Guidance

Writing and using Areas of Research Interest

Published 28 January 2022

1. Introduction

The 2015 Nurse Review of Research Councils recommended that government established a more strategic approach to its research and development programmes. This included developing a more systematic expression of its own research needs and the mechanisms in place for engagement between the Research Councils and government departments. In response, government asked departments to produce a document that sets out the most important and current research topics the department is interested in. These Areas of Research Interest (ARI) documents can encourage collaboration with government departments when addressing research needs, by acting as a platform for engagement with external experts, research councils, industry, and many other organisations across the R&D landscape.

This document is intended as guidance for departmental officials on formulating ARIs and compiling them into an accessible document. It has been developed by the Government Office for Science (GOS) with extensive collaboration with officials in departmental Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) offices across government and other relevant stakeholders.

1.1 What is the aim of an ARI document?

The aim of an ARI document is to clearly set out and describe departmental areas of research interest in a series of topics or questions. These ARIs should highlight gaps in evidence and knowledge that the department needs to address:

• to build a dialogue around departmental research interests with experts in academia and industry, as well as their stakeholders such as academic institutions, and the National Academies
• to promote departmental research interests in a way that gives experts the opportunity to get involved in activities to identify evidence related to them
• to foster a culture of using research and innovation within the department that sustains a continuous dialogue with producers of research
• to communicate departmental research interests to other government departments (OGDs) to foster cross government work around them

1.2 Why are ARIs useful?

There are many different users of research in government, ranging from ministers and civil servants to members of advisory councils. Accessing research is crucial throughout the cycle of policy making in defining issues as well as assessing policy options and their risks. This research feeds into government in various ways, through specific requests for expert insights or through participation in advisory committees and working groups.

Clarifying the department’s research interests to the external research community facilitates conversations around them and helps build a network of interested experts that work in areas directly relevant to those research interests. Having a network like this can help when organising activities such as workshops or when convening working groups around ARIs to gather evidence or identify evidence gaps, accelerating the speed at which research and evidence informed policy can be delivered.

Laying out departmental ARIs in a document can also help policy professionals in a department consider research needs more carefully when developing policy. ARIs also help departments invest in research and engagement activities (such as organising fellowships and secondments) because of the way they give the department an opportunity to clearly state and communicate its research needs to organisations.

2. How to write an ARI document

2.1 Contents of an ARI document

An ARI document should contain at least:

• an introduction, including the department’s vision and objectives
• a section outlining the department’s research interests with clear connections to how these address the department’s objectives
• an annex for further supplementary materials

We will address these sections in turn.

Although departments are free to choose a document title that suits their strategy, it is strongly recommended to include the words ‘Areas of Research Interest’. This will help external researchers in easily being able to search for and identify departmental ARI documents and should lead to the ARIs having a greater reach and impact.

Introduction

The introduction should summarise the purpose of the ARI document and what you hope to achieve through it. The reader should gain a good sense of how the ARIs have been derived from the department’s objectives and its science system.

The introduction should contain, but need not be limited to:

• background on the department’s science system (such as how the department organises its science needs and activities in relation to its policy objectives), its research and innovation strategy, and how the ARI document fits within them
• the purpose of the ARI document and its aims
• a description of the distinction the department makes between short-, medium- and long-term timescales of relevance for individual research interest in its ARI document
• steps that experts can take if they would like to get involved with the department (this should involve highlighting a way to contact the department, information about the department’s engagement activities, or ways in which the ARI document has been used to engage with experts in the past)

Departmental research interests

The section containing the department’s research interests should encapsulate the gaps in evidence relevant to the department’s priorities, whether in policy or other projects, and which the department cannot answer through in-house specialists.

Some departments, for example Department of Transport, have found it useful to organise their departmental research and innovation strategy in a way that it contains a list of all research topics the department is interested in, and the evidence gaps around them that it needs to address. Out of this list of identified evidence gaps, those that are most relevant to the department’s priorities for that year are used as a basis for writing ARIs when it comes to updating the document.

