Key learnings from the KBA peer-to-peer sessions

The peer-to-peer sessions of the Knowledge Broker Academy provided opportunities for participants to reflect on their approaches to policy engagement and share insights through conversation.

There were three sessions. Each session produced valuable insights and learnings, revealing the complexity of academic-policy engagement and offering guidance for researchers aiming to make a meaningful impact. 

Session 1 insights: foundations of academic-policy engagement 

---

The first session introduced participants' specific policy engagement interests and created space for shared reflections on their experiences. Key takeaways included: 

• Intentionality and skill development: Participants underscored that academic-policy engagement requires intentionality, specific skill sets, and tailored support rather than occurring by accident. 
• Early alliance-building: The timing of engagement matters; building alliances with external partners during the research process, rather than waiting until findings are complete, was deemed crucial for establishing genuine partnerships. 
• Adaptive relationships: Engagement with policy partners is most effective when iterative, as such relationships must adapt to shifting personnel, evolving policy landscapes, and changes in organisational structure. 
• Value of expertise: Policymakers appreciate the time and resources saved by partnering with academics whose expertise aligns with policy needs. 
• Balancing speed and evidence: There is increasing pressure for rapid policy development, and meeting this demand requires structured support to ensure diverse perspectives are incorporated, avoiding over-reliance on well-known sources. 
• Diverse perspectives on problem-solving: Participants discussed the varying approaches to problem-solving between policymakers, who often prioritise solutions, and academics, who emphasise rigour and methodology. Bridging these differences requires clear, mutual understanding. 
• Engagement in high-interest areas: Engagement is more successful when focusing on areas of existing demand, though challenging established views necessitates additional investment and support. 

Session 2 insights: ethics and strategic alignment in engagement 

---

The second session deepened participants' understanding of the ethical dimensions of policy engagement, focusing on the implications of power dynamics and disparities in expertise. Key points of reflection included: 

• Balancing rigour with responsiveness: Participants identified the tension between maintaining academic rigour and meeting the fast-paced needs of policymakers, a challenge that requires careful balance. 
• Risk analysis in engagement: Effective academic-policy work involves identifying and communicating both the limitations of evidence and the risks associated with policy decisions, ensuring transparency from both sides. 
• Continuous dialogue: Ensuring that research answers the “right” questions involves sustained dialogue and iterative feedback throughout the engagement process. 
• Goal Alignment: Effective engagement starts with understanding the policymaker's objectives and matching them with the researcher’s insights, providing nuanced evidence that aligns with specific policy needs. 
• Preparedness for spontaneous opportunities: Policy engagement can often occur unexpectedly, emphasizing the importance of having accessible and actionable research evidence ready to inform urgent needs. 
• Public engagement as part of policy engagement: The discussion highlighted the interconnectedness of public policy and public engagement, with participants recognising that public understanding and support are crucial for promoting research-informed policy solutions. 

Session 3 insights: future applications and building lasting impact 

---

In the final session, participants reflected on their overall learning and discussed ways to incorporate these insights into future practices within UCL and beyond. Key reflections included: 

• Developing a shared language: The importance of cultivating a common language between researchers and policymakers was emphasized, as it enables clearer communication and fosters understanding across both communities. 
• Improving access to evidence: Participants noted that simply having evidence is insufficient; lack of access remains a barrier. Effective strategies include targeting relevant stakeholders early, selecting policy-focused publications, and translating research findings for broader audiences. 
• Navigating media influence: Recognising the intersections between policy and media helps researchers communicate findings effectively and understand how public messaging affects policy discourse. 
• Identifying evidence gaps: By understanding competing priorities within the policy sphere, researchers can pinpoint evidence gaps and identify opportunities to contribute new insights. 
• Building long-term relationships: Cultivating relationships without expecting immediate outcomes was seen as essential, as in times of crisis, established and trusted sources are likely to be prioritised for rapid decision-making.