Guidance

Writing and using Areas of Research Interest

Updated 8 November 2024

1. Introduction 

The aim of this guidance is to provide general information to government organisations on the scope, development, and use, of an Areas of Research Interest (ARI) document and to support the ARI official(s)’ management of research interests. For additional support and advice, government organisations should contact the Government Office for Science (GOS) ARI engagement team. 

Background 

The Independent Review of Research, Development and Innovation Organisation (RDI) Landscape recommended that “for effective engagement with the research community, there is a need for a comparable cross-Government statement regarding Government’s overall R&D needs, which spans the full range of Government Departments” (Nurse, 2015). 

This approach was implemented as part of the government Science Capability Review (SCR, 2019), through recommendation 2 that all departments publish Areas of Research Interest (ARI) documents, with a view to encouraging extra-mural activity and collaborations and the commissioning of key R&D. The SCR (2019) also called for mechanisms to facilitate engagement between the Research Councils, other funders, and government.  

Since 2017, ARI documents have been implemented across various government organisations, such as ministerial departments, non-ministerial departments, devolved administrations, agencies, and non-departmental public bodies. As of 2024, more than 24 government organisations have produced at least one ARI publication. In September 2023, the new ARI Database launched to provide a searchable platform for all government ARI questions. ARIs were referenced in the 2023 updates on the Independent Review of RDI and in the Government’s response (section 2D). 

1.1 What is an ARI document? 

An ARI document sets out research ‘topics’ and ‘questions’ which articulate the research interests of government organisations. The publication of research questions intends to promote collaboration, partnerships, and broader engagement with relevant academic and industry experts, and across government organisations. The document includes background information on the research topics, and related question(s), which are integral to the achievement of an organisation’s medium- to long-term objectives.  

The update or refresh of an ARI often coincides with the organisation’s review of medium to long-term objectives and science systems. The SCR progress update (2024) noted how the Science and Evidence Systems (SES) document (recommendation 1) and ARI document (recommendation 2) help to build a shared vision for the science community within a government department and promote greater collaboration and coordination across departments. 

The development of an ARI can assist organisations with the identification, engagement, and uptake of high-quality research and innovation, to enhance science advice mechanisms across government. The ARI should function as a catalyst for engagement and collaboration to enhance evidence and knowledge exchange across the UK. The expected engagement and collaboration could be through original research, the systematic use of resources generated by previous studies, and/or research skills for analysis (Nurse, 2015). If aspects of the ARI are associated with government R&D, through funding or collaboration opportunities, this should be communicated in the ARI publication and/or engagement activities. 

1.2 Who uses ARI documents? 

The ARI publication is used both internally and externally. 

Internally, organisations across government can produce an ARI to articulate their medium and long-term evidence needs, and to benefit from additional evidence, expertise, and research insights, which could inform policy and practice. In this guidance, the term “government organisation” is used to capture the range of government bodies that include, but may not be limited to, ministerial departments, non-ministerial departments, devolved administrations, agencies and, where relevant, various arm’s-length bodies (ALBs). If you are unsure whether an ARI is appropriate for your government organisation, please contact the Government Office for Science ARI engagement team. 

Externally, ARIs are used by academic and industry experts, communities, networks, and institutions to identify where their expertise could be of value and how they can engage further with relevant government organisations.  

Where applicable, collaboration across government organisations is encouraged. The Rebuilding a Resilient Britain programme (2020) used ARIs to identify cross-cutting themes and provide a platform for engagement. The programme’s reports highlight how ARIs can be used to develop external evidence base and government science capability.  

1.3 What is the ARI Cycle?  

The ARI cycle expects that an ARI publication will be used for academic/expert engagement over a medium to long-term period (i.e., 3 +/- years), where no significant changes occur to the organisation’s interests. This cycle starts with the internal consultations and development of the ARI content, through to the early refresh or full closure of the ARI document.  

