Research and analysis

Knowledge, evidence and the use of research in creative industries policy: DCMS Skills and Diverse Workforce Policy Fellowship Report

Published 8 September 2026

This report is authored by Prof Dave O’Brien and published by the UK government’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The report’s findings and recommendations are for policy, sector and research audiences. The findings are informed by an Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) funded research-policy fellowship ‘DCMS Skills and Diverse Workforce Policy Fellowship Report’ that took place from October 2023 to April 2025.

This research was developed and produced according to the author’s hypotheses and methods. Any primary research, subsequent findings or recommendations do not represent UK government views or policy.

Executive summary

This report is the final product from Professor Dave O’Brien’s Department for Digital Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Skills and Diverse Workforce Fellowship.

The report examines the practices associated with the use of academic research in creative industries policy. In doing so, it details key reflections from Prof. O’Brien’s 18-month Fellowship with the DCMS Chief Scientific Adviser’s office and his work with creative industries policy and analysis teams.

The use of evidence in policymaking is now a well-established topic for academics, with a long-standing research literature. The literature is critical of approaches to the use of evidence that see a linear connection between academic research and policy outcomes. Rather, the evidence and policy literature suggests academics are most likely to be effective in roles that broker knowledge for policymakers.

This knowledge brokering approach informed the Fellowship’s actions and activities. The Fellowship built relationships and networks to utilise the already substantial literature on issues of skills and diversity in the creative industries, and apply the insights of existing research-led interventions on ‘what works’ to support a more diverse workforce in the creative industries. Alongside new research published by the Fellow as part of the project, the core focus of the Fellowship was on using and applying these existing research resources for policy.

This report gives examples of the activities conducted during the Fellowship, along with reviews of relevant literature on the use of academic evidence in DCMS policymaking. It offers reflections for academics and researchers, focused on the use of academic research in creative industries policy.

Key reflections from the report include:

On research for skills and a diverse workforce in the creative industries:

• Cross-Whitehall working is essential for DCMS to support a more diverse creative workforce. Diversity in the creative workforce is as dependent on education, business and welfare policy, as it is on creative industries specific interventions.
• Employers are an important target audience for policy. Raising awareness of the range of creative careers open to early career creatives needs to go hand-in-hand with programmes to change hiring and commissioning practices.
• Workforce, skills and diversity policy needs to work with higher education as the primary route into creative careers.

For policy/academic collaborations:

• The process of embedding an academic in a government department is an important product of a successful Fellowship.
• Current frameworks for capturing academic impact on policy, for example in the Research Excellence Framework’s Impact Case Studies, are not capturing the full value of academic engagement with policy.
• Communicating with and for policy audiences is a specific skillset that needs to be incorporated into academic training and professional development.
• Embedding researchers is a highly effective way of brokering knowledge between academics and policymakers. However, more analysis is needed to ensure embedded positions have greater demographic diversity, and diversity of career stage and research approaches.

1. Introduction and report outline

This report offers an overview of the 2023-2025 UKRI-funded Skills and Diverse Workforce Fellowship at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). This Fellowship was part of the 2023 round of UKRI Policy Fellowships, which funded 44 academic Fellows to work in 21 government departments and 5 What Works Centres across the UK. The project involved an 18-month embedded secondment for Professor O’Brien, based in the Chief Scientific Adviser’s office and embedded with what were then the Arts, Heritage and Tourism and Media and Creative Industries policy teams.

The report summarises the aims and activities of the Fellowship. The discussion is framed by a survey of the existing literature on the interaction between academic research and government policy, with particular attention to best practice models and insights from existing research.

The report is structured as follows. Part one introduces the fellowship and presents a timeline of the set-up, embedded, and dissemination phases of the work. Part two gives an overview of the most recent literature on the use of evidence in British public policy and public administration, with a specific focus on creative industries policy. Part three introduces the core case studies illustrating the knowledge brokering practices and associated learnings. The report then concludes with reflections for academics and policymakers.

2. Context for the Fellowship

DCMS’s definition of creative industries covers 9 areas of industrial activity: Advertising and marketing; Architecture; Crafts; Design: product, graphic and fashion design; Film, TV, video, radio and photography; IT, software and computer services; Publishing; Museums, galleries and libraries; and Music, performing and visual arts (DCMS 2025). DCMS has highlighted the importance of the workforce in these industrial sectors as a central element of DCMS policy. The previous government’s Creative Industries Sector Vision outlined a core aim to ‘build a highly-skilled, productive and inclusive workforce for the future’ by 2030 (DCMS 2023:6). Since the election in 2024, the current government has identified the creative industries as a priority sector for its industrial strategy, with huge potential for economic growth. Creative industries were highlighted in the recent Industrial Strategy (DBT 2025) as one of the 8 sectors likely to drive future economic growth (‘IS-8’ sectors).

The current programme for the creative sector has also continued the commitment to the ‘good work’ agenda (Carey et al., 2023, DCMS 2023). Allied to this is a further emphasis on access to the creative sector, in line with the government’s cross-Whitehall Opportunity Mission (Labour 2024).

This continuity between the two administrations, along with creative industries’ place in the IS-8, is a useful indicator of the importance of the sector to public policy, irrespective of the party in government.

The importance of the creative industries are also shown in DCMS’s Areas of Research Interest. They reinforce the Department’s interest in skills and workforce diversity. DCMS lists interests on ‘what works’ to support diversity and inclusion, as well as workforce development and skills; the wider social impacts of cultural and creative education; major skills gaps for the sector; and cross-cutting questions associated with place, and the impact of digital.  Freelance workers are also given prominence, as are questions about participation, representation and engagement. All of these questions have a ‘what works’ element on how to make policy effective. . The Fellowship reflects this context. It was funded as part of UKRI’s 2023 cohort of Policy Fellowships. It was one of 44 placements across Whitehall, the Devolved Administrations and the UK’s What Works Centres. The initial call for applications suggested four possible clusters of research questions:

• How do cultural education pathways support workforce skills needs in the cultural and creative sectors? What are the social and developmental impacts of cultural and creative education at schools and higher education institutions? What impact does cultural education have on lifelong earnings and what additional value does it have beyond wages (eg. wellbeing)?
• What are the skills needed to support the growth and productivity of the cultural and creative sectors and what are the impacts of skills needs on the sector’s productivity? Which are the main skills gaps and shortages in the cultural and creative sectors, what has contributed to these and have they improved or worsened over time? How well do education and training pathways contribute to the skills needs of creative businesses?
• What works in terms of improving workforce diversity in the cultural and creative sectors and ensuring equality of career progression opportunities across different socio-demographic backgrounds? How effective are different interventions for increasing recruitment and retention across the cultural and creative sectors to support workforce resilience?
• How has out-of-school youth provision (such as drop in youth centres and groups like the scouts) changed over time and has access changed? Does access to out-of-school youth provision impact the social, health and wellbeing outcomes of young people? Does out-of-school youth provision contribute to improving the skills and employability of young people?

Much of the policy context, DCMS’s ARIs, and the range of research questions in the UKRI call are already well served by existing academic work (e.g. Brook et al. 2025). Many of the core research questions, particularly around the ‘what works’ for diversity and inclusion, have been addressed in recent APPG for Creative Diversity reports (Wreyford et al., 2021, Comunian et al., 2023). Questions on participation and engagement have a rich literature, including on the impact of technological change as well as the impact of the pandemic (Walmsley et al., 2023). Creative graduates are also very well researched (Comunian et al., 2017, Holt-White, et al. 2024, McAndrew et al. 2025).

The policy context, DCMS’s 2023 and 2026 ARIs, and the UKRI call’s questions are well served by existing research. However, the continued salience of these questions for policy audiences suggests a disconnection between policy and academic communities. In the context of this disconnection, the Fellowship adopted a ‘knowledge brokering’ (Shaxson et al., 2025) approach to the project. This approach was an alternative to research that would replicate existing academic analysis. The approach was also informed by the embedding stage of the Fellowship, working with DCMS staff to identify a range of DCMS policy and research needs. Finally, this approach was informed by the current literature on the use of academic research and evidence in policymaking.

