There is a persistent myth in public policy that researchers sit outside the system they study and that their role is to observe, analyse and, at best, advise. That model is no longer tenable. Across fields and jurisdictions, policy researchers are increasingly positioned not as neutral commentators but as reformers: actors who shape agendas, contribute to and sometimes convene coalitions, and help redesign the institutions they study.

This shift reflects a deeper transformation in how knowledge moves through policy systems. Studies show that research influences policy less through traditional academic citation and more through active communication, media engagement and networked dissemination. In other words, ideas do not travel on their own, but are carried, translated and contested. The policy researcher, therefore, is not simply a producer of knowledge but a broker, interpreter and, increasingly, a participant in reform processes.

From distance to engagement

Recent scholarship has emphasised the growing importance of research–policy engagement infrastructures including intermediaries, partnerships and co-production arrangements that embed research within decision-making systems. Metropolis’s own Chancellor’s Fellows are  one example of this approach. This is less about “impact” in the audit sense and more about sustained relationships: iterative, negotiated, and often messy.

The implication is clear. Reform is not achieved by publishing high quality papers alone. It is achieved by building relational capacity between researchers, policymakers and communities. This aligns with wider arguments in UK policy scholarship that effective policymaking depends on collaborative governance and co-production, rather than top-down technocracy.

The rise of the engaged researcher

Alongside this institutional shift sits a more contested development: the rise of engaged or activist research. A growing body of literature demonstrates that researchers are increasingly involved in advocacy, social movements and public debate, often explicitly aiming to drive change rather than merely understand it. This sometimes creates tensions. Engagement is not a straightforward good. It raises questions about whose knowledge counts, whose interests are served, and how power operates within research relationships.

Reformers, not just advocates

Where does this leave the idea of the policy researcher as reformer?

First, reformers are not necessarily activists in the traditional sense. Our experience in Metropolis is that their distinctive contribution often lies in institutional redesign: shaping how systems think, decide and act. This may involve embedding evidence into policy cycles, co-producing interventions with service users, or rethinking governance arrangements. It is often slow, cumulative work rather than headline-grabbing advocacy. Second, reformers must navigate the boundary between credibility and commitment. Public debates on contentious topics such as vaccines, climate change and structural poverty show that overt activism can be perceived as undermining scientific neutrality, even as others argue that neutrality itself is illusory. The task is not to retreat from engagement, but to practise it with intellectual honesty, transparency and reflexivity.  Third, reform requires methodological pluralism. Policymakers do not interpret “evidence” in a uniform way; qualitative insights, experiential knowledge and political feasibility all shape decisions. Researchers who seek to influence reform must therefore move beyond narrow hierarchies of evidence and engage with the multiple ways in which knowledge is understood and used.

Towards a reforming research culture

From policy-focused research taking place across Manchester Met we at Metropolis have learnt that if policy researchers are to act effectively as reformers, the implications are significant. Policy researchers as reformers should:

• Prioritise relational work: Invest in long-term partnerships with policymakers, practitioners and communities, not just project-based engagement.
• Support boundary-spanning roles: Recognise and reward staff who act as intermediaries, translators and convenors, not only those who publish.
• Embed co-production: Treat lived experience and practitioner knowledge as integral to research design and implementation.
• Maintain critical independence: Engagement should not mean capture; the credibility of research depends on the ability to challenge as well as support policy.
• Develop new metrics of success: Move beyond citation counts to measures that capture influence, learning and system change.