Organisations can amend time frames to align with their organisational structure and can evaluate roles and responsibilities at their own discretion. The GOS ARI engagement team can provide additional advice and support.  

2. Key roles and responsibilities 

This section sets out the key roles and responsibilities involved in the ARI cycle. The SCR (2019) advised that government bodies embed ARIs into their internal science systems i.e., research and evidence commissions, synthesis, and application. The roles and responsibilities in this section support the SCR recommendation to ensure ARIs are a tool to promote a culture of research and continuous learning in the Civil Service, which can be adapted to the organisation’s resources and ways of working. 

For departments, further information on how your ARI should fit within the wider science system is available in the Government Science Capability Review.  

2.1 GOS: ARI engagement team  

The Government Office for Science (GOS) is led by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) – Professor Dame Angela McLean. GOS manages the guidance and additional resources which assist organisations, such as the ones listed in 1.2, throughout the ARI cycle.  

The ARI engagement team manage queries and provide consultation on the scope, aim, and purpose of ARIs, the ARI database, and host an ARI officials Network. The ARI engagement team regularly share ARI updates, liaise on upcoming events, and explore cross-cutting government research interest themes. GOS supports ARI officials through collaboration and engagement with the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) and the four National Academies (Academy of Medical Sciences, British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering, and the Royal Society). The ARI engagement team also facilitate regular monitoring and review of ARI guidance, resources, and opportunities for collaboration.  

The GOS ARI engagement team should be kept up to date on publication, communications, and engagement activities, and can provide support to ARI officials. 

2.2 ARI official(s) 

An ARI official is the organisation’s appointed ARI lead(s) who helps to ensure the ARI publication project is planned, tracked, and monitored. The ARI official role varies dependent on the organisation’s structure and available resource. Broadly, ARI officials help to ensure relevant stakeholders collaborate in the development, academic engagement, and evidence synthesis required for research topics and questions. ARI officials keep sight of their organisation’s ARI queries, communications, and engagement activities, and connect internal and external stakeholders where relevant.  

ARI officials can be appointed from relevant teams within the organisation, such as policy, analysis, evidence, evaluation, or research teams, and where applicable, the CSA’s office. GOS advises that organisations with a CSA appoint an ARI official who has a close relationship, or works within, the CSA’s office, to ensure the ARI is seamlessly co-developed with the CSA.  

The ARI official receives advice and support through regular engagement with the GOS ARI engagement team and the network of ARI officials. 

2.3 Chief Scientific Adviser’s (CSA’s) office / delegated equivalent 

CSA or deputies (d/CSA): have a vital role in the development and approval of their department’s ARIs. CSAs can use ARIs to help identify and share good practice on the use of scientific advice in policymaking, and to facilitate communication around high-profile issues, including those posing new challenges for government. Where applicable, ARIs should be co-developed by Chief Scientific Advisers, Heads of Analysis, and Heads of Policy Profession in departments, to put scientific thinking at the centre of departmental processes, such as policy and operations, as recommended in the Science Capability Review (2019). 

To ensure ARIs are embedded as a consistent advice mechanism, GOS recommends that final approval and sign-off is the responsibility of the CSA. Departmental protocols on publication requirements should then be followed, including, where applicable, ministerial review. Where an ARI is produced by an ALB or organisation within a department’s remit, GOS advises that best practice would be to agree, in advance, the level of involvement of the sponsoring department’s CSA.  

Delegated equivalent: where organisations do not have a CSA, they should consult role equivalents for Heads of Analysis and Heads of Policy Profession. If applicable, these organisations should consult with the ARI official of their sponsoring department to gather advice on the suitability of a distinct document and to agree on delegated authority for the organisations’ ARIs. If an organisation has no relevant CSA to delegate, GOS advises that the Head of Analysis or role equivalent should provide final approval and sign-off. 

