Research Impact Agenda and New Boundaries of Science and Politics

The recent decades have brought about a series of changes in the relationship between science and policy and politics in the UK. On the one hand, the policymakers are expected to increase the use of research in order to produce “evidence-based policy”. On the other hand, as a result of so-called impact agenda, the academics are expected to present ways in which their research has had an “impact” on policies. Based on over 50 interviews with the UK academics and policymakers, this paper will explore how the expectation of increased engagement has influenced the interactions between the two groups, in terms of their understandings of their work and everyday practices. One concept that could be helpful in unpacking this complexity is that of boundaries. The existing STS and policy studies literature sees boundaries as not only rhetorical structures (Gieryn, 1983) but are also institutional and material (Bijker, Bal, & Hendriks, 2009). I will mobilise this view on boundaries in order to explore the multiplicity of different types of boundary work employed by both policymakers and academics. I will discuss two main strategies for boundary management – one of blurring the boundaries between science and policy and one of setting new boundaries in order to legitimise the co-existence of different epistemological traditions. These different boundary strategies are not inconsequential, as they have determined the types of policy impacts that could be achieved. Finally, I will discuss the influence of the calls of increased engagement between academics and policymakers on the notion of academic autonomy, particularly the expectation of academics to be ‘critical outsiders’ while simultaneously engaging in blurring the boundaries.