This ‘knowledge brokering’ involved a range of activities. No primary data was collected. Rather, the activities were based on embedding the researcher in policy teams, sharing and knowledge transfer of existing research, the co-production of new research questions, and the co-production of new research findings. These practices were concurrent and coordinated with several of the Fellow’s other projects, for example the AHRC Creative Policy and Evidence Centre. The practices took place over 3 distinct phases of the project.

Phase 1

The first phase of the research involved embedding the researcher in the Department.

Phase 2

The second phase saw the researcher learn how key parts of the policy process- submissions to ministers, outline business cases for budgets, briefing papers, responses to media requests, statistical releases, and analysis- work in practice. This action research (Reason and Bradbury 2008) phase equipped the fellow with the knowledge of the policy process and the various consumers for different products within this process. Activities included direct work on ministerial submissions, evidence slide packs, and attendance at team meetings. There were also formal initial outputs from this action research phase.

Phase 3

This subsequent part of the project turned to apply the knowledge gained in the action research phase via a variety of products tailored to key actors in the Department; these products sit alongside formal outputs, such as the present report, which have external audiences, for example the academic community.

‘Knowledge brokering’ was shaped by the experience of learning about the policy process. Drawing on the tradition of action research (Reason and Bradbury 2008), where practical activity runs concurrently with research reflections, a central part of the project was dedicated to understanding differences and distinctions between teams at DCMS. An illustrative example occurred early in the second phase of the project, as choices about which teams to speak to, which to work with most closely, and which meetings to join, were worked out.

The Fellow worked most closely with DCMS analytical teams, across both arts and creative industries, and the creative industries skills team. The embedding in Whitehall allowed links with arts, music, media, and libraries policy teams. The different types of embedded relationships also reflected the different sorts of professions in DCMS, particularly the distinction between analysts and their respective policy teams. As the Fellowship developed, the Fellow gained important insights on the modes of communication for these different teams, in addition to their research needs.

Oversight by the CSA team also gave more general connections to the rest of DCMS, and the broader infrastructure supporting research at DCMS. Here the Fellow was able to participate in DCMS’s College of Experts events, Rapid Evidence Review commissions, and activities associated with DCMS’s Areas of Research Interest.

As a result, the Fellowship offered breadth and depth of embedded engagement to DCMS’s research ecosystem and DCMS policymaking. The Fellowship was able to offer deep expertise for specific teams, for example various parts of the creative industries’ skills team’s work. The embedded phase was also able to offer insights more generally to other parts of DCMS, for example in response to the new administration’s ‘Missions’ (Labour 2024).

This report, summarising the project activities, is published at the end of a period of new policy development within DCMS. Summer 2025 has seen the publication of a new Sector Plan for the Creative Industries (DCMS 2025), as part of the IS-8 in the government’s industrial strategy (DBT 2025). The Sector Plan has a particular focus on ‘frontier industries’ (DBT 2025) of Advertising and Marketing; Film and TV; Music, performing and visual arts; and Video Games as the areas of high growth potential.

Alongside the Industrial Strategy and Sector Plan, in summer 2025 the government concluded the 2025 Spending Review. This provides the financial setting for the coming years of governing activity. A huge amount of policy work underpins the Sector Plan and the Spending Review. These documents reflect the cross-Whitehall guidance on policy appraisal and evidence use contained in the Green Book and Magenta Book (HMT 2022, 2020). Both were published shortly after the end of the Fellowship in summer 2025. The ‘knowledge brokering’ approach to the Fellowship allowed the project to connect academic evidence to these parts of the DCMS policy process. In this setting, the process of academic and policy collaboration can and should be understood as the product of the Fellowship.

The policy work that coincided with the final stages of the project was only one part of the project’s activity. The importance of creative industries to the 2019-2025 and the present administrations allowed the project to undertake a range of engagement connecting ongoing and new research to creative industries policy at DCMS. The rest of this report explains the rationale for this ‘knowledge brokering’, and then gives examples of the types of activities undertaken by the project.

3. Evidence and research in creative industries policy

3.1 Knowledge brokering and the role of academic evidence in public policy.

There is now a huge literature on the use of research and evidence in public policy. The subfield crosses academic disciplines, from broad areas of public policy and public administration through to dedicated subfields such as medicine or social policy (Bandola-Gill et al., 2024). It includes dedicated academic journals, in addition to many books, special issues and key papers. It is also associated with a broad range of methods, with arts and humanities research increasingly active (e.g. Matthews et al., 2018) alongside the social sciences more usually associated with public policy (e.g. O’Brien 2010).

The development of a research field on evidence and policy has been accompanied by extensive growth in the number of organisations and individuals connecting academic (most usually university-based) research to public policy. In the UK, against the backdrop of the Research Excellence Framework, Durrant and MacKillop (2022) identify impact and policy support staff within universities; ‘knowledge broker’ organisations facilitating both evidence sharing and capacity building between policymakers and academics; and ‘policy evidence’ producers, working to understand and respond directly to policy demand(s).

As the field, and the associated infrastructure, has matured, there have been several reviews of the literature (e.g. Newman 2020, Nelson et al., 2023, Ma and Cheng 2024 on numbers of citations of research in public administration). As a result, a similar review exercise would unnecessarily replicate existing research. Collating these summaries, and the associated papers reflecting on the recent state-of-the-art in research on evidence in public policy, gives several insights that have informed this project and this final report.

What is most striking is a consensus on the lack of evaluation as to ‘what works’ for effective engagement, partnerships, and evidence use (Newman 2020, Hopkins et al., 2021, Oliver et al., 2022). There is a long tradition of ‘how to’ guides (e.g. Breckon and Dodson 2016, Breckon et al./A4UE 2019 and Oliver et al., 2022 review), but these applied insights tend not to be associated with follow-up testing or evaluation.

The disconnection between huge amounts of advice on best practice, but a lack of formal evaluation to know whether this advice is effective, presents a challenge for UKRI Fellowship activities. This is both in terms of what sort of activities to conduct, and in terms of understanding if they have been effective (or otherwise).

Much of the difficulty associated with ‘what works’ results from how interventions view the academic/policy relationship. Many interventions frame academics and policymakers as two distinctive communities (an idea with a long history cf Caplan, 1979, cited in Newman 2020 and Boaz and Oliver 2023), despite the blurred nature of these boundaries as evidenced by programmes such as UKRI’s Policy Fellowships. Moreover, there is a consensus in the recent review literature that interventions are still driven by a ‘linear model’ attempting to connect these separate worlds (Boaz and Oliver 2023).

The linear model of evidence in policy suggests academics should focus on producing research and then disseminating it to possible policymaker consumers. These interventions, as Boaz and Oliver (2023) note, are not effective at generating the use of academic research in policy when tried alone. Moreover, as Bea and Recio-Saucedo (2024) have discussed, this approach has implications for the diversity of who is likely to be successful and what sort of evidence is used (a point made by Reddel and Ball (2022) on coproduction between academics and policymakers). This issue has also been discussed in the way Parliament uses academic evidence too, suggesting this is not solely an issue for Whitehall (e.g. Geddes et al., 2018, Geddes 2020, Prabhakar 2025).

If the idea of dissemination of research from academics in one community and policymakers in another is not an accurate frame, nor one that is effective for practice, what does the field suggest for researcher/policymaker relationships? This Fellowship has been guided by three key insights from the critiques of the linear model: the need to build networks and relationships, rather than just disseminating research; the potential for the Fellowship to act as a ‘knowledge broker’; and the need for a reflexive perspective on how (and by and from who) research is utilised.