The ARIs do not have to take the form of research questions and can be as broad or as specific as the department requires. Proposed actions that the department would like to take alongside each ARI should also be included. For example, are you seeking discussions with academics, seeking to commission new research, offering collaboration on research bids to external funders, or some other engagement activity? The ARIs should have either short-, medium-, or long-term timescales of relevance, as defined by the department listed alongside them. For each ARI, it is also helpful to state any connection to ongoing policy debates, cross-government activity which you are aware of, or other information on the genesis and lifespan of ARIs if possible.

It helps to group ARIs into overarching themes and sub-themes that are clearly connected to higher level departmental objectives and policy delivery. Providing some contextual background around the theme will aid understanding of the ARIs across government as well as externally. This aids external experts in finding ARIs relevant to their field as well as helping officials in OGDs to easily find ARIs under cross-cutting themes, such as Net Zero and Levelling Up, to facilitate any potential cross-government work on addressing them.

Supplementary materials

This section should contain any files and links that help contextualise the research topics in the ARI as well as the department’s wider research activities. This should include, but need not be limited to:

• materials that supplement the research topics and themes in the document, including relevant datasets and references to any current research
• links to documents providing details of the departmental research and evidence strategy, as well as current research activities

2.2 The development of an ARI document

1. CSA’s office drafts new research interests from department’s objectives.

2. Consult government and analyst teams on relevance and context of ARIs.

3. Consult policy and delivery teams on relevance of ARIs to policy issues.

4. Consult academics on the framing of ARIs in context of current research.

5. Consult CSA for final sign-off on the department’s ARIs.

6. Publish ARI document and disseminate to external experts and the academic community.

7. Organise evidence gathering activities such as workshops.

8. Assess which evidence gaps for which ARIs have now been filled.

The process of developing an ARI relies on the ability to identify where the department’s research priorities lie, in line with the department’s objectives. The key for this is to cast the net as wide as possible and consult across the department with all the relevant colleagues, including government scientists (natural and social), engineers, analysts, policy makers, and delivery teams in all relevant areas. Departments can also consult the Government Office for Science (ari.comment@go-science.gov.uk) at any stage of the process regarding advice on how to write and publish the ARI or on how the department can approach and engage with external stakeholders.

The diagram above is not prescriptive and is meant as a guide to departments on all the groups of people that could be involved in the process of drafting an ARI. The actual process that individual departments go through will vary between them according to their needs and aims. Some departments choose to consult experts throughout the entire process whereas others will see departmental analyst and policy teams best placed to draft the initial research topics rather than the CSA’s office.

2.3 Involving government scientists, analysts, and policy teams in writing your ARI

When deciding on the topics and themes the ARI document will contain, it’s advantageous to consult government scientists, analysts, policy and delivery teams in the relevant areas at the start of the process. They are well placed in their roles to share their knowledge and expertise on the main current issues in department, their scientific context, and how they stem from department objectives, helping ensure that the ARI aligns with them. This also ensures that you create a network of interested people in department with a stake in the ARI and, when experts begin to contact the department post-publication, evidence around relevant ARIs can efficiently reach government scientists, analysts, and policy professionals to inform their work.

Building the capability amongst officials in a wide variety of roles to communicate with experts helps streamline the way research informs work in the department. Officials can directly reach out to experts when they need to procure evidence, using the ARI as a means of clearly communicating which departmental research interests they would like to address and giving their context and current state of play.

Case study 1: How to engage with academics - A guide for DWP staff

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have produced a staff guide on how to engage with academics for the benefit of policy, scientist or analyst, and various other roles in the department. The guide highlights for staff the benefits of engaging with academics and the wealth of expertise it provides access to. It also outlines:

• the methods the department uses to engage with academics
• the methods an individual in the department could use when reaching out to them for research
• general tips for engaging
• examples of how different professions in the department might engage as well as examples of letters they might send to academics

A staff guide such as this that is tailored to your department’s needs can open channels of communication through a department to allow relevant evidence to efficiently inform decisions. It helps staff to be aware of the methods at their disposal when sourcing expert advice and evidence, ensuring their work is well informed and in line with current research and the latest methodologies.