2.4 Government scientists / analysts / policy professionals 

Government scientists, analysts, policy professionals, and, if applicable, evidence/insight/research directorates are examples of subject-matter experts who help define areas of interest. These directorates are the key internal stakeholders who provide knowledge and expertise on the research interests of the organisation and identify where additional research and/or evidence would be valued. These directorates should evidence how the ARIs relate to key objectives of the organisation and, if applicable, can indicate time frames over which ARIs are relevant. 

Once these relevant internal stakeholders have been consulted and the research interests have been developed, the CSA, or other delegate, should provide final review and approval of the research topics, questions, and priority level. The internal stakeholders should work closely with the ARI official throughout all stages of the ARI cycle.  

3. What content to include in an ARI document 

This section provides brief guidance on the content of an ARI document to help enhance the clarity and consistency of ARI publications produced by organisations. The ARI document should broadly include: 

1. Executive Summary / Purpose 

2. Areas of research interest 

3. Topic  

4. Question(s) 

5. Working with us / Get in touch. 

6. Desired tools, methods, and disciplinary approaches (Optional) 

7. Appendices or supplementary materials (Optional) 

ARI document templates are available via the GOS ARI engagement team, alongside further advice on the format of an ARI publication. The template is a simple example of the above contents and organisations are asked to consider clarity and accessibility when adapting their document.  

The roles and responsibilities set out in section 2 advise that an ARI official be assigned to help coordinate the ARI production and ensure stakeholder consultations occur throughout the ARI cycle.  

Details of each section of an ARI document are outlined below. 

3.1 Executive Summary / Purpose 

The ARI introduction section can include:  

• Purpose: to explain the purpose of the ARI document, goals of the organisation and the potential influence and important impact in the UK.  

• Context: to provide a brief description of the organisation, recent challenges, and relevant areas of focus.  

• Relevance: to highlight key benefits of research interest engagement to stakeholders, such as delivery of government missions, value to the public, possible academic and industry impacts. 

3.2 ARI topics and questions 

The ARI topics and questions should consist of the following: 

• ARI topics: must be identified across the directorate/group areas of focus, usually grouped by core themes. If necessary, sub-topics can be applied where portfolios are broad. Organisations should liaise amongst evidence, analysis, and/or research teams (or equivalent) to establish the ARI topic areas. Topics require a relevant heading and concise background information which outlines the importance and relevance of the area, to provide context for the research questions that follow.  

• ARI questions: must be grouped in the relevant topics and, where possible, articulated for academic audiences. The questions are often produced by relevant internal directorates. Some organisations may choose to refine research interests to be published by setting a priority level. GOS recommends consultations with academic networks, internal or external, be used to help the organisation formulate questions suited for academic audiences.  

3.3 Working with us / Get in touch 

To ensure that the ARI questions can engage experts and demonstrate value from networking and events, organisations are advised to include the section ‘working with us’. This can be an overview of the intended engagement, and/or used to describe current engagement successes and anticipated engagement outcomes, such as:  

• Current engagement: provides information on existing expert networks across industry, academia, or other departments and arm’s-length bodies, to highlight the benefit and impact of engaging with academics.  

• Anticipated engagement: defines disciplinary areas, approaches, and/or stakeholders, who are relevant to the organisation’s ARIs. Organisations should outline the expected value and/or impact of research evidence on policy or practice related to research interest topic areas, to encourage relevant academics to engage.  

If applicable, organisations should provide clear instructions on how academics can get in touch, ways of working with the organisation, and clearly communicate where R&D commissions would be available.  

GOS recommends that organisations use an ARI-dedicated mailbox to help manage relevant correspondence once the ARI has been published. Further details are in section 4.  

3.4 Desired tools, methods, and disciplinary approaches 

The tools, methods, and disciplinary approaches section is an optional section where the organisation can specify requirements for the research approaches, techniques, or methods. Some organisations use this section to provide additional information on ARIs, such as sub-disciplines relevant to specific research interests, and data or evidence preferences (i.e., qualitative/quantitative). This section can be incorporated into, or instead of, anticipated engagement. 

