The Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme in England: a mixed methods evaluation.

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Petra Mäkelä, Annette Boaz, Kathryn Oliver
{"title":"The Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme in England: a mixed methods evaluation.","authors":"Petra Mäkelä, Annette Boaz, Kathryn Oliver","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interventions to support engagement between academics and policy professionals have proliferated, yet little evidence is available to guide what works, how, or for whom.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>To evaluate the activities, outcomes and impacts of the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme and identify enabling conditions, using a modified framework for academic-policy engagement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Mixed methods evaluation across four intervention types (seed funding, policy fellowships, training, knowledge exchange events), between 2021 and 2024. We interviewed academics, research support staff and policy professionals (n=129), observed 32 activities, and distributed a survey (n=42, 27 per cent response rate). We analysed data using inductive and framework analyses.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>CAPE interventions focused at the linear (training) or relational (fellowships, seed funding and knowledge exchange) levels. Interventions led to outcomes in capacity-building, connectivity, conceptual and attitude change, and tacit knowledge development. Interventions were resource-intensive and required responsive intermediary skills, particularly fellowships. We found influencing factors at individual, organisation and system levels. The most experienced participants preferentially benefited from opportunities, potentially perpetuating or even exacerbating inequalities. We did not find evidence of impact on policy processes or outcomes.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>CAPE led to an increase in academic-policy engagement activities, mostly as linear and relational interventions. These generated costs as well as benefits and often advantaged individuals with significant prior experience of academic-policy engagement. Future academic-policy engagement interventions should consider motivations, capabilities, goals and resources at the individual and organisation levels, while using strategic planning and coordination to maximise their value, and address diversity and inclusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000050","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Interventions to support engagement between academics and policy professionals have proliferated, yet little evidence is available to guide what works, how, or for whom.

Aims and objectives: To evaluate the activities, outcomes and impacts of the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme and identify enabling conditions, using a modified framework for academic-policy engagement.

Methods: Mixed methods evaluation across four intervention types (seed funding, policy fellowships, training, knowledge exchange events), between 2021 and 2024. We interviewed academics, research support staff and policy professionals (n=129), observed 32 activities, and distributed a survey (n=42, 27 per cent response rate). We analysed data using inductive and framework analyses.

Findings: CAPE interventions focused at the linear (training) or relational (fellowships, seed funding and knowledge exchange) levels. Interventions led to outcomes in capacity-building, connectivity, conceptual and attitude change, and tacit knowledge development. Interventions were resource-intensive and required responsive intermediary skills, particularly fellowships. We found influencing factors at individual, organisation and system levels. The most experienced participants preferentially benefited from opportunities, potentially perpetuating or even exacerbating inequalities. We did not find evidence of impact on policy processes or outcomes.

Discussion and conclusions: CAPE led to an increase in academic-policy engagement activities, mostly as linear and relational interventions. These generated costs as well as benefits and often advantaged individuals with significant prior experience of academic-policy engagement. Future academic-policy engagement interventions should consider motivations, capabilities, goals and resources at the individual and organisation levels, while using strategic planning and coordination to maximise their value, and address diversity and inclusion.

英国学术政策参与能力(CAPE)项目:混合方法评估。
背景:支持学者和政策专业人员之间接触的干预措施已经激增,但几乎没有证据可以指导什么有效、如何有效或为谁有效。目的和目标:评估学术政策参与能力(CAPE)项目的活动、成果和影响,并使用修改后的学术政策参与框架确定有利条件。方法:在2021年至2024年间,对四种干预类型(种子基金、政策奖学金、培训、知识交流活动)进行混合方法评估。我们采访了学者、研究支持人员和政策专业人员(n=129),观察了32项活动,并分发了一份调查(n=42,回复率为27%)。我们使用归纳和框架分析来分析数据。研究结果:CAPE干预措施侧重于线性(培训)或关系(奖学金、种子基金和知识交流)水平。干预措施在能力建设、连通性、观念和态度改变以及隐性知识发展方面取得了成果。干预措施需要大量资源,需要反应迅速的中介技能,特别是研究金。我们发现了个人、组织和系统层面的影响因素。最有经验的参与者优先从机会中受益,这可能使不平等长期存在甚至加剧。我们没有发现对政策过程或结果有影响的证据。讨论和结论:CAPE导致学术政策参与活动的增加,主要是线性和关系干预。这些产生了成本和收益,并且往往有利于具有丰富学术政策参与经验的个人。未来的学术政策参与干预应考虑个人和组织层面的动机、能力、目标和资源,同时使用战略规划和协调来最大化其价值,并解决多样性和包容性问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信