2.4 Involving academics and their stakeholders in writing your ARI

Many departments work directly with academics, or with intermediaries such as the National Academies, the What Works Centres, or other knowledge brokers. Academics and other stakeholders can be engaged after publishing an ARI to procure evidence around research topics but also early on when initially formulating those research topics. Involving academics and other stakeholders during the early stages of the document can help in framing the ARIs in the style and context that academics will find familiar and clear, further encouraging them to engage. Early involvement such as this can also allow academics to help identify where there may already be evidence on a specific ARI therefore making preparation of an evidence synthesis and a roundtable discussion more appropriate than perhaps commissioning new research.

2.5 Clarifying the priority level of ARIs

The individual ARIs in your document should be assigned a clear priority level, influenced by the priority level of the departmental objectives from which they are derived. It is helpful to indicate the timeframe within which each research topic needs to be addressed. After consulting with relevant teams in department, as well as academics, the final approval on the priority of research topics should be given by the CSA.

2.6 How to refresh an ARI

A department’s ARI document should be updated regularly to reflect shifts in departmental priorities and objectives. In 2019, the ‘Government Science Capability Review (SCR)’ recommended that departments do this annually. However, publishing a new document every year may not be feasible for many departments so slightly longer periods might be needed. Departments should ideally aim to begin the process of reviewing their ARIs a year after their last publication.

The CSA’s team (alongside other relevant teams) should aim to identify which ARI research topics are no longer necessary or a priority, making most refreshes relatively quick and light-touch. More detailed refreshes of the ARI may be required when departmental objectives change, usually after a spending review. The research interests that make their way into the ARI during the refresh should be those identified as being priorities for that year. The process of refreshing an ARI should go through the same stages of consultation and clearance as the initial publication.

3. How to publish an ARI

ARI documents are owned and published by departments. The ARI needs to go through the appropriate clearance processes in department and, once cleared by ministers, you should book a grid slot for your ARI publication via your departmental communications team. Once the ARI has been fully approved within your department, you should contact the ARI team in Government Office for Science (ari.comment@go-science.gov.uk) so that they can upload it on the ARI Collection page on GOV.UK.

Publicising the ARI document to members of the academic community and its stakeholders, such as the National Academies, maximises opportunities for engagement around the research topics. Social media, such as Twitter or LinkedIn, is a low resource, high impact way to Initially publicise the ARI. Departments can also request that the Government Office for Science communications team (goscomms@go-science.gov.uk) make a post on their social media accounts announcing the publication of the ARI document.

The published ARI should be circulated to all relevant teams in the department via newsletters and intranet communications, to embed the initiative and ensure that the ARI approach becomes a business-as-usual means of engaging with the external research community. We also recommend informing stakeholders in other departments, such as ARI teams and CSA offices when and where your ARI has been published to help foster a collaborative environment for cross government work around common research interests.

4. How to use ARIs

Departments may wish to utilise ARIs in different ways. They may use them to commission primary research or evidence syntheses, second fellows, hold roundtable discussions, or for other methods of engagement. ARIs act as a tool to communicate government research interests to external experts, encouraging a constructive dialogue around them. An ARI document can facilitate in inviting external specialists to bring their expertise to the attention of policy makers, helping uncover current and potential evidence relating to the ARIs. Experts can also help with the bigger picture and identify cross cutting ARI themes relevant to the current research landscape and the evidence gaps within these themes. Maintaining a dialogue with experts around your department’s ARIs also creates a network that remains interested in them, with some departments finding that it led to an increase in submissions for research grants directly related to their ARIs.

This section will limit its discussion to academic engagement, fostering cross government work, and influencing research funding. GOS is currently doing further work on optimising the use of ARIs that will build on this guidance.