3.5 Appendices (supplementary materials) 

Organisations can provide supplementary information that might be considered necessary to support the articulation of ARIs. This also includes outlining engagement/funding opportunities, further information about objectives, or information about the various directorates and their functions.  

4. How to publish and communicate an ARI 

This section provides advice on where an ARI document, topics, and questions can be published, and recommends communication approaches to help advertise interests to relevant expert networks.  

4.1 Publishing ARIs 

The following outlines how to publish the ARI once approved for release. Please ensure you consult with GOS ARI engagement team and your organisation’s communications team ahead of the publication date.  

• Organisation website: Once the ARI document has received the appropriate levels of sign-off (as set by the organisation), it must be published on the organisation’s website. ARI officials should coordinate the publication upload with their internal communications teams. The organisation’s relevant CSA office and the ARI officials’ network should be kept up to date on the publication of the ARI document, and where applicable, help foster cross-government collaboration.  

• GOS ARI collections: Provide GOS with a link to the published ARI to upload to the GOS ARI collections page. GOS will archive an organisation’s previous ARI publications on the collections page simultaneously. Please consult with the GOS ARI engagement team regarding your publication date to ensure this is coordinated.  

• ARI database: Organisations must upload the ARIs to the ARI database once published. The GOS ARI engagement Team will provide further guidance on how to upload ARIs to the database. 

4.2 Communication of ARI publication 

The below communications and initial engagement options are recommendations; however, organisations must check their internal communication frameworks and gather advice from their communications team. 

• Organisation’s communications: ARI publication should be communicated on the organisation’s social media sites and to existing stakeholders. The published ARI should be circulated to relevant internal stakeholders via newsletters and intranet communications to raise awareness.  

• GOS communications: GOS provides additional communication via social media platforms and internal networks. 

• Launch events: Some organisations arrange launch events to showcase the ARI topics and questions to universities, academic networks, or expert communities. Depending on the range of ARI topics and volume of ARI questions, organisations may choose to host a launch event per research topic to ensure focused engagement. Launch events should be tracked and monitored via the recommended ARI mailbox and shared with the GOS ARI engagement team.  

• Other stakeholder communications: Stakeholders, such as the National Academies, UKRI, UPEN, Science Advisory Committees/Councils (SACs) and other relevant ALBs, can be approached for additional communications if relevant. GOS ARI engagement team can provide advice and support for ARI officials.  

• ARI Mailbox: It is recommended that departments create an ARI engagement mailbox to communicate, organise, and track correspondence on ARIs. Sub-folders can be created to arrange correspondence by research topic and/or question, and the mailbox calendar can be used to track engagement activities, collaborations, and evidence synthesis contributions.  

5. How to use a published ARI  

This section guides ARI officials and their organisation on the types of engagement and post-publication activities which aim to increase the value of the ARI by enhancing the dialogue with relevant experts.  

5.1 Methods of academic engagement 

There is a broad range of ARI engagement mechanisms which can increase science advice and capability in government. Organisations should maintain an open dialogue with experts around their ARI topics and can adapt their methods of engagement as appropriate. Common methods of engaging with academics around research interests include but are not limited to:   

• Events and outreach: ARI launch roadshows via academic institute visits, policy-themed events, roundtables, workshops, and university policy office outreach, to build new connections, networks, or partnerships with a diverse range of experts. 

• Collaborating with intermediaries: Use of relevant academic networks and organisations dedicated to policy engagement, such as the National Academies, UKRI, UPEN, and more, to bring together academics, and government organisations. Collaborate on cross-cutting areas with various other government departments through the ARI officials’ network.  

• Investing in people: Opportunities to enhance knowledge production, capabilities, and networks can be achieved through organisational opportunities, such as PhD internships, fellowships, and secondments.  

• Collaborative research: This could be new research collaboration between the organisation and research groups. Collaboration can be in-cash, if the organisation has R&D funds available, or in-kind, if the organisation is able to contribute data access, insight, or other applicable non-financial resource. 

