Close
A group of Ofsted researchers and academics consider how to improve relations between research and policy.
A chain reaction conversation exploring a third space for education research and policy
Introduction
This ERP briefing note takes the form of a “chain reaction” conversation between Ofsted researchers and academics looking for constructive ways to embrace the tensions between policy and research, and bridge them. It is a bit like a game of tag in which one author picks up the topic and tags another to respond. In this way, the conversation is shaped collectively by the group rather than by a single individual. By reflecting on differences in the researcher role inside and outside of policy, the conversation is intended to enable research to speak to policy (and vice versa) in more productive ways.
Dr Charlotte Vidal-Hall, Research Lead at Ofsted
As education researchers we all want children to get the best education possible. However, tensions between education policy and research can make that harder to achieve and put up barriers between academic and government researchers. These tensions frequently revolve around the quality of research, its purpose and nature and can hinder evidence-informed improvement and positive change reaching classrooms. How can we navigate the contested space between these two groups of education researchers? We want to find new ways of working and create a ‘space’ in which we can come together to do this. We see Bhabha’s (1994) concept of a Third Space as one where we can find new ways of working that are not in opposition to one another. In this ‘Third space’, government research knowledge combines with academic knowledge to improve outcomes for pupils. It requires partners to make compromises to create something new through a process of collaboration, transformation and innovation. It is also a way to address the power relationships between different types of education research knowledge; their perceived quality and purpose.
Gemma, how do you think we could reset relations between research and policy?
Professor Gemma Moss, UCL
The first step in finding more productive ways of working together is to acknowledge the differences between academic and policymaking worlds (Head, 2008 See also Boswell and Smith, 2017; Cairney and Oliver, 2017; Hopkins et al, 2021; Oliver and Cairney, 2019)). In the academy, researchers are encouraged to build their careers in conversation with their peers. Conferences and publications establish strong networks between researchers working in the same specialist areas. They provide a key forum for testing out ideas and developing new lines of inquiry.
For many researchers, forging links with policymakers is peripheral to this. Many do not study “policy” as an environment in its own right – indeed it may not be part of their disciplinary lens. Instead, the drive for impact and influence written into the RAE/REF encourages an end of project “disseminate to” logic. Researchers wait until findings are secure then seek influence for them. Researchers imagine the strength of the evidence is key, not the ways in which findings align with (or disrupt) the dominant policy narratives of the time.
More productive conversations could arise from considering their timing and purpose: as policy choices are in progress and decisions being made; once a policy goal is already set – in which case, how circumscribed is the role of research? How limited the remit?
Once a direction in policy has been set, opportunities to challenge, revise or adapt strategies are not always easy to accommodate. Yet both research and policy benefit from open debate on what is working and what is not (Moss, 2024). Opportunities to identify gaps in current knowledge and consider a wider range of stakeholder views would help research and policy develop more strongly, with a greater chance of delivering in the interests of the common good.
Craig, do you see a disconnect between academic research and policy?
Dr Craig Skerritt, Lecturer in Education, University of Manchester
Yes, and to build on the points you make about many academic researchers not being too concerned about connecting with policy makers, I would add that academic literature is not typically produced at the speed needed by policy makers and can sometimes contain overblown claims and unfounded recommendations.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that policy makers are not always interested in utilising academic research — they have their own values, beliefs, experiences and motivations which often inform their decisions, not academic literature. Certain kinds of knowledge and evidence, predominantly emanating from influential individuals, groups and organisations outside of academia, tend to be privileged and cherrypicked. There is also often a lack of subject-matter expertise in ministries, among both politicians and civil servants — in an education ministry, it is unlikely that most staff will have strong backgrounds in education.
I echo your suggestion that there is a need for more open debate and diverse perspectives — I would argue that dissenters are even needed in policy making! There should therefore be no political interference in academic researchers’ policy advice.
Academic researchers and policy makers do different work and work differently but there can be misconceptions, which my generalisations may add to. It would be interesting to now hear more from someone who has worked in both spaces.
Joe, as an academic who was previously seconded to Ofsted, what is your “inside” view on this?
Dr Joe Mintz, Associate Professor in Education, UCL
Being on secondment was a rare opportunity to come as an outsider and see how government works on the inside. I learnt a lot from colleagues at Ofsted during my time there, and it was great to be able to see the influence of the work that I did with colleagues in Ofsted's research and evaluation team on policy development. In my time on secondment, one of the things I realised is that the Civil Service has its own culture, values and specific mission, which of course is to realise the aims of the democratically elected government. Although the nuts-and-bolts practice of research has many similarities, with similar commitments to research quality for example, the timescales, pacing and role of research within the Civil Service, which is to help government with its objectives, is in many ways different to academia. Having said that, research everywhere takes place in the context of a set of assumptions, constraints and motivations, in both government and academia (Mintz, 2025). In many ways, government and academia already share a lot with respect to their research functions, particularly sharing an overarching aim to make positive changes for society, but perhaps the cultural differences too often get in the way.
Verena, we talked about this a lot during my time at Ofsted. What are your “inside” views as someone leading research within government?
Dr Verena Braehler, Deputy Director Research and Evaluation, Ofsted
Speaking as a civil servant, we are acutely aware of the disconnect between academic research and policy and we are keen to bridge that gap. In fact, the roughly 2,400 members of the Government Social Research profession often try being that bridge between what policy departments need and what academic research can provide. In addition to commissioning academic research, having academic secondments like Joe, we also have academic advisory groups, peer reviewers, or help with career events at universities.
But there is so much more we could do! For example, conversations like this one really help in creating a deeper understanding of what parameters each party is dealing with. In the Civil Service, we do not set the research agenda as individuals, and we don’t publish as independent authors either. The research priorities are governed by the organisation and we publish as “one voice” (i.e. Ofsted). Those of us working as social researchers within government play a key role in promoting and championing the use of evidence and research within public bodies and government departments, but we are also mindful that we are just one voice around the table when ministers or senior leaders take decisions. Sometimes, the evidence we present can conflict with policy, legal and operational views, for example interventions that work could be too costly. There is also something we have a lot of – bureaucracy – which helps to ensure fairness and value for money, and something we have very little of – time.
That’s why I’m happy we found the time to come together and think about how we can create this ‘Third space’ that would help us overcome tensions between academic research and policy. I have learned a lot from the rest of you already and I hope we find more opportunities where we can take the best of both worlds to find new solutions, thank you.
Conclusion
This conversation first took place at the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association in 2024, and won a BERA Educational Research and Educational Policy-Making SIG award for best presentation that year. The discussion throws some light on the differences in working context that help determine whether and how research evidence is mobilised and used to inform policymaking. The contributors identified constraints as well as opportunities in both settings. By publishing this briefing note we hope to encourage others to consider how these tension points can best be bridged.
Author: Charlotte Vidal-Hall, Gemma Moss, Craig Skerritt, Joe Mintz & Verena Braehler
Date: September 2024
To join the debate
This series of briefing notes invites readers to consider whether education has yet settled on the most productive ways for policymakers, researchers and other stakeholders in education to interact. We welcome further contributions debating the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches.