The consensus around the need for higher quality evaluation of researchers and policymaker partnerships does not preclude potentially effective practices. Here, the building of relationships and networks is crucial (Hopkins et al., 2021, Boaz and Oliver 2023). This is important as it establishes a researcher’s credibility (Arnatu and Dagenais 2021, Prabhakar 2025), and it also helps policymakers to understand academic approaches to potential research and policy questions (Matthews et al., 2018). Network building (in addition to one-to-one contacts) also recognises the pace of civil servants’ own movements within and between different parts of government (Milhut et al., 2025).

Creating relationships and networks, via the embedded phase of the Fellowship, is an approach common across the entire UKRI Fellows scheme. Within the scheme there are various options for the sort of relationships and networks that can be created. For this project’s work with DCMS, the idea of ‘knowledge brokering’ has been crucial (MacKillop et al., 2020).

In common with other elements of evidence and policy, knowledge brokering- and knowledge brokers- can sometimes be a vague concept. MacKillop et al., (2020) note multiple definitions of the term, often deployed without a firm grasp of the political aspects of public policy and administration. Indeed, even across the reviews of the evidence and policy literature reviewed for this section it is not quite settled whether knowledge brokers are institutions, people, or both.

Shaxson et al. (2025:2) study of DEFRA’s ‘evidence specialists’ suggested a range of activities associated with knowledge brokering. In particular, knowledge brokering moved beyond just disseminating evidence or just creating relationships, and moved into active coproduction of activities. This multi-functional approach was also noted in Neal et al., (2022) study of knowledge brokers in health policy.

A multifunctional approach is especially important in the DCMS setting. The Department is characterised by a high number of arm’s length bodies (ALBs), some of which are much older and longer-established than DCMS itself. Some of these ALBs are also Independent Research Organisations in their own right. Moreover, the key policy focus for the Fellowship, skills and workforce diversity, itself spans areas that are the primary responsibility of other government departments such as Department for Education, Department of Business and Trade, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Department for Work and Pensions. The complexity of the policy landscape is also matched by the range of professions and policy teams within DCMS.

In this sort of landscape, Cairney et al., (2019) and MacKillop et al., (2020) suggest the starting point for activity should be to recognise the complexity of almost all modern public administration. ‘Multi-centric policymaking’, as Cairney et al., (2019) describe the setting for academic and policy practice, is a particularly apt description for DCMS. As a result, that multifunctional approach associated with knowledge brokering was an important structure for the Fellowship’s actions.

The final insight from the literature is the need for reflexivity from researchers. Oliver and Cairney’s (2019) critical perspective is perhaps the most important. They show much of the ‘how to’ guidance stresses researchers should engage in continuous reflection as to whether their efforts are effective. At the same time, advice on ground rules, how far efforts should go, and choices to withdraw are all unclear. Moreover, in a 2020 paper Cairney and Oliver suggest the ‘written’ rules of how to do impact ‘often help exacerbate the unwritten rules of professional inequalities’ (2020:237).

In a project focused on workforce, skills and diversity it is particularly important that the Fellowship not replicate an inaccurate, but still persistent, myth that expert academics’ role is to educate policymakers on facts of which they are unaware. As much as the role of knowledge broker challenges the linear (Smith at al 2020) model of impact and research dissemination, it also provides a way of decentring the academic Fellow and foregrounding relationship building and the shared coproduction of expertise on key policy questions associated with workforce, skills and diversity in the creative industries.

3.2 What about creative industries policy?

If the literature on evidence and policy demonstrates the need for a reflexive, relationship-building set of coproduction activities as the best route to a successful Fellowship, what sort of insights follow in the specific area of cultural and creative industries policy?

The creative industries occupy a curious position within the evidence and policy literature. Cultural policy, the academic field most closely associated with creative industries, is largely absent from key journals such as Evidence and Policy (Blomkamp 2014, on Australian local cultural policy is a key exception). At the same time, the very existence of creative industries as a subject for governmental and research activity is dependent on a close relationship between academic and policy evidence.

The role of research, particularly academic research, has been a motivating subject since the beginning of studies of cultural policy (e.g. Bennett’s 2001 debate with McGuigan 2004). Whether academics can be participants in what Bennett called ‘cultural governance’, whilst still being able to be critical of policy, is one of several questions that animated cultural policy’s emergence from cultural studies.

The development of the creative industries, as a subject for researchers and as an area of policy, took place in the shadow of these debates. There is extensive literature on the history of the rise of the idea of creative industries (useful summaries can be found in Hesmondhalgh et al., 2015, Hesmondhalgh 2018).

Here, the link between theories of the role of culture in post-industrial economy and society, methods of measurement and monitoring (by government, cultural organisations and academics), and specific policy interventions and places (such as culture-led urban regeneration) has seen extensive academic research and reflection (e.g. Campbell et al., 2017, Selwood 2021).

Despite this, highly contested, interrelationship between academic research and government policy (e.g. Rindzevičiūtė et al., 2016, Prince 2010, 2014), reflections on knowledge exchange do not have the same prominence as in, for example, health, education or social, policy. At the same time, evidence and its use (or otherwise) has animated much cultural policy and related scholarship.

In terms of the latter category of discussions, the central contribution comes from the work of Belfiore (e.g. 2016, 2022). This work has argued (along with many others e.g. Scullion and García 2005, Selwood, 2002) that academics should be sceptical of policymakers’ claims about the use of evidence in policy. In particular, economic impact statistics, which have motivated many claims about the significance of the creative industries to economy and society, are the subject of extensive debate (Belfiore 2022).

This research, and similar sorts of critiques, is based on analysis of material including official speeches, policy documents, and it is sometimes supplemented with fieldwork interviews with policymakers (e.g. Selwood 2019). It, as Belfiore (2022:301) notes, reflects a general issue in the literature whereby “how research evidence feeds into the development of policies for the cultural and creative sectors remains under-researched and not fully understood”.

This is primarily grounded in the lack of connection between the sorts of policy studies and public administration research discussed in the previous section, and the centrality of fields such as cultural and media studies to creative industries research. Magor and Schlesinger’s (2009) study of Film Tax Credits is an example of the recognition and an attempt to bridge this divide. In the British scholarship this continued disconnection is a problem when addressing Belfiore’s question of exactly how research is taken up in policy.

Yet there is work that has bridged these two fields, much of which has been focused on knowledge exchange beyond central government (although Cooper 2012 could be considered an exception). The devolved nature of much of creative industries has given rise to key literature on academic and policy interaction focused on Scotland, rather than Whitehall (e.g. Munro 2016, Schlesinger et al., 2015).

The dynamics of knowledge production infrastructures, specifically UKRI/AHRC funding- are important too. The bulk of this highly specialised and specific research has looked at relationships between parts of policy involving local or regional governments, creative industries arm’s length bodies, creative organisations, research consultants, and academics (a non-exhaustive list of recent examples includes Prince 2014, 2015, Virani and Pratt 2016, Moreton 2018, 2021,Ashton and Bell 2024).

What is striking from all of this research is the rejection of a linear model for knowledge exchange. As with the more general evidence and policy literature, there is a consensus that roundly rejects the ‘linear model’ discussed in the previous section. In perhaps the most detailed study of creative industries knowledge exchange, Munro (2016) and Schlesinger et al., (2015) reinforce the complexity of academic policy relationships and the “mundane activities” (Munro 2016:44) that constitute academic and policy practice. Where research has bridged critical policy analysis and ethnographic reflections (e.g. Prince 2010, 2014, 2015) it is also explicit on rejecting the ‘two communities’ thesis described in the previous section.

Contemplating how best to describe the intertwining of policy and research in 2013, Schlesinger highlighted the traffic between policy and academy, via thinktanks, consultancy, and media, within what Prince (2010) calls the creative industries ‘policy community’. Both writers offer creative industries-specific examples of where the linear view of knowledge exchange, with its model of evidence ‘producers’ and policy ‘consumers’, is not an appropriate or accurate framework for understanding the activities of either researchers or public administrators.