To learn more about existing ways academics engage with Government, please read GOS Routes for engaging with Government. GOS recommends that engagement activities and their outcomes are tracked and monitored, taking into account both direct and indirect impacts. The UK Parliament Research impact on policy briefing (2021) provides high-level information on the policy landscape and how research can impact on policy. This briefing recognises the broad range of engagement mechanisms which increase science advice and capability in government.  

The relevant internal stakeholders involved in the ARI development should engage and consult on ARI activities throughout the ARI cycle. 

5.2 Identifying relevant experts 

This section outlines some of the ways an organisation can proactively identify a diverse range of experts, to enhance engagement with new and existing contacts from academic communities, networks, and experts, on specific ARI topics and questions.  

• Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN): This member-led organisation represents over two-thirds of all higher education institutions (HEIs) in the United Kingdom and offers a ‘one-stop shop’ to promote academic-policy engagement opportunities. As part of its policy engagement, it offers a variety of essential services to assist government organisations in engagement with academics, and evidence-informed policy development. These services include hosting knowledge exchange meetings, placements and secondments, evidence synthesis, and various training for civil servants. UPEN has an ARI subcommittee that often works with organisations to showcase ARIs to the research community. 

• UKRI-funded research and experts: GOS advises that organisations use platforms such as UKRI Gateway to Research (UKRI GtR) to identify existing research and experts relevant to their ARI. The ARI database identifies active and completed research projects posted on UKRI GtR and highlights if research is relevant to published ARI questions. 

• National Academies: the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering, and the Royal Society engage strategically with government, collaborate on projects where interests overlap, and frequently convene relevant experts to tackle priority topic areas. Each academy’s fellows are leading experts in their fields and often offer their expertise to government. GOS assists with networks to engage with the four National Academies.  

• Other knowledge brokers: A range of knowledge brokers (and knowledge exchange teams) exist across the UK government and public sector. For example, the Open Innovation Team in Cabinet Office is a knowledge broker that can help identify relevant academics. Knowledge exchange teams in HEIs can help connect government organisations to the relevant research projects in their institutions. The contact details for HEI knowledge exchange teams can usually be found on the university website.  

• Colleges of Experts: expert groups are hosted by some departments, such as DCMS and DfT, and convene external experts from across academia and industry. 

6. How to review, refresh, and close an ARI 

The steps in this section seek to clarify how ARI questions can be regularly reviewed and refreshed, and when an ARI document should be drawn to a close. 

6.1 Regular reviews and refresh 

ARI outcomes should be proactively monitored to track the progression and development of the organisation’s research interests.  

Organisations are advised to take a qualitative approach when reviewing the impacts of ARIs, and if relevant, organisations can create quantitative datasets using the ARI database data download. The ARI review should track mutually beneficial knowledge exchanges that have enhanced evidence and findings available to policy professionals, alongside other impacts referenced in section 5.1. GOS advises that organisations consider ways in which they can provide recognition throughout the ARI cycle of the societal impacts of the academic research and valuable expertise gathered to highlight the benefit of engagement.  

If necessary, updates can be made on the ARI database where questions have developed, and amendments are required. Changes to topic background or heading might be limited, and where significant amendments are required, organisations should refer to ‘early closure’ in section 6.2.  

6.2 Closure of an ARI 

When closing an ARI, the existing questions and topics must be archived on the ARI database. Please contact GOS to archive once the organisation has agreed that the research interest must be updated. 

• Regular closure: should align with the review of medium- to long-term objectives (3+/- years), and the ARI cycle should be adapted around other relevant reviews i.e. outcome delivery plans and spending reviews.  

• Early closure: can occur where significant changes are made to an organisation’s objectives i.e., changes in the machinery of government (MoG). The existing ARI should be archived as soon as applicable. 

