Galvanising your allies, part 2: Government (Sector)

Government can be one of the greatest allies and advocates for your research–with effective communication. If you’re struggling, here are some tips and recommendations

9th April 2025

Memes are also an option

It’s the impact, stupid: Why the university sector needs a unified narrative

In my last newsletter, I discussed the importance of advocacy and rallying allies. In this edition, I want to take a broader look at how the university sector as a whole communicates with policymakers, government and voters—and where it falls short. My next newsletter will explore this topic from individual researchers’ perspectives.

The university sector has a significant communication problem. It largely fails to ensure that governments understand and value the impact of their research investments. There’s a pervasive assumption that politicians (and the people who vote for them) inherently recognise universities as a public good or understand that “universities matter.”

Even if your current government supports research, relying on such assumptions is a risky strategy—it leaves you vulnerable to changing political climates and competing priorities. So why is this happening? And how can it be improved?

A missed opportunity: The cost of poor communication 

A few years ago, I worked with a new director of a large institute that had received tens of millions in government funding over previous decades. The impact of that initial investment was extraordinary, but they needed additional funding to build on their success. The director admitted, “We can’t ask for more money as we’ve never actually explained the impact we’ve had from that initial investment.”

Instead of leveraging an existing relationship built on decades of demonstrated impact, the director was forced to start from scratch—spending an entire year meeting with politicians and building relationships that should have already been established. This led to lost decades of goodwill and potentially the loss of additional funding that could have been secured had they communicated their impact effectively from the outset.

The director was absolutely right: you can’t ask for more money unless the government understands your impact—not from your perspective, but from theirs. And for politicians, their perspective is shaped by voters. Yet there is a limited attempt to equip government with stories of impact that resonate with voters and their needs and challenges.

Why dry metrics alone don’t work 

One of my greatest frustrations is the sector’s over-reliance on these five arguments:

1. Universities are a public good. 

2. Research contributes X% to GDP. 

3. Research adds $X billion to the economy.

4. H-index.

5. $X already invested. 

These metrics may be factual, but they’re not enough. They don’t address the pain points that politicians experience. They don’t address how research can help politicians and policymakers solve problems–or how politicians can explain to their constituents how investment in research has improved their lives.

Arguments #4 and #5 are particularly weak. As a metric, H-index is largely meaningless outside the university. And #5 is a head-scratcher, especially if you aren’t able to speak to the impact of the $ already invested.

It’s deeply ironic that universities are advocating for more funding for journalism, social sciences, and creative arts–which includes communications–when these skills aren’t being utilised. It’s difficult to find an argument universities make for research today that resonates with governments’ own policy positions, or with voters’ needs–two of the top government priorities.

These arguments are especially irrelevant in times when voters are preoccupied with issues like cost-of-living pressures and housing affordability (and government, in turn, is preoccupied with the same). If you want to appeal to government, don’t rely on dry statistics; instead, craft a narrative that resonates with their needs and priorities. Paint a picture of how your work solves real-world problems and makes life better for their constituents. 

And once you’ve created that narrative, repeat it relentlessly—in speeches, on websites, in reports—everywhere. Consistency is key to ensuring your message sticks.

The bigger problem: A lack of sectoral narrative 

The challenges go beyond individual institutions. The entire research sector struggles with its messaging. Taking a helicopter view of how the sector communicates reveals what’s missing: a unifying narrative.

Imagine if universities collectively decided on their narrative for how they have helped agriculture (for example). This would be a powerful sectoral-level story that would make the case for both universities and politicians.

Powerfully, working together on a consistent narrative will help to grow funding for all–rather than working individually to acquire ever-smaller slices of an ever-decreasing pie.

Yet there is no collaboration across the sector–just individual efforts, which are largely weak. Visit a selection of university websites in your country or look at lobbying or funding groups’ materials. You’ll likely find scattered metrics about how much your country invests in research as a percentage of GDP or its contribution to the economy in dollar terms.

You might come across inspiring stories here and there—but they’re usually buried in news feeds and lack cohesion or context within a broader narrative. The sectoral-level narrative is missing. It’s either extremely broad statements about GDP, or hyper-specific stories about small instances of impact. 

What’s almost entirely absent is a visionary story about how research investment has transformed society: how it has revolutionised agriculture by helping farmers create drought-resistant crops or integrated new technologies; how it has advanced healthcare through life-saving treatments; or how it has driven innovation in renewable energy or digital technology. 

And there is even less about the value of investing in fundamental or curiosity-driven research for the long-term–which is a critical story every university must tell. 

If institutions struggle to tell their own stories effectively, it’s no surprise that the sector as a whole lags even further behind.

Stop talking in thin slices 

A few months ago, I was asked by a research sector group how they could galvanise government support for their work. My response was simple: stop talking in thin slices. Stop focusing solely on individual prizes won by scientists or isolated news stories about breakthroughs. Instead, start telling a bigger story about why research is crucial to both the economy and society—and make it easy for others to repeat that story.

The truth is that the sector is decades behind when it comes to engagement with government and their stakeholders. As political strategist James Carville famously wrote on a sticky note during Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid.” The research sector needs its own version of this mantra: “It’s the impact, stupid.”

Building a compelling narrative 

To move forward, the sector must move from competition to collaboration. It must shift its focus from fragmented metrics and isolated success stories toward creating a unified narrative about its transformative impact on society. This narrative should answer key questions like: 

• How has investment in research improved people’s lives? 

• What tangible benefits has it delivered for industries, communities, and individuals? 

• How does it address pressing challenges like economic inequality, climate change or healthcare crises?

This includes fundamental research–which may not yield these benefits now, but can be connected to future benefits. Fields like quantum were largely theoretical just 20 years ago, but are now emerging from the lab and having a real impact on peoples’ lives (not to mention creating “value worth trillions of dollars”).

This narrative must be visionary yet grounded in real-world examples. Critically, it must be aligned with existing policy positions, and also appeals to politicians’ ultimate boss… the voters.

Another benefit: a sectoral approach, led by university executives, takes the pressure off individual scientists who too often feel the burden that communication with politicians is on them.

The bottom line 

If you want government support for research funding, you need to do more than present data points—you need to craft a compelling and unified narrative that resonates with policymakers and voters alike. By creating and consistently sharing a compelling narrative about how research drives societal progress and economic growth, the sector can build stronger relationships with government and secure lasting support for its work.

It’s time for the research sector to stop assuming its value is self-evident and truly collaborate on a shared narrative and start communicating its impact effectively—because if you don’t tell your story, someone else will tell theirs instead. And when it comes to securing funding and support, it’s the impact, stupid.