In the years following these interventions (and related work by Donovan and O’Brien 2016 and Oman 2024 following Whitehall-focused research) this creative industries policy community has deepened. Infrastructure investments, such as the AHRC’s Creative Clusters programme, the Creative PEC and CoSTAR, are underpinned by academic research questions alongside government industrial strategy goals.

These formal research partnerships notwithstanding, Belfiore’s (2022) comments on the lack of clarity as to how research is used remain. They echo Schlesinger (2013:30) who highlighted the potential for research on ‘knowledge exchange’ in cultural policy to answer some of the original questions about the role of academics that motivated some of the first cultural policy scholarship.

This, ancient and modern, history of knowledge exchange in cultural policy and creative industries gives several important insights for this, Whitehall-based, creative industries Fellowship.

First, the importance of abandoning the linear model of knowledge exchange. As with the previous section’s discussion, a different model is necessary for an effective project. Most effective is a model of active relationship building and participation in practice, rather than passive dissemination of academic research products.

Second, and related, is that this active practice of relationship building and participation, whatever exact terminology is drawn from evidence and policy literature to name this practice, is the product of these projects. Much of the research has produced reflections and commentaries, which are hugely valuable, in the context where products such as formal reports or policy briefings may struggle.

Third, how best to capture the practice (much as with the more general question of capturing practice-as-research e.g. Nelson 2022) is an open question, with no clear guidance. The format and focus of this final report is an illustration of this gap in the field.

Finally, there is the issue of how general discussions of creative industries relate to the themes of workforce, skills and diversity. This sits alongside the positionality of the researcher, and how personal demographic characteristics, alongside career status and seniority all impact relationship building and coproduction (a central theme of Schlesinger et al., 2015 and Moreton 2021).

4. What did the Fellowship do? Knowledge brokering on Skills and Diverse Workforce at DCMS

The remainder of the report discusses three examples of the sorts of practice undertaken as part of the embedded stage of the project. They offer three complementary forms of the ‘knowledge brokering’ identified in the previous sections’ review of the literature on effective practice for evidence and policy.

Case studies offer insight into how evidence is used at DCMS; the variety of audiences and consumers across various professions, interested in academic evidence at DCMS; a range of possible practices for connecting academic research to policy; and the possible roles for academic evidence in the policy process.

The latter point runs through all three case studies. It is connected to the case studies’ critique of the ‘linear model’ of evidence and policy. All three case studies demonstrate the importance of networks and relationship building as a means by which academic evidence is used by policy. At the same time, they show how academic evidence is one element of the policy process. Evidence can assist and inform policy in the context of Ministerial priorities, but it cannot, and should not, replace them.

The earlier sections’ review of the literature on evidence and policy noted some of the differences between academic specialists, with deep knowledge of often a single area of expertise, and policymakers, who are more usually generalists with a focus on the applications of evidence. These distinctions can also be seen within Whitehall (cf HMT 2020, HMT 2022). DCMS’s analysts were engaged in a variety of applied research work, much of which is comparable to academics working on applied research. For analysts, communicating research and evidence is crucial, particularly to policy teams and ministers. For policy teams the focus is more often on how evidence enables and constrains policy options, for example demonstrating the initial need for a policy intervention, supporting a spending review case for investment, or detailing the most effective method of achieving a policy aim.

Different modes of communication are crucial for these different audiences. In particular, by the time evidence is used by policy teams it is likely to be in a highly distilled form, appropriate for a ministerial speech or answer to a Parliamentary question. This is very different to both standard forms of academic communication, for example the peer reviewed journal article, and even to new modes of academic practice such as blogposts or social media content. Learning these modes of communication was a key challenge for the Fellowship.

In this context, the three case studies show how brokering knowledge between peer reviewed papers, policy-focused academic reports, and the more general field(s) associated with creative industries took the form of research notes, coproducing evidence, and the practice of being responsive to changes in the policy context.

4.1 Case study one: research notes for policy teams

The first phase of the project involved identifying key contacts and potential users and consumers for the project’s products and outputs. As part of this, the project offered overviews of existing research in response to questions and requests from various policy teams.

One such example focused on internships in the creative sector. The role of internships in shaping access to creative work has been a longstanding area of academic (e.g. Frenette 2013) and policy (e.g. IPPR 2017) interest. They are an important route into the creative industries for many early career creatives, but at the same time they are also implicated in some of the workforce inequalities highlighted in the previous section.

Research on internships in the creative sector was a major element of the APPG for Creative Diversity’s research in the Making the Creative Majority report (Comunian et al., 2023). As a result, there were a range of policy-relevant insights to be offered in response to initial discussions with DCMS staff.

The project prepared an initial research note document, in consultation with DCMS officials (shown below). This had two aims. First, to inform responses to policy discussions, both internal and external, about internships in the creative sector. Second, the research note is now permanently available as a resource for DCMS staff The research note synthesised a variety of existing research sources. It also drew on the Fellow’s experience with the Creative Diversity APPG and with the Creative PEC, reflecting the methods of summarising research. It also followed the Fellow’s experience of submitting evidence to Parliamentary Select Committee inquiries, again using clear and quick-to-digest formatting and language.

What do we know about internships in arts, culture and creative industries?

• Internships are a longstanding issue in the arts, culture and creative industries.
• They are perceived, by workers and industries, to be an essential part of entry to key creative industries and occupations. They are also perceived as one reason for inequalities in those industries and occupations.
• We do not know how many internships are being undertaken in arts, culture and creative industries. The government does not publish ‘official’ figures on internships across the economy.
• This is partially driven by the lack of formal definition of an intern. IPPR (2017), Sutton Trust (2018) and TUC (2022) have all noted there is no universally agreed definition of an internship, and as a result little detail and monitoring of the role that interns play in the wider labour market (IPPR 2017).
• We also do not know the exact proportions of the current creative workforce who have done an internship. This means the importance and impact of internships on routes into the creative sector are difficult to estimate with precision.
• Estimates of the proportions of the creative workforce who have done internships are highly dependent on the source of data and analysis.
• Whilst there are no recent figures, IPPR (2017) used Burning Glass data to estimate Creative industries had the highest concentration of internships available relative to job vacancies. These vacancies were skewed towards London, with over 75% of all creative industries internships in the capital.
• The Sutton Trust (2018) using a representative sample of Graduates collected by YouGov suggested 39% of all graduates in their twenties had done an internship. However, this work does not give exact details on the proportions of all creative workers doing an internship.
• However, both of these sets of analysis suggest figures much higher than 2015/16 HESA data, where only 2.5% of all graduates were on an internship 6 months after graduation (cited by Sutton Trust 2018). This is a useful illustration of the problem of precise estimation of numbers of internships.
• All three of these examples are also concentrated on graduates rather than the entire labour market.
• Not all internships are the same. It is important to draw distinctions between work-integrated-learning as part of educational courses; paid internships; and unpaid internships.
• Work-integrated-learning internships are now a common practice for higher education courses. There are challenges in terms of the demographics of HE courses, but these types of internships can have the most positive career impacts if they are properly monitored and regulated by HE providers.
• Open-market internships, even when paid, can be exploitative due to lack of intern power in the context of work environments characterised by bullying and harassment. The Film, TV and Music industries have seen a range of research warning of the personal risks, as well as the career benefits, of even paid internships.
• What is unequivocally clear from a huge range of research is that unpaid internships are a significant contributor to the lack of diversity in the sector.
• The quality of internship, much as with all forms of unpaid work in the sector, is socially stratified. For those with high levels of financial resources and existing industry connections, unpaid internships can be an ‘investment’ in career development. For those from marginalised backgrounds the experience is, at best, poor quality if not outright exploitation (Brook et al., 2020).
• The most recent analysis of creative graduates’ experience (using data from 2014) of internships suggests paid internships do improve labour market outcomes. However, unpaid internships damage career prospects in the short to medium term, and are not an effective method of accessing key occupations (Hunt and Scott 2023).
• In the UK and Globally, over a decade of research on internships has demonstrated that creative sectors have been one of the worst parts of the economy for their use of the unpaid labour that internships provide (Divine et al., 2007; Smith, 2015).
• This has created a system of hidden access points that are only available to those with the economic capability to support prolonged periods of unpaid work (Perlin, 2012; Brook et al., 2020).
• Not only is this is a key barrier to social mobility within the wider UK economy (Sutton Trust, 2018), but the creative and cultural sectors use of unpaid internships exacerbates these industries’ already poor record on diversity (Arts Council England, 2011; Frenette, 2013; Allen et al., 2010; Allen 2013; de Peuter and Cohen, 2015).
• Moreover, existing research has been focused on graduates experiences of internships. Graduates cohorts entering creative careers already have a lack of diversity, as a result of inequalities in entry to higher education. Internships therefore compound existing issues.
• Internships also compound regional inequalities. In addition to IPPR (2017) highlighting the skew towards London, Sutton Trust (2018) estimated that 86% of internships in the arts (TV, theatre, film, fashion), and 83% in media were unpaid. These sectors were also highlighted for this poor practice by IPPR.
• There has been a significant culture change since much of this research was undertaken. Unpaid internships clearly still exist in the sector. However, they are less likely to be prominently advertised, and where they are they face significant social media pushback. At the same time, the lack of data means we still do not know whether this practice has continued ‘underground’ from formal adverts and positions; whether unpaid internships have been rebranded, for example ‘volunteering’ opportunities; or whether things have genuinely improved.