4.1 How to find the right experts to engage with

Although experts from a variety of backgrounds, including industry, can be engaged using your ARI, this section will focus on how to find academic researchers to engage with. It is important to use multiple routes to find academics and other researchers in order to develop a diverse pool of experience to draw from. As well as diversity in gender, ethnicity and location, the academics consulted should be at various stages of their careers, bringing in a diversity of thought, perspective, and opinion. Knowledge exchange teams at HEIs (Higher Education Institutions) can be contacted directly to find academics to engage with. However, utilising other networks that span across universities can bring the diversity required. Ways in which to find academics relevant to your research interests include, but are not limited to:

• National Academies
• knowledge brokers
• arm’s length bodies
• Science Committees
• personal contacts

National Academies

The 4 leading National Academies are:

• The Royal Society
• The Royal Academy of Engineering
• The British Academy
• The Academy of Medical Sciences

As well as these, there also exist numerous other learned societies and professional bodies, such as the Academy of Social Sciences. All 4 National Academies and many other learned institutions and professional bodies engage strategically with government and work on shared projects with us where their interests overlap with ours; frequently by convening groups of relevant experts to tackle a current topic. GOS is developing that engagement and can introduce ARI teams to academy contacts where they have shared interests. Each academy has networks of academics and contacts in business and industry; to whom they may be willing to introduce government officials. In addition, each academy’s fellows are leading experts in their fields and may be willing to offer their expertise to government.

Knowledge brokers (and knowledge exchange teams)

These networks sit at the interface of those producing research and those using it, with an aim to develop relationships and expand networks between them. The Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) and the Open Innovation Team in Cabinet Office are 2 such networks that can put those in government in contact with academics with the appropriate skills and expertise. Knowledge exchange teams that sit in HEIs can be similarly approached by those in government and also aim to connect research users with the relevant research producers in their institutions. Their details can usually be found on the websites of their respective universities.

Arm’s length bodies (ALBs)

ALBs such as Public Sector Research Establishments (PSREs) and National Laboratories are publicly funded organisations that conduct research and disseminate that knowledge for the benefit of society and the economy. They will have network of researchers that can be contacted for their expertise when drafting ARIs and identifying evidence around them.

Science Committees

Science Committees and advisory groups in the department can act as a source of expert advice specifically on departmental research interests or help generate new thinking and gain a wider perspective on a research topic. Members of these groups would also themselves have a wealth of contacts in academia that can be approached for their expertise.

Personal contacts

Many officials within department will have a network of personal contacts in academia that those in department can take advantage of. These staff members include the CSA and their office, departmental heads of science, and evidence and analyst specialists, amongst others. Some of these academics will have research interests that align with those of the department and have the advantage that they may already be familiar with some departmental science needs. When selecting personal contacts to reach out to you should keep diversity in mind, allowing you to draw on a breadth of experience and perspective in any evidence gathering activities.

When contacting academic stakeholders, personal contacts are used by staff more frequently since they make for a quick and easy way to engage academics. However, less common sources of contacts (for example, knowledge broker networks) should also be used to reach unknown groups and those that are not already part of your network, capitalising on their potential expertise.

For example, UPEN connects university-based knowledge brokers and researchers with policy professionals and other research users working within government to promote the interchange of knowledge, talent, and people. UPEN is a member-led organisation representing over two-thirds of all higher education institutions in the United Kingdom and offers a ‘one-stop shop’ to promote academic-policy engagement opportunities. Working closely with a range of research-user communities and organisations, UPEN offers innovation-led training and support for knowledge exchange and policy engagement, through events, seminars, exchange opportunities, and special projects. UPEN also has an ARI subcommittee that can specifically facilitate collaboration in the design or communication of your ARI, offering their perspective on how to best showcase it to the research community. More information is available on the UPEN website and government officials can contact the secretariat with any questions by email (secretariat@upen.ac.uk).

Case study 2: Rebuilding a Resilient Britain: Using knowledge brokers to find academics

The ‘Rebuilding a Resilient Britain Programme’ in 2020 (see case study 4 for more detail) identified which research topics in ARIs across government were relevant to recovery from COVID-19 in the medium to long term and what evidence was available to address them. A working group was assembled for each of the 9 themes that the research topics were placed into to identify existing evidence and evidence gaps around them.