GOS recommends that organisations provide a summary statement when archiving an ARI publication. This statement can either reflect on the value of ARI engagement activities as part of a regular closure or clarify how a development in objectives has prompted an early closure. The statement should be uploaded as a final update to the organisation’s GOV.UK ARI publication page. The outcomes should be summarised and reported to relevant stakeholders, such as GOS, academic networks, CSA Network, Science Advisory Committees, and research funders. Organisations are encouraged to recognise contributions from academics and experts in the summary statement/report. Please see the MoJ case study in section 7, and see an example closure statement on the MoJ ARI publication webpage. 

When an ARI is approaching closure, the organisation should return to the start of the ARI cycle to produce a new publication and can use its ARI outcomes to inform the development of new ARIs. 

7. ARI Case Study 

This section provides an example of an ARI review and closure from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). 

7.1 MoJ Areas of Research Interest (ARI) and Partnerships Strategy 

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Evidence and Partnerships (EP) Hub was founded in 2020 with the strategic aim to enhance the use and impact of external evidence and expert collaborations. The Hub identified the cross-government Areas of Research Interest (ARI) initiative as the best vehicle to enable collaboration with academia. It undertook a comprehensive assessment of the evidence landscape, in consultation with partners across MoJ, and published an ARI reflective of the department’s medium-term strategic priorities in 2020.  

The ARI was just the first step within a broader Partnerships Strategy to meaningfully focus collaboration with the research community, underpinned by advice and support structures for colleagues, networking opportunities, knowledge exchange events, and resources and guidance. 

Throughout 2021, using the ARI publication as a foundation, the Hub ran a programme of over 20 engagement events, wrote external blogposts and recorded a podcast, to generate interest in collaboration with MoJ. This led to the establishment of an Academic Network of over 350 experts to reach out to for help in tackling specific evidence-based challenges. The Hub also formed key partnerships with UK Research and Innovation and the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) project, to develop knowledge exchange activities and partnerships to address critical evidence gaps in collaboration with academics. It also founded a monthly online academic seminar series. 

From 2022 the Hub began to reap the benefits of this investment and collaboration. Its hugely successful seminars typically see around 100 colleagues from across MoJ join to hear the latest research findings that explore priority ARI evidence gaps. It secured over £3m of external funding that has enabled over 50 research projects. It facilitated embedding PhD students on three-month analytical placements and year-long academic fellows with impactful research programmes across priority policy areas.  

The Hub has significantly strengthened the MoJ’s strategic research capabilities with collaborative working that is unprecedented between UK government and academia. This view is shared externally: “Where it works best are where departments have dedicated teams whose job it is to engage with expertise outside of government. The MoJ has one and they are brilliant.” – Sarah Chaytor, Director of Strategy & Policy at UCL. 

In 2024 the Hub published a closure statement on its ARI publication page (see ‘Details’ section) that reflects this journey and the impact they have realised from the ARI. This demonstrates the power that an ARI can have when elevated to more than just a publication and used as a genuine way to enable government-academic knowledge exchange. 

If you’re interested in finding out more then get in touch with the Hub: evidence_partnerships@justice.gov.uk. 

8. References  

Government Science Capability Review (SCR). 2019. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dc14375e5274a4aa8117965/a_review_of_government_science_capability_2019.pdf   

Government Science Capability Review (SCR): progress update. 2024. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-science-capability-review/a-review-of-government-science-capability-progress-update-9-january-2024   

Independent review of the research, development and innovation (RDI) organisational landscape: final report and recommendations. 2023. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6409fda2d3bf7f02fef8832b/rdi-landscape-review.pdf   

Independent review of the research, development and innovation (RDI) organisational landscape: government response. 2023. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/655e2a2f1b00a6000d58e60a/evolution_of_rdi-organisation-landscape-government-response.pdf   

Nurse, P. 2015. Nurse review of research councils. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nurse-review-of-research-councils   

Rebuilding a resilient Britain collection. 2021. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/rebuilding-a-resilient-britain   

UK Parliament. 2021. Research Impact on Policy. Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/assets/teams/post/research_impact_on_policy_briefing_document_june21.pdf