Annette Boaz and Kathryn Oliver
This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Supporting policy through research funding: how UK funders can use Areas of Research Interest to bridge evidence gaps‘.
Using research to inform policy sounds straightforward, but in practice, it remains one of the biggest challenges in public policy. Despite decades of effort, there is still a persistent gap between what we know from research and what gets used in decision-making. Our recent study explores one under‑examined part of this puzzle: the role of research funders.
In the UK, ‘Areas of Research Interest’ (ARIs) have emerged as an important tool to help bridge this gap. ARIs are sets of questions produced by government departments that outline their priority evidence needs. They are designed to signal where new research and existing knowledge could support policy development.
Our research set out to understand how ARIs might be of use to research funders. Drawing on 30 interviews with funders, policymakers, academics and knowledge mobilisers, we found that ARIs are doing something important: they create a shared space for dialogue.
Rather than treating research as a one-way pipeline (from academia into policy) ARIs enable a more interactive process. They help align government priorities with funding decisions, while also opening up opportunities to make better use of research that has already been funded. In this sense, ARIs are not just lists of questions; they are tools for negotiation and collaboration.
However, our findings also highlight the limits of technical fixes. ARIs provide a more transparent and systematic way to communicate policy needs, but they do not automatically lead to better use of research. Much depends on what happens next, particularly the relationships and capabilities needed to act on these priorities. While often committed to supporting the use of research in policy, funders can lack the skills, time and resources required to do this effectively. Knowledge mobilisation (ensuring that research is accessible, relevant and usable) is not a simple add-on. It requires sustained effort, specialist expertise and, above all, investment.
This work is also highly relational. Building trust between researchers, funders and policymakers takes time. It involves understanding how policy decisions are made, what kinds of evidence are useful, and how different forms of knowledge can be combined. These processes are often invisible, but they are essential to making better use of research. The ARIs offer a focus for these trust-building conversations.
Another important insight from our study is that existing research is often under‑used. ARIs create opportunities not only to fund new projects, but also to revisit and mobilise findings from past investments. This is particularly important in a context where resources are limited, time is tight and where generating new evidence is not always the most efficient solution.
So, what does this mean for funders?
First, supporting policy through research is not just about what gets funded, but how funding systems operate. Funders need to think strategically about how to connect their investments to policy priorities, including through mechanisms like ARIs.
Second, there is a need to invest in capacity for knowledge mobilisation, both within funding organisations and across the wider research system. This includes skills, roles and infrastructures that can support ongoing engagement with policy – ideally, addressing the ARIs as a first port of call.
Finally, funders need to recognise that impact is a collective endeavour. No single organisation can bridge the research–policy gap alone. Progress depends on collaboration across government, academia and intermediary organisations, as well as on long‑term relationships built on trust and mutual understanding.
In short, if we want research to play a more meaningful role in policy, we need to look beyond individual projects and focus on the systems that connect research to decision-making. ARIs offer a promising step, but real change will depend on the people, relationships and capabilities that bring them to life.
Image credit: Authors’ own.
Annette Boaz is a UK-based academic working on the relationship between research, policy and practice. She is Professor of Health and Social Care at King’s College London, and Director of the NIHR Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit.
Kathryn Oliver is Director of the NIHR’s Policy Research Programme. She is a social scientist with interests in how evidence is made and used in public policy, particularly around theorising this relationship and evaluating interventions which seek to improve evidence use.
Read the original research in Evidence & Policy:
Boaz, A. & Oliver, K. (2026). Supporting policy through research funding: how UK funders can use Areas of Research Interest to bridge evidence gaps. Evidence & Policy, DOI: 10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000078. OPEN ACCESS
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading:
Understanding public officials’ attitudes towards youth participation in public policy OPEN ACCESS
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.