Abstract
Background: Interventions to support engagement between academics and policy professionals have proliferated, yet little evidence is available to guide what works, how, or for whom.
Aims and objectives: To evaluate the activities, outcomes and impacts of the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme and identify enabling conditions, using a modified framework for academic-policy engagement.
Methods: Mixed methods evaluation across four intervention types (seed funding, policy fellowships, training, knowledge exchange events), between 2021-2024. We interviewed academics, research support staff, and policy professionals (n=129), observed 32 activities, and distributed a survey (n=42, 27% response rate). We analysed data using inductive and framework analyses.
Findings: CAPE interventions focused at the linear (training) or relational (fellowships, seed funding and knowledge exchange) levels. Interventions led to outcomes in capacity-building, connectivity, conceptual and attitude change, and tacit knowledge development. Interventions were resource intensive and required responsive intermediary skills, particularly fellowships. We found influencing factors at individual, organisation, and system levels. The most experienced participants preferentially benefitted from opportunities, potentially perpetuating or even exacerbating inequalities. We did not find evidence of impact on policy processes or outcomes.
Discussion and conclusions: CAPE led to an increase in academic-policy engagement activities, mostly as linear and relational interventions. These generated costs as well as benefits and often advantaged individuals with significant prior experience of academic policy engagement. Future academic-policy engagement interventions should consider motivations, capabilities, goals and resources at the individual and organisation levels, while using strategic planning and coordination to maximise their value, and address diversity and inclusion.
Aims and objectives: To evaluate the activities, outcomes and impacts of the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme and identify enabling conditions, using a modified framework for academic-policy engagement.
Methods: Mixed methods evaluation across four intervention types (seed funding, policy fellowships, training, knowledge exchange events), between 2021-2024. We interviewed academics, research support staff, and policy professionals (n=129), observed 32 activities, and distributed a survey (n=42, 27% response rate). We analysed data using inductive and framework analyses.
Findings: CAPE interventions focused at the linear (training) or relational (fellowships, seed funding and knowledge exchange) levels. Interventions led to outcomes in capacity-building, connectivity, conceptual and attitude change, and tacit knowledge development. Interventions were resource intensive and required responsive intermediary skills, particularly fellowships. We found influencing factors at individual, organisation, and system levels. The most experienced participants preferentially benefitted from opportunities, potentially perpetuating or even exacerbating inequalities. We did not find evidence of impact on policy processes or outcomes.
Discussion and conclusions: CAPE led to an increase in academic-policy engagement activities, mostly as linear and relational interventions. These generated costs as well as benefits and often advantaged individuals with significant prior experience of academic policy engagement. Future academic-policy engagement interventions should consider motivations, capabilities, goals and resources at the individual and organisation levels, while using strategic planning and coordination to maximise their value, and address diversity and inclusion.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-21 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | Evidence and Policy |
| Early online date | 14 Mar 2025 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 14 Mar 2025 |
Keywords
- Academic-policy engagement
- relational interventions
- mixed methods evaluation
- action framework