Across governments, the challenge of connecting research to policy is a familiar one. It is recognised that a response is needed to the dated assumption that researchers aren’t producing relevant work but that policy-makers aren’t that interested anyway.

That time has passed. The challenge is, that despite willingness on both sides, the mechanisms for translating academic insight into public decision-making are uneven and often under-evaluated.

Areas of Research Interest

Despite the proliferation of initiatives aimed at bridging research and policy, only a small fraction have been evaluated.

But in the UK, one approach has begun to show promise and deliver results: Areas of Research Interest (ARIs), a process first proposed in 2014 by Nobel Prize winning geneticist and knowledge translation innovator, Sir Paul Nurse in his review of the UK’s public research funding bodies.

ARIs are a structured way for government departments to signal their evidence needs to the research and evidence community. Professor Annette Boaz and I were seconded into the government Office for Science to support the development and use of ARIs within the UK between 2019-2023.

While this model was developed within the UK context, it may offer useful lessons for Ireland, as it continues to strengthen its own evidence-for-policy ecosystem.

One of the most important practical innovations introduced with ARIs, was to shift engagement from ad hoc relationships to more systemic co-ordination between government officials and researchers and funders on the other.

A modern relationship

The challenge was not to simply connect individuals, but to build structures that support sustained, purposeful engagement, reducing duplication of effort and waste of resources.

While relationships are still valuable and effective, it is increasingly clear that a systems-led approach requires a sophisticated architecture involving renewed thinking at academic and policy-maker level, shared understandings, organisational incentives, leadership structures, ease of access, training and more.

One of Sir Paul Nurse’s recommendations for ARIs was that government departments articulate their knowledge needs in formal, publicly available documents. These are not polished research questions, but ‘signals’ that the research and evidence community can view on the ARI Database. They can locate departments’ specific topics of interest and the procedure for making an offer of support.

Implemented across UK government departments (and some public sector agencies), ARIs are updated regularly and published with senior endorsement to ensure visibility and credibility.

Opening the door

The process of developing ARIs within a department is substantial. It involves internal consultation, prioritisation, and often ministerial approval. Departments must identify what they already know, where gaps exist, and where synergies with other departments might be found.

Once published, ARIs open the door to a range of responses:

  • Knowledge exchange: Roundtables, evidence syntheses, and mapping exercises.
  • New research: Where gaps exist, targeted studies can be commissioned.
  • Capacity building: Departments must be equipped to use the evidence effectively.

Early engagement with stakeholders – including researchers and funders – helps refine ARIs and align them with existing evidence.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that grant applications referencing ARIs are more likely to succeed, indicating their growing influence and the value of systems-level co-ordination across government, academia, and funders.

The evidence

One of the most encouraging outcomes has been the ability to trace the impact of ARIs across the system. In some cases, ARIs have informed grant applications, which led to publications that were later cited in policy documents – a full cycle of evidence-informed policy-making.

Cross-departmental collaboration has also improved. Departments discovered that they held answers to each other’s questions, fostering dialogue and shared learning.

A study with the National Institute for Health Research found that two-thirds of health-related ARIs from various departments could be addressed with existing research, demonstrating the value of co-ordinated evidence mapping.

Challenges and cautions

ARIs are not a silver bullet on their own. To make the most of their promise requires time, resources, and strategic thinking. Departments often lack the capacity to follow-up after publication, and researchers may default to focussing on their own agendas rather than responding to policy needs.

All parties need to be aware of the resourcing approach for ARIs to deliver on their potential. It is resource-intensive and requires sustained commitment; and works best when embedded within departmental planning and supported by senior leadership.

While ARIs have helped improve engagement, they are only one part of a broader system that includes advisory committees, funders, and intermediaries.

Promise

Bearing in mind the movement for pooling research resources globally, it is fair to assume the ARI model – based on the premise that structured co-ordination, balancing the relational approach with system-wide alignment yields better outcomes – offers an adaptable model for other countries, including Ireland. They also offer ways to identify shared R&D interests between nation states, potentially providing opportunities for international collaboration and knowledge exchange

The model is not perfect, and it is not universally applicable. But it offers a thoughtful, structured approach to improving evidence-informed policy. For Ireland, it may serve as a useful reference point – to be adapted in ways that reflect local context and capacity.

__

This blog is based on her presentation at a recent HRB webinar which can be viewed here.

See Prof Oliver’s presentation here.