There were several such research notes during the Fellowship. Another example, from later in the project, was a research note on higher education for DCMS’s Creative Industries Skills Team. This responded to questions from the Skills team in the content of DCMS’s ongoing relationship with DfE, particularly as the change of governments changed the emphasis of both education and skills policy. It also connected to ongoing research projects that produced new findings (e.g. Carey et al., 2024, O’Brien et al., 2025) that were then incorporated into DCMS’s skills policy evidence base.

These examples draw on elements of the linear model of understanding evidence and policy, as well as brokering knowledge between existing academic research, new research produced concurrently with the project, and policymakers’ needs. Academic research was translated into a format that could inform policymakers, and be used by them in a variety of documents. Whilst the research notes were responsive to policy requests, and the Fellow’s embedded understanding of policy needs, the elements of coproduction associated with ‘knowledge brokering’ are more evident in the second case study.

4.2 Case Study two: Coproducing research with DCMS staff

A variety of coproduced research activities took place during the embedded phase. This section offers the example of coproduced activity to support DCMS in publishing new statistics from the Employer Skills Survey (ESS).

ESS surveys businesses across the UK to understand their skills needs. Commissioned by the Department for Education, it covers a variety of topics including recruitment; skills gaps, shortages and utilisation; training; and management practices. The most recent data comes from the 2022 edition.

The coproduced work at DCMS examined data relevant to the creative industries in ESS. It created statistics relevant to a variety of skills policy questions. DCMS published statistics on employer perceptions and actions in response to skills needs. They are available here (DCMS 2025).

DCMS’s publication of these statistics did not examine the implications for policy. This was done in separate work with the Creative PEC. The Creative PEC report Skills mismatches in the UK’s creative industries, provided a variety of contextual information on ESS data, and formed the basis of research notes looking at the policy implications of the Creative PEC’s analysis. This report is available here (Carey et al., 2025).

As with other elements of the Fellowship, a short overview of both the DCMS statistics and the PEC report was produced, circulated and made available to officials.

Skills gaps and shortages in the Creative Industries: Implications for DCMS

• This week (w/c 10 February 2025) DCMS published new analysis of the Employer Skills Survey, looking in detail at Creative Industries.
• The Creative PEC also published a new report looking at that same dataset, with a focus on policy recommendation.
• This overview summarises the key implications of both pieces of work for DCMS

DCMS’s analysis

• Creative industries businesses are more likely than the economy as a whole to delay developing new products and services as a consequence of having skills gaps and shortages.
• Making new products and services is a core purpose of creative work. This suggests that skills issues constrain the sector’s ability to deliver Growth (and Opportunity), and make a case for DCMS support to address skills gaps and shortages.
• Although the overall incidence of skill-shortage vacancies in the creative industries is lower than in the rest of the economy, and the proportion of the workforce with skills gaps is in line with what is observed in all sectors, there are specific pressures that are unique to the creative sector. Specifically the mismatch between the types skills and experience held by the creative workforce and by potential employees and the skills and experience needed for jobs.
• The data shows that creative industries businesses are more likely than all sectors to outsource work as a consequence of having skills gaps and shortages. Given the already high levels of freelancers in the sector, this presents challenges for delivering on DCMS’s commitment to better working conditions across the sector. It also helps to account for the pressure from our stakeholders to have specific freelancer support mechanisms.
• Over 2/3rds of businesses with skills gaps and skills shortages report a lack of “specialist skills and knowledge needed to perform the role”. DCMS is working with PEC on subsector skills audits to find out the exact specialist skills the workforce/job applicants are missing. This will report in summer 2025.
• If we better understand the skills needs of the sector, we should be able to closer align skills provision (that in the CIs this is delivered predominantly via Higher Education, but also through other routes) and employers’ needs.

Creative PEC’s Skills mismatches in the UK’s creative industries

• The new PEC report also reinforces the impact of skills issues on creative industries ability to create new products and services.
• It notes that skills shortages are most pronounced for higher-skilled roles, meaning that more effective interventions are needed for specialist and high level skills, rather than generalist or entry level skills. As with DCMS’s own work, this suggests the need for better alignment with HE courses (as the central route for higher level skills) as well as a more agile and responsive system for accessing specialist skills, for example bootcamps.
• PEC notes how skills gaps are increasing in creative industries, both since 2017 and as a result of rapid technological change such as the impact of AI.
• The increasing levels of skills issues are matched by increasing levels of new skills needs. Crucially the skills anticipated to need development in the future are those in short supply today. Again this suggests the need for better coordination of the skills system, particularly between DCMS and Skills England.
• More is needed to encourage employers to invest in upskilling their workforce. Almost half of creative industries employers had not provided any training in the year leading up to the survey. Training is also of shorter duration, more likely to be on the job and less likely to lead to a formally recognised qualification.
• The data suggests creative businesses do not see training as a priority, and they experience as practical barriers to accessing training. Raising awareness of the importance of training, as well as removing barriers to access, may be effective policy interventions.

Coproduced work, directly with DCMS analysts, along with policy focused academic research reports, are good examples of the ‘knowledge brokering’ approach taken by the Fellowship. This was dependent on the Fellow’s networks and relationships between policy and academia, along with the Fellow’s detailed knowledge of policy and practice needs. The examples discussed fed into a range of specific policy developments with particular teams, such as the Creative Industries Skills team, as well as cross-Department work on things like the Creative Industries Sector Plan. Both elements, and both examples, were enabled and accelerated by the Fellow being embedded with relevant policy teams.

At the same time, this specific work on skills was part of the Fellowship’s activity that was discussed and developed early in the embedded phase. It was the sort of ‘knowledge brokering’ that was anticipated by the initial project application and outline. There was also, as a result of the ‘knowledge brokering’ approach, activity that was not anticipated in advance, where the Fellow directly responded to events and a changing policy context. This is the subject of the third case study.

4.3 Case study three: responding to changes in the policy and research context

‘Knowledge brokering’ allowed the Fellowship to be responsive to changes in the policy and research context. There were several examples, including new research co-authored by the Fellow on arts and cultural consumption (McAndrew et al., 2024) that generated interest from DCMS teams outside of the Fellowship’s focus on skills and the workforce; new work on the impact of the Covid Pandemic on the arts sector that generated interest from the CSA team (Gilmore et al., 2024); and the Fellow’s contribution to DCMS’s Culture and Heritage Capital (CHC) project (DCMS 2025) within DCMS and as part of the AHRC-funded Taxonomies project.

