The ‘By the Way, We Need Funding’ Trap: Why Policy Engagement is Not a Funding Pitch

Key features in a nutshell

• Policy engagement is about providing scientific expertise to policymakers – not about securing research funding; lobbying for funding is legitimate, but it must not be conflated with policy engagement; researchers who wish to raise the issue of funding with policymakers should make this transparent from the outset rather than camouflaging fundraising as policy engagement
• Mixing policy engagement with fundraising risks undermining researchers’ credibility with policymakers, one of the most valuable and hardest-to-rebuild assets a researcher has
• When researchers advise policymakers on funding policies, they should proactively disclose any conflicts of interest

What is the issue?

Imagine you receive a phone call from your insurance company. The representative informs you that there are new research reports on fire insurance, contents insurance, dental insurance, and travel cancellation insurance they would like to discuss with you. What is your first reaction: ‘How thoughtful, they know I take an interest in research!’ or ‘There’s a catch. They want to sell me something!’?

Most people would assume the latter, and they would usually be right. Researchers who raise the issue of funding at meetings or events not set up for that purpose risk triggering exactly the same reaction from policymakers. To avoid this, researchers must clearly separate policy engagement from lobbying for funding. Failing to do so creates two distinct problems:

Loss of credibility. Researchers enjoy a high degree of credibility among policymakers — but this credibility is fragile. Once a researcher is perceived as more interested in fundraising rather than offering expert advice, they may lose access to policymakers entirely. Rebuilding that trust is difficult and time-consuming.

Shift in the impact dimension. The questions that typically guide policy engagement are: Which evidence the policymakers taken up? How has our work influenced policy? Have we gained new research ideas through the engagement process? Combining policy engagement with fundraising introduces a different set of questions: How much funding was acquired? How did my institution benefit financially? Over time, institutional leaders may begin to evaluate policy engagement activities primarily based on funding secured – which fundamentally changes the nature and purpose of policy engagement.

Lobbying for research funding is perfectly legitimate and necessary. Policymaking institutions routinely consult individual researchers, scientific institutions, and academic associations when designing new funding programmes, and such input is genuinely valuable. Researchers and institutions can and should raise the issue of funding with policymakers. When doing so, the following principles apply:

Be transparent about your goals from the outset. When organising a meeting or event at which funding will be discussed, policymakers must know this in advance. Raising funding unexpectedly – particularly at an event convened for a different purpose – is likely to be perceived as discourteous and may have the opposite effect.

Do not present funding as the answer to every policy problem. Researchers understandably want more resources, but policymakers are there to solve policy issues. If an event is convened to discuss how energy consumption can be reduced, the answer should not be ‘by giving my research group more funding’. If researchers consistently respond to policy questions with calls for more funding, policymakers will begin to see them as fundraisers rather than experts.

Demonstrate expertise before expecting recognition. Policy engagement can result in researchers being recognised as credible, go-to experts. But this recognition must be earned. Researchers should not assume that a strong academic reputation automatically translates into visibility in policymaking circles.

Researchers should avoid the following at policy events:

• Complaining about the lack of research funding at events that are not about funding policies
• Speaking disparagingly about other research institutions or researchers
• Focusing on research gaps, equipment needs, unfilled positions, and publications in academic journals, rather than on the concrete contributions their expertise can make to a policy problem and its societal or economic benefits

What to do when policymakers ask researchers to advise on funding policies?

When researchers are explicitly asked to advise on research funding – as part of a consultation, an expert committee, or a funding programme design process – the following principles apply:

• Disclose conflicts of interest proactively. Researchers should clearly communicate how they or their institution would benefit from the funding being discussed. This transparency is essential for maintaining credibility and for ensuring that policymakers can properly weigh the advice they receive. Researchers can simultaneously be the most qualified experts on a topic and potential beneficiaries of the funding they are recommending. This dual role is not inherently problematic, but it must be acknowledged explicitly. A researcher who advises on energy research funding while leading an energy research group should say so clearly.
• Focus on the evidence, not the ask. When advising on funding priorities, researchers should ground their input in evidence about societal needs and research gaps – not in the interests of their own institution or research group. Policymakers are more likely to act on advice that is clearly oriented to the public good than institutional self-interest.
• Consider involving an independent intermediary. In situations where conflicts of interest are particularly pronounced, researchers may consider channelling their input through an independent body – such as a learned society, an academic association, or a science advisory council – rather than engaging with policymakers directly.

Tasks

Researchers

Researchers should be clear in their own minds – and transparent with policymakers – about whether a given interaction concerns policy engagement or fundraising. Some overlap is inevitable, particularly when advising on funding programmes. In those cases, researchers should disclose conflicts of interest proactively and ensure that policymakers are not surprised by a funding conversation they did not expect. A useful self-check: researchers should put themselves in the shoes of someone being asked for money without warning – would they appreciate being put on the spot?

Knowledge mobilisers

Knowledge mobilisers can support researchers by drafting clear institutional guidelines on the distinction between policy engagement and fundraising, and by establishing transparent procedures for managing conflicts of interest. When organising policy events or dialogue formats, they should brief researchers in advance on the purpose of the event — and make it explicit that fundraising at events not designed for that purpose is counterproductive.

Policymakers

Policymakers who notice that researchers are conflating policy engagement with fundraising should feel empowered to address this directly.

They can clarify the purpose of a meeting at the outset and redirect conversations that drift towards funding to a more appropriate forum.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de