Dr Steve Guilbert: Science-Policy from a Different Perspective: Reflections on a Defra Fellowship

Perhaps evolving out of an early research focus on the culture of estuarine landscapes, I have always had an interest in liminal places and in-between spaces.

In my current role as an ACCESS KEIF (Knowledge Exchange and Impact Fellow), I spend much of my time trying to make sense of the critical space in-between [social] science and [environmental] policy. It’s an emerging and dynamic landscape, an exciting, if sometimes disorientating place to be. Understanding its complex terrain and the pressures and processes that are shaping it are crucial to navigating this new space and for identifying various pathways, from academic insight to policy impact, that run across it.

But for all my interest and engagement in this space, it’s only somewhere I’d ever really seen or approached from one perspective, from the academic or science side of the science-policy interface. When the opportunity arose therefore to take up an R&D Fellowship at Defra, to gain a different perspective, and to obtain first-hand, practical experience of working in a policy and operational focussed environment – I jumped at the chance.

About the Fellowship

I began my Fellowship on a 0.5FTE basis on 30 May 2024 (the day ‘purdah’ was announced!) and finished on the 31 March 2025.  For the duration of my Defra time, I was embedded within the Strategic Social Research Team (SSRT), a small but fantastic group of analysts whose role is to undertake a range of core social science functions and provide a central hub for practical and strategic social science advice.

One of the SSRT’s core responsibilities is managing Defra’s flagship social research project, the SAE (Survey of Attitudes to the Environment). This large-scale, annual, public survey covers a broad range of issues related to the department’s remit and has generated enormous amounts of data. My primary task during my Fellowship, employing both quantitative and qualitive methods, was to bring some of this data to life by developing a set of ‘environmental personas’ that could support more engaging, people-centred approaches to policy thinking and strategic planning.

What I Gained from the Experience

Getting to grips with my specific task and immersing myself more generally in the culture of the department was both challenging and rewarding.  These are some of the key things I took away from the experience:

New Skills 

It turns out you can teach an old dog….  While I had some experience of basic survey data analysis, I had to quicky learn a new set of more advanced statistical techniques to pre-process and segment the SAE data. Of great assistance in this task and others were various large language models or Chatbots. In fact, AI began to play a key role in the development of the personas as I was encouraged to experiment with and explore the potential benefits, limitations and implications of using AI in social research.

New Connections

Algorithms aside, I was also fortunate to chat with, question, and learn from a broad range of highly knowledgeable colleagues across evidence, policy, and strategic roles. These conversations and connections proved incredibly useful, providing both critical support and valuable insight into the challenges of being a social scientist within government and the dynamic processes of policy development.

A New Understanding of…

• The place of social science – The complex and hidden architecture of many government departments has often been a source of frustration for those in academia looking to identify and engage with policymakers. It was genuinely revelatory therefore, to be handed the ‘official sensitive’ Defra organogram on my first day, and to get a sense of its structure and crucially, where, and in what capacity, social science expertise was distributed throughout the organisation.
• What social scientists actually do – Social science evidence specialists within Defra are commonly referred to as ‘analysts’ rather than researchers. This term is used to both distinguish them from departmental ‘scientists’ (like biologists or veterinary epidemiologists), and to reflect the fact that often these roles do not involve primary data collection.  Typically, analysts are highly skilled in identifying evidence needs, synthesising existing research at speed, and commissioning and managing social research from external suppliers.
• The kind of social science that gets traction – The dominant evidence culture within Defra is shaped by the natural sciences. To be heard and valued in this environment, social science often has to align with prevailing norms, leading to a strong emphasis on various quantitative approaches – not least of which surveys. From my experience, it seemed that analysts interested in more qualitative or interpretive methods sometimes faced greater challenges – both in articulating the value of such research and in negotiating some of the obstacles to carrying-out or commissioning it.
• How policy views academia – From the perspective of an analyst looking to commission social science research – whether quantitative or qualitative – the evidence procurement landscape is dominated primarily by large-scale consultancies. Despite what many of us in academia might assume or hope, there is no special relationship between policy and academic research. On the contrary, in a competitive market where timeliness, track record and deliverability are at a premium, traditional academic research can often appear too slow or insufficiently outcome-focused to meet immediate policy needs.

Final Thoughts

My Defra Fellowship was an invaluable experience. I came away not only with new skills and relationships but a much greater appreciation for the complex, fast-moving environment in which social evidence specialists operate – one shaped as much by political cycles, shifting departmental priorities, and capacity constraints as by evidence itself. It also gave me a different perspective on the science-policy interface. If the academic sector wants to play a stronger role in this evolving space it needs to – as ACCESS recognises – become more agile, responsive, and attuned to the realities of policymaking.

For myself and other KEIFs this means our roles are as much about empathy as they are evidence. Establishing relationships built on trust, understanding and an appreciation of the pressures faced by evidence and policy professionals is essential if we want academic insight to be relevant, welcomed, and impactful.