The most notable change in the policy and research setting was the general election in the summer of 2024. As earlier sections of this report have noted, there was continuity in much creative industries policy. However, the change of government set a new context for policymaking across Whitehall.

Perhaps the most prominent example of this change was the ‘mission-led government’ (Labour 2024) approach. The new administration adopted 5 missions- Growth, Clean Energy, Opportunity, NHS, and Safer Streets- to structure its policy programme and encourage cross-Departmental working.

Creative industries policy touches on many elements of these missions. As the Missions were embedded into Whitehall, DCMS prepared plans for the Department’s engagement with each mission. Some, such as the creative industries contribution to Growth, followed logically from existing policy frameworks. Others, including the Opportunity Mission, required more detailed development.

The Opportunity Mission aimed to ‘break the link between a child’s background and their future success’ (Cabinet Office 2024). Details in the Labour Manifesto indicated this aim would be met by ensuring that children’s future earnings are no longer limited by those of their parents (Labour 2024:2).

This approach draws on the work of economists using income as the measure of whether children are better or worse off than their parents. This comparison between generations (intergenerational income persistence) is one way of measuring social mobility.

Social Mobility has been an important subject of discussion in the creative industries, and the Fellow’s academic work has been prominent in this research (e.g. O’Brien et al., 2016, Brook et al., 2018, 2020, 2023, McAndrew et al., 2024). As a result, the Fellow was well placed to offer expertise on the broad field of social scientific study of social mobility, as well as the specific insights on these matters in DCMS sectors.

To respond to this context, the Fellow had numerous meetings with key DCMS staff, took part in DCMS’s Opportunity Mission team meetings, and liaised with analysts to create a programme of work in response to the Opportunity Mission. This programme included the preparation and delivery of a teach-in on intergenerational income mobility, providing slides as well as a recording of the session. A bespoke version of this teach-in was also delivered on request from specific policy teams within DCMS. These materials were left as part of the CSA’s resources for research and evidence at DCMS, available for access for DCMS staff in future.

This approach, combining events, recordings, slide decks, attendance at team meetings, and tailored conversations, was common to all of the responsive activities during the Fellowship. The success of these activities was enabled by the knowledge brokering framework, whereby trusted relationships and networks recommended the Fellow’s expertise to other parts of DCMS policy beyond those just focused on the core project.

5. Conclusion and fellowship legacy

This report has drawn on two sets of academic literature. It reflects the rich literature on the creative workforce (e.g. summaries in Wreyford 2021, Comunian et al., 2023 and Brook et al., 2025). Much of this, when read alongside DCMS’s ARIs, demonstrated the need to translate and apply research findings, rather than developing a separate, new research project.

The second set of literature, on academic evidence in public policy, pointed towards a model of practice that was likely to create an effective Fellowship. Here, the consensus is unequivocal: linear models of academic research impact are inaccurate and ineffective. The experience of the embedded phase of the Fellowship confirmed the consensus from the evidence and policy literature. Thus the Fellowship adopted a ‘knowledge brokering’ approach, grounded in networks and trusted relationships, a model for an effective Fellowship.

As a result, this report has not detailed results from a specific piece of research conducted as a research output for the Fellowship. Rather, it has reflected on the Fellowship’s activity of brokering existing research in response to the needs of DCMS’s policy and analysis teams; coproducing new research directly with DCMS analysts; and shaping and adapting ongoing research projects to better connect with policy and analytical needs.

This process of the Fellowship is, in many ways, the product. It would not have been possible to operate this process-based form of ‘knowledge brokering’ without the broader research infrastructure of DCMS, for example the CSA team and DCMS’s ARIs. The Fellowship was also closely connected with the AHRC Creative PEC, where the Fellow, as a co-Lead, is dedicated to applied policy research on exactly the questions underpinning the Fellowship. This research infrastructure includes UKRI too. Prof O’Brien has subsequently worked with DCMS on the 2026 refresh of their ARIs, funded from the University of Manchester’s Impact Acceleration Account.

The approach to the Fellowship was also driven by a third factor, in addition to the two sets of literature and the research infrastructure associated with the creative industries. The Fellow is a senior academic in the creative industries field, with a longstanding range of policy engagement experience in both Whitehall (O’Brien 2010) and Westminster (DCMS Select Committee 2019). As Cairney and Oliver (2020) discuss, the level of ‘insider’ status needed for successful policy engagement can act as a barrier to a more diverse set of academic voices being heard in Whitehall. What was a clear strength of the Fellow’s CV is unlikely to be replicated for many other academics, particularly in the creative industries field. This shaped the activities of the Fellowship and can be developed as UKRI supports similar ‘knowledge brokering’ approaches.

All of these elements influenced the practical activities for the Fellowship. Much of the project involved spending time learning the reality of the policy process at DCMS as an embedded ‘insider’, working with policy teams and DCMS’s analytic community. This embedded learning activity was precisely what allowed the Fellowship to broker knowledge across and between policy and academia, as well as responding to several major changes in the public administration context.

This approach to the Fellowship impacts the implications of the project for a variety of audiences. Often in policy-related academic work there are specific recommendations for policymakers and academics to address, following the conclusions of the relevant research. This Fellowship report is more distinctive, with an emphasis on more general learnings and implications for both audiences.

Knowledge brokering, as the literature and the practice of the Fellowship demonstrates, is a laborious and time-intensive process for both policymakers and academics. Resources are needed from both sets of actors. Creating two-way networks and relationships of trust, across policy and academia, enables successful knowledge brokering. At the same time, these networks and relationships can be difficult, if not impossible, to reproduce without key individuals. This is the case even where there is significant infrastructure dedicated to enabling knowledge brokering.

Those points notwithstanding, the Fellowship’s reflections for academics and policymakers can be starting points for future relationships and future research.

For policy/academic collaborations:

• Linear models of impact, focused on academic research being communicated to policy consumers, have been widely critiqued by the evidence and policy literature. This Fellowship found no evidence that they are effective frameworks for academic/policy collaborations.
• In this setting, the process of academic and policy collaboration can and should be understood as the product. Without this more expansive, and coproductive, understanding of academic/policy relationships, Fellowships are likely to replicate the ineffective linear model of impact.
• Communication for policy is a specialist skill. Academics need to be offered more formal, specialist training and support to develop the relevant skillset
• There is still a significant gap between academic modes of communication and the practicalities of policymaking. Communication for policy needs to be recognised and more thoroughly supported as expectations of academic impact accelerate in the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework (REF).
• Embedding researchers is a highly effective way of brokering knowledge between academics and policymakers. However, more reflection and analysis is needed on who is best placed to take up these embedded positions and how diversity of career stage, research themes and approaches, as well as demographics, can be supported.
• Embedding is not just a one way process from universities into policy settings. There are significant opportunities for policymakers to be embedded into academic research infrastructure, whether on specific UKRI funded projects, research infrastructure such as Creative PEC, or into Universities more generally. There are, however, significant resource implications for this sort of embedding,
• Infrastructure beyond the Fellowship is vital. On skills and a diverse workforce in the creative industries, the Creative PEC may provide continuity for the knowledge brokering activities of the Fellowship. Yet this infrastructure does not exist for other areas of DCMS activity
• DCMS’s ARIs are part of this research infrastructure, as is the College of Experts. Integrating both of these more effectively into the everyday activities of policymakers is another method of continuing the benefits of the Fellowship’s knowledge brokering.