Members of working groups were chosen from a list of over 900 nominated academics with relevant expertise in the 9 working group themes, provided by UPEN member universities. Academics were chosen for the working groups based on their fit with the research topics. The large list to draw from facilitated the consideration of diversity within the working groups, relating to location, ethnicity, gender, and career stage.

The working groups successfully identified a wealth of evidence around the chosen ARI topics as well as evidence gaps where there was scope to direct future research, published in the in the ‘Evidence gaps and knowledge exchange opportunities paper’. Evidence gathering activities such as these foster relationships between government and the academic community and lead to academics being aware and invested in government research interests, opening the door for potential future collaboration and research.

4.2 Methods of academic engagement

Academics, other experts, and their stakeholders can be involved in activities to identify evidence around ARI research topics through various engagement mechanisms, each bringing its own benefits. Through a survey of CSA Officials in 2020, GOS identified that some common mechanisms used for engaging with academic stakeholders across government departments are:

1. Commissioning research – this could be new research or synthesis of existing research and included work commissioned through the Strategic Priorities Fund, European funding such as Horizon 2020, scoping and briefing, and the use of existing government data.

2. Investing in people – this was seen as a blend of knowledge production as well as building capability and networks through opportunities such as PhD internships, fellowships, and secondments.

3. Advisory systems – using existing relationships and networks such as advisory boards and structures and international partners.

4. Outreach – such as roadshows, visits, and events to build new connections with a wider science community.

5. Working with intermediaries – using existing structures such as the National Academies, Research Councils, UPEN and other academic networks to bring together academic researchers and their knowledge.

These interactions show that academic stakeholder engagement goes beyond simply commissioning research but to cultivating external relationships to build specialist capability and keep familiar with innovative and dynamic research landscapes.

Case study 3: DWP: Using ARIs to build wider research capability

DWP carried out a series of half day workshops at several UK Universities to disseminate their research questions to academics. They called this their ‘ARI Roadshow’. The universities which hosted these workshops included the Universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Sheffield, Manchester, Newcastle and Durham and further workshops planned for Universities of Leeds, Essex, Kent and East Anglia. The structure of the workshops was co-developed with members of the universities, but all included presentations and discussions with academics whose current research was relevant to the DWP ARIs; future work which DWP could contribute or advise on; and evaluating the ARI as a tool for fostering collaboration. The DWP ARI Roadshow has resulted in an expansion of DWP’s network of interested academics and the submission of research grants which related directly to research topics framed in the ARI.

Since the advent of the COVID-19 Pandemic, DWP have hosted 2 ARI workshops with academics online. The use of Microsoft Teams allowed them to run a session which took the format of talks from academics about their research interests, a Q&A session, and ‘breakout rooms’ to facilitate more in-depth conversation between smaller groups.

4.3 Cross-cutting ARI themes

ARIs can act as a powerful tool to foster cross-government work. They can be used to identify research interests that are shared by different government bodies and can help join efforts to gather new and existing evidence around common research themes. There are some cross-cutting themes that will be common across many departments such as Net Zero and Social Science. Departments can reach out to each other through the CSA Officials Network coordinated by GOS, to discuss potential common research themes.

Another common theme across departments that should be considered is National Security Risks, in particular those that your department may have on the National Security Risk Assessment. Some of these departmental risks could benefit from research, and research topics stemming from them should be considered for inclusion in the ARI.

Feedback from departments has shown that calling upon their academic networks, built through engagement with their ARI, allowed them to organise working groups to identify the current evidence and evidence gaps around these common research themes. Activities such as this can require some resource but can deliver incredible amounts of evidence in a short time, accelerating the pace of evidence-based decision and policy making.

Case study 4: Rebuilding a Resilient Britain: Identifying evidence for cross-cutting research themes

The Rebuilding a Resilient Britain (RRB) programme was launched in July 2020 and brought together researchers, funding bodies and policy makers. Its aims were to identify existing evidence and uncover gaps in this evidence around key research questions in cross-cutting ARI themes relevant to recovery from COVID-19 in the medium to long term.

