Towards a better understanding of what works in policy engagement learning
We want to understand the enablers and barriers to delivering effective policy engagement training and professional development offers at CAPE partner universities. Through a series of interviews and focus groups, we sought to learn how training and other professional development activities dedicated to policy engagement are currently being designed, commissioned and administered – and identified areas for further collaboration and development. We outline our findings below.
Across universities within the UK, there has been a lot of investment into activities that support learning on how to engage with policy. From training to mentoring schemes, formal professional development courses to informal peer learning approaches, there is an increased push for researchers and professional services staff to demonstrate that they have the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to engage with a range of policy environments and audiences. For example, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) has published open access resources on engaging with Parliament as a researcher, the Institute for Government (IFG) delivers seminars, workshops and bespoke programmes for engaging with policy, and universities have designed and delivered their own in-house provision to meet this demand.
Yet there remains limited evidence of what actually works when it comes to policy engagement activities, nor how training and other professional development opportunities might intersect with the unique geographic and political contexts across different institutions. What can universities learn from each other about how policy engagement training and professional development opportunities are designed, delivered and incentivised? And how might these offers be developed or adapted to reflect the unique needs of university personnel? According to University College London “investing in the people who “support connectivity” is vital if the UK is to maximise the social return on its investment in research”.
We spoke to people already engaged in policy engagement training and professional development opportunities at CAPE institutions and summarise our findings below.
At the individual and team level
At the institution level
At the ecosystem level
There is currently a lack of quality assurance for policy engagement learning materials. Providing quality assurance – including monitoring and evaluation frameworks for learning – would help build the trustworthiness of current provision, and allow for confidence in signposting of resources.
Through our interviews, we found that participation in policy engagement training and professional development activities can often be seen as a form of volunteerism, in that the lack of formal incentives to participate means that it adds to existing time pressures and workloads. Furthermore, whilst digital content offers some flexibility, there was a perceived need to balance the accessibility of content with the benefits that comes from individualised or facilitated support.
Within training more specifically, interviewees highlighted the importance of integrating the lived experience of those with protected characteristics. As highlighted in UPEN’s Surfacing Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) within Academic-Policy Engagement report, there was also a perceived need to both systematically capture EDI data in learning activities and to ensure that case studies and learning content is representative of a wide range of experiences.
In response to the needs highlighted within this work, Nesta is excited to launch a new community of practice (CoP) dedicated to facilitating learning, collaboration, and innovation within policy engagement training and professional development opportunities. For more information about the CoP or to express interest in taking part, see the call for participation found here. Deadline for applying: Friday 15th July.