On research for skills and a diverse workforce in the creative industries:

• Cross-Whitehall working is essential for DCMS to realise its aim of a more diverse creative workforce. The sorts of policy levers associated with making the creative workforce more accessible are often associated with education and business policy, rather than creative industries specific interventions.
• Employers are an important target audience for interventions, alongside the current focus on potential new creative workers. Raising awareness of the range of creative careers open to early career creatives needs to go hand-in-hand with programmes to change hiring and commissioning practices.
• Workforce, skills and diversity policy needs to work with higher education as the primary route into creative careers. Any attempt to change individual or employer and commissioner behaviour that ignores the revealed preference for degrees by both groups is unlikely to have significant impact on workforce demographics.
• The ‘what works’ approach to making creative industries more accessible needs to be embedded in academic work that seeks to impact policy on this topic.

6. Acknowledgements

About the author

Dave O’Brien is a professor of cultural and creative industries at the University of Manchester and is one of the UK’s leading experts on the creative economy. He has published widely on this area, including the use of culture in urban regeneration, how policymakers use evidence, the stratification of cultural consumption, and inequalities in cultural work. His recent book, Culture is bad for you, is co-authored with Orian Brook and Mark Taylor. As well as extensive work on the cultural and creative sector, he has also published high profile papers on class identity and social mobility.

His policy work includes the ground-breaking Measuring the value of culture report, and he is the co-author of the Panic! report, as well as the Creative Majority and Making the Creative Majority reports. He has twice been an adviser to the House of Commons’ Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee inquiries, and worked with the House of Lords’ Communications and Digital Committee on their At Risk: Our creative future report. He is Co-Lead on the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) funded Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre.

He is the co-editor of the Palgrave Sociology of the Arts book series, part of the editorial boards of Cultural Trends and Sociology, and the host of a New Books Network podcast channel. He is also a member of the AHRC’s advisery board.

He returned to DCMS in October 2025 as part of a UKRI Impact Accelerator Account Advanced Grant secondment, working on the refresh of DCMS’s Areas of Research Interest.

About the funder – Arts and Humanities Research Council

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) funds world-class, independent research in subjects from philosophy and the creative industries, to art conservation and product design. Our research addresses some of society’s biggest challenges, such as tackling modern slavery, exploring the ethical implications of artificial intelligence, and understanding what it is to be human.

About the host – the Department for Digital Culture, Media and Sport

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) brings together the digital services people rely on, the culture they enjoy, the sport they follow, the media they trust and the communities they belong to. Increasingly, these experiences are intertwined. DCMS exists to help people and communities connect, create and thrive across every part of modern Britain, strengthening the security, resilience and trust that underpin modern life. 

This research was conducted when the Department was the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It became the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in July 2026. The research was developed and produced according to the author’s hypotheses and methods. Any primary research, subsequent findings or recommendations do not represent UK government views or policy.

Thanks

Prof O’Brien thanks DCMS for being an excellent host Department, alongside the warm and generous support of colleagues at DCMS. He also thanks the AHRC and UKRI for the funding and support offered as part of the Policy Fellows scheme.

References

Arnautu, D., Dagenais, C. (2021) Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8, 211

Ashton, D. and Bell, M. (2024). Local government cultural economy data practices and futures: Capacity, decision-making and partnerships. Big Data & Society, 11(4)

Bandola-Gill, J., N. A. Andersen, R. Leng, V. Pattyn, and K. E. Smith. (2024). “A Matter of Culture? Conceptualizing and Investigating ‘Evidence Cultures’ Within Research on Evidence-Informed Policymaking.” Policy and Society 43 (4): 397–413

Bea, L. and Recio Saucedo, A. (2024) EDI in academic–policy engagement: lived experience of university based knowledge brokers and marginalised academics. Evidence and Policy 21(1) 46-70

Belfiore, E. (2016). Cultural policy research in the real world: Curating “impact”, facilitating “enlightenment” Cultural Trends, 25(3), 205–216.

Belfiore, E. (2022) ‘Is it really about the evidence? argument, persuasion, and the power of ideas in cultural policy’ Cultural Trends, 31:4, 293-310,

Bennett, T. (2001). Intellectuals, culture, policy: the practical and the critical. , in Miller, T. (ed) (2001) A Companion to Cultural Studies p357-374.

Blomkamp, E. (2014). Uses of evidence in local cultural policy: Performance, legitimation, problem representation, and learning in two Australian municipalities. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 10(2), 223–241.

Boaz, A. and Oliver, K. (2023) How well do the UK government’s ‘areas of research interest’ work as boundary objects to facilitate the use of research in policymaking?, Policy & Politics, 51(2): 314–333

Breckon, J., Mthiyane, H. and Shepherd, J. (2019) Bodies of Evidence: How professional organisations in health, education and policing champion the use of research London: Alliance for Useful Evidence.

Breckon, J. and Dodson, J. (2016) Using evidence: what works? London: Alliance for Useful Evidence.

Brook, O., O’Brien, D., & Taylor, M. (2018) Panic! Social class, taste and inequalities in the creative industries.Available from https://createlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Panic-Social-Class-Taste-and-Inequalities-in-the-Creative-Industries1.pdf accessed 10/7/2025

Brook, O., O’Brien, D. and Taylor, M. (2020/2025) Culture is bad for you Manchester University Press

Brook, O., Miles, A., O’Brien, D., & Taylor, M. (2023). Social mobility and ‘openness’ in creative occupations since the 1970s. Sociology, 57(4), 789-810.

Cabinet Office (2024) Break Down Barriers to Opportunity available from https://www.gov.uk/missions/opportunity accessed 10/7/2025

Cairney, P., Heikkila, T., & Wood, M. (2019). Making policy in a complex world. Cambridge University Press.

Cairney, P. and Oliver, K. (2020) How should academics engage in policymaking to achieve impact?, Political Studies Review 18(2) 228-244

Campbell, P., Cox, T., & O’Brien, D. (2017). The social life of measurement: How methods have shaped the idea of culture in urban regeneration. Journal of Cultural Economy, 10(1), 49-62.

Carey, H., Giles, L. and O’Brien, D. (2023) Job quality in the Creative Industries: The final report from the Creative PEC’s Good Work Review available from https://pec.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/PEC-GWR-Job-quality-in-the-Creative-Industries-v7.pdf accessed 10/7/2025

Comunian, R., Dent, T., O’Brien, D., Read, T. and Wreyford, N. (2023). Making the Creative Majority: A report for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Creative Diversity on ‘What Works’ to support diversity and inclusion in creative education and the talent pipeline, with a focus on the 16+ age category available from www.kcl.ac.uk/cultural/projects/creative-majority-education accessed 10/7/2025

Cooper, A. (2012). The drivers, impact and value of CASE: A short history from the inside. Cultural Trends, 21(4), 281–289.

DBT (2025) The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy available from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68595e56db8e139f95652dc6/industrial_strategy_policy_paper.pdfaccessed 10/7/2025

DCMS (2023) Creative Industries Sector Vision available from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64898de2b32b9e000ca96712/Creative_Industries_Sector_Vision__accessible_version_.pdfaccessed 10/7/2025

DCMS (2025) Creative Industries Sector Plan available from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/685943ddb328f1ba50f3cf15/industrial_strategy_creative_industries_sector_plan.pdfaccessed 10/7/2025

Donovan, C., & O’Brien, D. (2016). Governing culture: Legislators, interpreters and accountants. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 37, 24–34

Durrant, H and MacKillop, E. (2022) University policy engagement bodies in the UK and the variable meanings of and approaches to impact, Research Evaluation, 31(3) 372–384,

Frenette, A. (2013). Making the intern economy: Role and career challenges of the music industry intern. Work and Occupations, 40(4), 364-397

Geddes, M. (2020) The webs of belief around ‘evidence’ in legislatures: the case of select committees in the UK House of Commons, Public Administration, 99(1): 40–54.

Geddes, M., Dommett, K. and Prosser, B. (2018) “A Recipe for Impact? Exploring Knowledge Requirements in the UK Parliament and Beyond.” Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 14 (2): 259–276.

