Bridging research and policy: Good work does not speak for itself

Good research does not automatically find its way into public policy. James Craig, Public Affairs Lead at Nuclear Restoration Services, reflects on what researchers, universities and public bodies can do to build stronger connections between evidence and policymaking.

Good research and good public programmes do not automatically find their way into policy debates. Academics can spend years conducting rigorous research without their findings reaching the people who could use them. Public bodies can deliver programmes of national importance that remain largely invisible outside their sectors.

These two frustrations may seem unrelated, but they reflect the same challenge: valuable work needs to be communicated, connected and made relevant to the people making decisions.

I have seen this from both sides, through my role as Public Affairs Lead at Nuclear Restoration Services, or NRS, and through the University of Bath Institute for Policy Research’s Policy Fellowship Programme.

NRS is part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority group and is responsible for safely decommissioning and restoring 14 of the UK’s earliest civil nuclear power stations and research sites. This is a decades-long programme involving the removal of hazards, dismantling complex structures, managing waste and preparing sites for future use.

The work also matters to the communities around those sites. Nuclear facilities have provided skilled employment and supported local businesses for generations. Decommissioning therefore raises questions that extend beyond the technical work. How can skills and jobs be retained? How can local economies adapt? What should the long-term future of these places look like when the work is complete?

These questions were among the reasons I applied for the fellowship at the University of Bath. I wanted to look beyond my own sector and learn from different disciplines and perspectives.

Looking beyond your own institution

My discussions at Bath covered trust and risk, community resilience, energy justice, regional development, skills, technology and place. What connected them was a recognition that policy rarely works in isolation from the communities and institutions it affects.

We discussed why providing more information does not necessarily build trust, and why language that seems familiar within government, academia or industry can be difficult to understand outside those settings.

We explored how places retain skilled people and their families, how local voices can inform national programmes, and how changes in technology and the labour market can affect communities differently.

The fellowship reinforced the value of bringing different forms of expertise together. Researchers can challenge assumptions and bring evidence, international comparisons and perspectives from other disciplines. Practitioners can bring real-world problems, operational experience and an understanding of what can be implemented.

The challenge is making sure those perspectives meet early enough to influence decisions.

The route from research to policy

One lesson from my time at Bath is that excellent research does not automatically find an audience.

Policymakers operate under intense time and attention pressures. Relevant research may be difficult to find, written in specialist language, inaccessible behind a paywall or simply arrive at the wrong moment. Sometimes new research is commissioned when useful evidence already exists but has not reached the right people.

Researchers seeking policy impact therefore need to see themselves as participants in the policy process, rather than suppliers of evidence only.

Universities’ public affairs, policy engagement and research impact teams can help. They understand political and policy institutions, maintain networks and can identify opportunities for researchers to contribute. But they need to know what researchers are working on.

Public affairs teams regularly receive consultations, invitations and requests for expertise across a remarkable range of subjects. They can only connect those opportunities with researchers if they know who is working on what.

That means making contact before an urgent policy question arises. Tell them what you are working on, the questions you are trying to answer and the policy areas that interest you. If your policy colleagues do not know what you work on or why it matters, they cannot include you when something relevant appears.

Parliamentary committees often invite evidence, regulators consult, professional bodies engage experts, and local and regional institutions develop policy across a wide range of issues. Relevant opportunities may sit in Westminster, Holyrood, the Senedd, Stormont, local government, mayoral authorities or regulators.

Understanding how policy is made matters. Evidence rarely moves directly from publication to policy change. Timing, relationships, institutional responsibilities and political priorities all shape whether and how research is used.

This does not require researchers to become political operators. It means being curious about the policy world beyond journals and conferences, asking what conversations are taking place and being open to opportunities that could create new questions, relationships or applications for your work. Building relationships with officials and practitioners can help.

These relationships do not need to begin with a major policy proposal. They can start with a consultation response, a seminar, a conversation or an offer to explain what the evidence says about an issue currently under discussion.

Over time, these exchanges build trust and help researchers understand what evidence policymakers need, when they need it and how it can be most useful.

Making knowledge exchange work both ways

There is, of course, a limit to what can reasonably be expected of academics who are already balancing research, teaching, marking, funding applications and a range of other responsibilities.

Universities therefore need to recognise policy engagement as an institutional capability and provide researchers with the support they need to engage effectively with the policy process.

Policymakers and practitioners can also do more. Public bodies can become better users of research by being clear about the problems they are trying to solve and involving researchers early enough for evidence to influence how a problem is understood.

Knowledge exchange is limited when universities broadcast research and organisations politely receive it. It works better when researchers and practitioners bring their expertise together around a shared problem.

Be your own cheerleader

My fellowship has shown me the value of ideas travelling in both directions. I brought practical questions from a major public mission into conversations with researchers, and I have taken academic perspectives back into my work.

The University of Bath and NRS are very different institutions, but both demonstrate the importance of explaining valuable work clearly and connecting it with people who can use it.

That does not mean turning research or public service into marketing. It means taking some responsibility for making good work visible, understandable and useful.

Good evidence matters. So does knowing where it can make a difference. When researchers, practitioners and policymakers make the effort to find each other, knowledge can travel further, and the people and communities those institutions serve stand to benefit.

About the author: James Craig leads public affairs, government relations and stakeholder engagement for Nuclear Restoration Services. His work spans Westminster, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament, engaging across parties and geographies on nuclear policy, environmental regulation, energy transition and socio-economic development.

All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the IPR, nor of the University of Bath.