Approximately 1,500 ARI questions were analysed to identify those relevant to recovery from COVID-19. Amongst these, 9 cross-cutting themes were identified and, with their relevance agreed upon by the CSAs and the Council for Science and Technology (CST), a working group was assembled for each theme to identify existing evidence and evidence gaps around the research questions.

Papers summarising the programme along with the wealth of evidence that was identified were published in February 2021. The evidence gaps uncovered across all the themes were also published in a paper, clearly highlighting where current research needed to be directed to best inform policy in the future. Through assembling the working groups, lasting connections and contacts were made, further facilitating engagement between the academic community and policy professionals. In addition, the chairs of many of the working groups came from various academic institutions, establishing reliable contacts in those institutions.

• Rebuilding a Resilient Britain: summary report
• Rebuilding a Resilient Britain: working group reports

4.4 Funding for research

By creating a network of academics that are aware of departmental research interests, some departments have noticed an increase in the number of submissions for research grants that related directly to departmental research interests. The Research Councils in the UK also look at the ARI documents of government departments as part of their process to allocate research funds, due to their consideration of which research will have the greatest public impact.

Departments do not always have the budget to fund large amounts of research. However, as discussed thoroughly in earlier sections of this document, an ARI can be used to convene experts to participate in activities to gather existing evidence around a research topic.

Depending on the number of requests for funding or endorsement that the department receives due to the ARI, it can sometimes be useful to highlight in your ARI document that it is not a list of funded research projects. It may be useful to reach out to your contacts in the research councils to discuss if there are any existing or upcoming investments relating to your ARIs. GOS can assist with access across UK Research & Innovation (UKRI).

5. Embedding your ARI in the departmental science system

The SCR recommends that departments embed their ARI into their overall science system, rather than it being an isolated document. A department’s science system, as defined by the SCR, is the system a department has for commissioning, understanding and using science and evidence. This includes people, organisational functions, and structures and should be articulated in a single document signed by the CSA and endorsed by the department’s Executive Committee. The SCR recommends that ARIs should be the central tool in promoting a culture of research and continuous learning in the civil service, placing an awareness of research at the centre of strategic policy thinking.

Further information on how your ARI should fit within the wider science system in department is available on pages 28 to 31 of the Government Science Capability Review.

6. Tracking the impact of ARIs

ARIs have impact for both department officials and researchers due to the 2-way dialogue they facilitate. Both fields benefit from the exchange of knowledge, with policy professionals able to make evidence informed decisions from the input of research, and researchers gaining insight on new policy issues and the societal impact that research around them would carry.

Departments should consider tracking the activities undertaken around individual ARIs. It can be challenging to clearly demonstrate impact on policy, but it may be possible to identify specific actions undertaken. If you have clearly identified what you want to happen around each ARI, you will be able to assess at each refresh whether that has been achieved. Examples of actions may include commissioning research, holding a policy roundtable, writing a briefing for your minister. Monitoring impact of ARIs will be valuable when it comes to refreshing the document to increase the effectiveness of future iterations. It can help decide which research areas have had the greatest impact and show the greatest potential for development, influencing where the departments research efforts are concentrated in subsequent years.

You may also wish to periodically review whether your ARIs have been cited or flagged in:

• research council tenders or other research funding tenders
• grant applications or awarded research funding
• working papers, grey literature, or academic publications

We recommend taking a qualitative approach as the most pragmatic way to evaluate impact and also recommend building in a consideration of long-term impact into your ARI management system.

For Academics, there is benefit for them if they can demonstrate and track the impact of their engagement. The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the UK’s system for assessing the quality of research in its HEIs and informs the allocation of public research funds across them. The REF considers the impact of research performed by academics at HEIs, with impact on public policy being a specific element that is investigated. It is important to give all your stakeholders feedback on what has been helpful, what has been used, and what they could do differently, as this both helps you keep track of impact, and helps stakeholders work with you more effectively in the future.