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2019) The Cultural Industries. Sage

Hesmondhalgh, D, Oakley, K, Lee, D, and Nisbett, M. (2015) Culture, Economy and Politics: The Case of New Labour Palgrave MacMillan

HMT (2020) The Magenta Book https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e96cab9d3bf7f412b2264b1/HMT_Magenta_Book.pdf accessed 5/2/2026

HMT (2022) The Green Book https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-government/the-green-book-2020 accessed 5/2/2026

Holt-White, E., O’Brien, D., Brook, O. and Taylor, M. (2024) A Class Act: Social Mobility and the Creative Industries accessed 2/9/20206

Hopkins, A., Oliver, K., Boaz, A., Guillot-Wright, S., & Cairney, P. (2021). Are research-policy engagement activities informed by policy theory and evidence? 7 challenges to the UK impact agenda. Policy Design and Practice, 4(3), 341–356.

IPPR (2017) The inbetweeners: The new role of internships in the graduate labour market available from https://ippr-org.files.svdcdn.com/production/Downloads/inbetweeners-the-new-role-of-internships_Apr2017.pdf?dm=1702046844 accessed 10/7/2025

Labour (2024) Break down barriers to opportunity available from https://labour.org.uk/change/break-down-barriers-to-opportunity/ accessed 10/7/2025

Ma, J, and Cheng Yuan (Daniel) (2024) “Why Do some Academic Articles Receive More Citations from Policy Communities?” Public Administration Review 85(3) 907-929

MacKillop, E., Quarmby, S. and Downe, J. (2020) Does knowledge brokering facilitate evidence-based policy? A review of existing knowledge and an agenda for future research, Policy & Politics, vol 48, no 2, 335–353

Magor, M. and Schlesinger, P. (2009) ‘For this relief much thanks.’ Taxation, film policy and the UK government. Screen, 50 (3). pp. 299-317.

Matthews, P., Rutherfoord, R., Connelly, S., Richardson, L., Durose, C. and Vanderhoven, D. (2018) Everyday stories of impact: interpreting knowledge exchange in the contemporary university, Evidence & Policy, 14(4) 665–82

McAndrew, S., O’Brien, D., Taylor, M. and Wang, R. (2024) UK Arts, Culture and Heritage Audiences and Workforce available from https://pec.ac.uk/state_of_the_nation/arts-cultural-heritage-audiences-and-workforce-2/ accessed 10/7/2024

McAndrew, S., O’Brien, D., Taylor, M. and Wang, R (2025) Higher Education and the Arts and Culture Sectors accessed 2/9/2026

McGuigan, J. (2004). Rethinking cultural policy. McGraw-Hill Education

Mihut, G., Ozsezer‐Kurnuc, S., Morris, R., Perry, T., & Smith, E. (2025). Policy and Research Engagement in UK Higher Education. Policymaker and Expert Perspectives and Priorities. Higher Education Quarterly, 79(2) 1-14

Moreton, S. (2018) Contributing to the creative economy imaginary: universities and the creative sector, Cultural Trends, 27(5) 327-338

Moreton, S. (2021) ‘Knowledge exchange in the arts and humanities as creative economy policy assemblage’. Research for All, 5 (2), 271–89.

Munro, E. (2016) Illuminating the practice of knowledge exchange as a ‘pathway to impact’ within an arts and humanities research council ‘creative economy knowledge exchange’ project. Geoforum, 71, pp. 44-51

Neal, J.W., Neal, Z. and Brutzman, B. (2022) Defining brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a systematic review, Evidence & Policy, vol 18, no 1, 7–24

Nelson, R. (ed) (2022) Practice as Research in the Arts (and Beyond): Principles, Processes, Contexts, Achievements 2nd Edition Palgrave Macmillan

Nelson, J. P., Lindsay, S., & Bozeman, B. (2023). The Last 20 Years of Empirical Research on Government Utilization of Academic Social Science Research: A State-of-the-Art Literature Review. Administration & Society, 55(8), 1479-1528

Newman, J. (2020). Increasing the ability of government agencies to undertake evidence-informed policymaking. Evidence Base, 2020(2). https://doi.org/10.21307/EB-2020-005

O’Brien, D. (2010). Measuring the Value of Culture: A Report to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measuring-the-value-of-culture-a-report-to-the-department-for-culture-media-and-sport accessed 8/7/2025

O’Brien, D., Laurison, D., Miles, A., & Friedman, S. (2016). Are the creative industries meritocratic? An analysis of the 2014 British Labour Force Survey. Cultural Trends, 25(2), 116-131.

Oliver, K., Cairney, P. (2019) The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Communications 5, 21

Oliver K, Boaz A. and Cuccato G. (2022) Areas of research interest: joining the dots between government and research at last? [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research, 11:1509 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127542.1)

Oliver, K., Hopkins, A., Boaz, A., Guillot-Wright, S. and Cairney, P. (2022) What works to promote research-policy engagement?, Evidence & Policy, 18(4): 691–713

Oman, S. (2024) Digital culture - a review of evidence and experience, with recommendations for UK policy, practice and research available from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-culture-a-review-of-evidence-and-experience-with-recommendations-for-uk-policy-practice-and-research accessed 10/7/2025

Prabhakar, R. (2025) Evaluating Parliamentary Academic Fellows Parliamentary Affairs 78, 135–157

Prince, R. (2010) “Fleshing out expertise: The making of creative industries experts in the United Kingdom” Geoforum 41 875-884

Prince, R. (2014). Calculative cultural expertise? Consultants and politics in the UK cultural sector. Sociology, 48(4), 747–762.

Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (2008) “Introduction.” In Sage Handbook of ActionResearch; Participative Inquiry and Practice, 2nd ed., edited by P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 1–10. London, California, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage.

Reddel, T. and Ball, S. (2021). Knowledge coproduction: panacea or placebo? Lessons from an emerging policy partnership. Policy Design and Practice, 5(2) 183-196

Rindzevičiūtė, E., Svensson, J. & Tomson, K. (2016) The international transfer of creative industries as a policy idea, International Journal of Cultural Policy 22(4) 594-610

Schlesinger, P. (2013). Expertise, the academy and the governance of cultural policy. Media, Culture & Society, 35(1), 27-35

Schlesinger, P. Selfe, M. and Munro, E. (2015) Inside a Cultural Agency: Team Ethnography and Knowledge Exchange, The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 45:2, 66-83,

Scullion, A., & Garcia, B. (2005). What is cultural policy research? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(2), 113–27.

Shaxson, L., Hood, R., Boaz, A. and Head, B. (2025) Knowledge brokering inside the policy making process: an analysis of evidence use inside a UK government department, Evidence & Policy, 21(1): 6–25

Selwood, S (2002) “The politics of data collection: Gathering, analysing and using data about the subsidised cultural sector in England.” Cultural trends 12(47): 13-84.

Selwood, S. (2019) “A possible teleology of cultural sector data in England” Cultural Trends, 28:2-3, 177-197

Selwood, S. (2021). Social Sciences and the Cultural Sector in England: A Commentary on the Literature. Museum worlds, 9(1), 33-52

Smith, K., Bandola-Gill, J., Meer, N., Stewart, E., & Watermeyer, R. (2020). The Impact Agenda:Controversies, Consequences and Challenges. Policy Press.

Wreyford, N, O’Brien, D, and Dent, T (2021). Creative Majority: An APPG for Creative Diversity report on ‘What Works’ to support, encourage and improve diversity, equity and inclusion in the creative sector available from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/cultural/projects/creative-majority accessed 10/7/2025

Virani, T. and Pratt, A. (2016). Intermediaries and the knowledge exchange process: The case of the creative industries and higher education. In R. Comunian, & A. Gilmore (Eds.), Higher Education and the Creative Economy: Beyond the Campus (pp. 41–58). London: Routledge.