need for much closer dialogue and capability building between [departmental chief scientific advisers] and Whitehall’s key policy leaders”, as well as a need to support skills and capability building for evidence analysis within departments.
Rebuilding a Resilient Britain (February 2021) looked at how ARIs could be used to help recover from the pandemic. Nine working groups had been convened to examine a range of issues within three broad themes of rebuilding communities, environment and place, and local and global productivity. Each working group had a series of recommendations, but all broadly saw the benefit of developing cross-cutting ARIs that would help address issues that affected a range of different departments.
Next steps
Knowing the evidence needs of a department is good, but how can you work collaboratively to address them? ARIs are the beginning of a conversation with government, and you should respond to the invitation by quite simply emailing the relevant people—their details will be on their ARI document. Alternatively, join specific departmental networks (the Ministry of Justice is due to launch one this month) or broader ones, such as Universities Policy Engagement Network. It is through this conversation that you can really understand government needs and work with them to develop the evidence they’re after.
Although the departments don’t offer funding directly to undertake research to answer the questions, they may be able to help you make the case to funders for support. And, of course, let’s not forget the impact on your impact. To return to the Ministry of Justice example, if you get the ear of the right civil servants, and your evidence helps improve the justice system or stops reoffending, that would be one hell of a good impact case study.
A version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight in March 2021 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional. For more articles like this, visit www.researchprofessional.com
Photo by Frank Busch on Unsplash