What does a lack of institutional memory mean for the potential impact of academic- policy engagement activities such as Policy Fellowships?

Written by Alice Tofts, UCL Public Policy, Policy Fellowships Coordinator

Civil servants or policy professionals working in central Government and Local Authorities often move between roles and departments. The impact of this mobility on academic policy engagement is becoming increasingly clear. A large part of academic policy engagement relies on building networks and partnerships between researchers and policy professionals. Of course, academics also move on to new universities or even move out of academia, but this typically happens to a lesser extent, and when it does, academics usually stay within a similar field, perhaps with different research interests.

This short-termism is often blamed for a lack of institutional memory within Whitehall. Institutional memory refers to a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences, and knowledge held by a group of people.[1] From my experience working in policy engagement units, a lack of institutional memory can lead to a range of challenges.

One of the key challenges is evidencing the impact on ways of thinking. While not all engagement with policy actors directly influences policy, some conversations or research evidence may shift a policy actor’s perspective on the issue at hand. However, when it comes time to write a REF case study several years after engaging with a policy advisor, tracing the long-term impact of that interaction on their policy recommendations can be both time-consuming and, at times, impossible. This makes it difficult to capture and demonstrate the subtle yet significant influence that these engagements may have had on shaping policy thinking over time.

So, what does this mean for the efficacy of Policy Fellowships?

· The outputs of a Policy Fellowship may not be used for their intended purpose.

· The momentum behind a policy issue can be lost.

· Confusion over ownership of a policy issue or network can lead to it being left dormant, with individuals fearing they might step on others’ toes.

The final point emphasises the important yet complex issue surrounding Arising Intellectual Property (ARI) that may emerge during the Fellowship. ARI refers to any intellectual property created as a result of the Fellowship. When ARI is owned by a single partner organisation, such as the Policy Host, there is a risk that Fellows may be unable to access the material they helped produce.

This issue has been observed with some of our academics who generated outputs during Fellowships with Government Departments. For various reasons, these outputs were not available for use in the intended context. Fellows, eager to apply the produced material in their own research or teaching, have found themselves unable to do so, especially as staff transitions within organisations often result in lost access to the material they contributed to.

Personnel movement can be equally prevalent in Local Authorities. One UCL Fellow has reflected on the frequent movement of Council staff between teams and organisations, but rather than seeing this negatively, they noted that Fellows can act as repositories of knowledge, bridging old teams with new ones by updating them on the priorities and knowledge that a council had some time ago but on a specific and relevant issue.

Indeed, in a blog post on conceptualising institutional memory, Nick Cosstick, Policy Researcher at the Centre for Science and Policy at the University of Cambridge, writes that the large number of third-party actors involved in government means institutional memory is now dispersed across a much broader network.[2] One such network could be that of Fellowships. How can we best leverage the intuitional memory held by Fellows to share and preserve knowledge within Government or Local Authorities? Here are some tips:

1. Fellows should be given as much exposure as possible to members of the Policy Host team, actively sharing interim findings and outcomes. This approach enables Fellows to develop a range of relationships and bridge connections within the organisation, ensuring that key insights and experiences are disseminated widely across teams.

2. Fellowships should encourage Fellows to expand their networks by connecting with individuals, both within research and policy organisations, who share an interest in the research and policy challenges. This creates a broader community of professionals who can carry forward the knowledge and impact of the Fellowship.

3. Establishing a community of practice or network can further support knowledge-sharing, promote new research initiatives, and provide opportunities for ongoing collaboration. This network would help sustain the momentum of the Fellowship beyond the immediate project and ensure continuity in knowledge exchange.

4. To safeguard the longevity of the Fellowship’s impact, the Fellowship contract or secondment agreement needs to clearly outline fair terms for the use of any outputs. Intellectual property (IP) should be either shared, owned by the university, or made available to the researcher for ongoing research or teaching purposes. This ensures that valuable outputs remain accessible and are not lost when Policy Host supervisors leave, preserving the knowledge generated by the Fellowship for future use.

[1] Corbett J, Christian Grube D, Caroline Lovell H, James Scott R. Institutional Memory as Storytelling: How Networked Government Remembers. Cambridge University Press; 2020.

[2] https://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/news/article-institutional-memory-decline/