Reconsidering the academic role in inclusive development
Recent shifts in global and national governance have exposed how policy decisions at the top reverberate across local realities. Stricter cross-border mobility rules have affected the health access of people on the move; the expansion of digital data centres has raised new concerns about water access in rural areas; and policies undermining environmental resilience have weakened disaster relief systems.
These examples illustrate that national and global policy and governance initiatives are never abstract—they have direct, measurable consequences for communities. As an academic engaged in public policy and development research, I find myself asking: what role can academic institutions play in decolonising knowledge and democratising decision-making?
The positionality challenge
Working from within academia offers access to advanced research tools, diverse networks, community connections, and institutional legitimacy that can empower communities. Yet, persistent gaps—irregular funding, entrenched hierarchies, and weak community governance—often limit the ability of universities to act as agents of inclusive change.
This article is a reflection piece that explores how academia might bridge those gaps by rethinking three interconnected pillars:
- Evidence generation and research innovation
- Mobilising multiple partnerships beyond academia
- Policy engagement
Each offers both opportunities and challenges for creating systems that elevate local voices and ensure that research contributes to equitable and accountable development.
1. Evidence generation and research innovation
Strengths
Academic institutions have historically been engines of knowledge creation. Their long-standing contributions to research and scholarly training have produced experts skilled in developing complex methodologies that integrate diverse disciplines and agencies. Increasingly, scholars draw from interdisciplinary and convergence research—integrating insights across disciplines to address complex societal challenges. For instance, building local energy resilience requires cooperation between engineers, economists, public administrators, and local communities.
At their best, universities foster democratic research processes, investing in trust-building, understanding local contexts, and supporting community-led research. Engagement through community-based research allows them to leverage cultural and social proximity to mobilise local knowledge and translate it into credible, context-sensitive evidence more than other stakeholders conducting similar work.
Continuous collaboration with community-based organisations and locals has enabled the co-production of knowledge utilising community-based participatory research. These approaches have generated locally relevant data and produced tangible policy results. Through teaching, dissemination, and capacity building, universities also cultivate the next generation of researchers who understand that knowledge is both a public good and a shared responsibility.
Limitations
However, academia often struggles to bridge the gap between research and practice. The competing demands of a faculty role—teaching, service, and research—limit the time available for sustained engagement between academic researchers and policymakers, practitioners, and communities. Despite having noble missions and visions, universities are agencies that depend on external funding for their sustainability. This often drives them to prioritise fundable research agendas, regardless of whether these align with local needs or contexts.
The result is a fragmented ecosystem, where academics produce valuable insights that remain disconnected from real-world applications. Distinct academic interests, methodologies, and solutions frequently diverge from the practical needs of those most affected by policy challenges. The lack of institutional governance structures for collaboration between researchers and policy actors weakens impact. At the same time, entrenched power hierarchies within academia restrict the effective translation of research data into formats accessible to practitioners, industries, and policymakers. These power differences are visible in universities when non-STEM fields receive less recognition and credibility for their contribution to the development of social-political and community-based knowledge.
Furthermore, universities often evaluate “impact” through the lens of scale and visibility rather than depth, relevance, and sustained change. The dominance of peer-reviewed outputs, measured citations, and rankings continues to overshadow more transformative, community-driven contributions.
“The real challenge is not the absence of evidence—but the distance between who produces it and who needs it.”
2. Mobilising multiple partnerships beyond academic parameters
Strengths
The recognition that no single discipline can tackle today’s “wicked problems” has prompted universities to form transdisciplinary partnerships with government, civil society, and the private sector. Transdisciplinary partnerships mean collaboration across different organisations.
These collaborations enable universities to act as knowledge brokers, facilitating the flow of ideas and resources across institutions. The Healthy People 2030 Initiative, for example, illustrates how partnerships among state agencies, nonprofits, and local communities can strengthen public health and equity. Similarly, innovation labs created by NGOs and corporations have brought together engineers, social scientists, and policy experts to co-design solutions for digital inclusion and climate resilience.
Such partnerships reflect a growing understanding that sustainable development depends not only on producing knowledge but on sharing and applying it collectively.
Limitations
Yet, these transdisciplinary collaborations often remain symbolic. In many academic partnerships, there is a risk of reproducing hierarchies if universities treat external actors as implementers rather than equal co-creators. This impedes genuine knowledge exchange, equitable power relations, and shared accountability among diverse actors involved. This manifests as challenges such as intellectual property disputes, unclear decision-making processes, and burdensome reporting requirements—often coupled with limited staff capacity—that further constrain collaboration.
Academia’s tendency to privilege its own knowledge systems reinforces a linear model of knowledge transfer—where research “trickles down” to practitioners and communities rather than circulates through community dialogue. This mindset underestimates the complexity of how ideas move across sectors and communities.
True transdisciplinary requires confronting power dynamics and institutional inertia. Without doing so, participatory research risks becoming performative rather than transformative.
“Diverse partnerships alone do not guarantee inclusivity—shared accountability and mutual learning do.”
3. Policy engagement
Strengths
Universities contribute to policymaking in multiple ways: by producing policy-relevant evidence, serving on advisory boards, writing white papers and policy briefs, and collaborating with think tanks to translate findings into actionable recommendations.
Academics also shape policy discourse through agenda-setting—amplifying underrepresented issues and informing public debate through media, consultations, and advisory roles. Many research centres have established policy engagement offices or partnerships, although their resourcing and effectiveness vary.
Limitations
Despite this potential, institutional incentives rarely support policy engagement. Faculty promotion systems still privilege publications over applied influence, and few universities have formal mechanisms for sustained collaboration with policymakers.
Researchers often lack awareness of entry points in the policy cycle—when and how research can inform decisions—and limited experience navigating political and regulatory contexts. Consequently, academic engagement tends to be episodic and reactive rather than strategic and long-term.
“Without institutional incentives or frameworks for engagement, academic contributions risk remaining ad hoc interventions in policymaking.”
Moving forward: From participation to transformation
Academic institutions occupy a unique space at the intersection of research, policy, and community life. Their expertise and legitimacy position them to bridge power asymmetries between local communities and external actors such as corporations, governments, and think tanks.
But doing so requires a shift—from episodic participation to embedded, accountable engagement. Universities must move beyond short-term projects to cultivate long-term partnerships that situate research within policy ecosystems.
This involves:
- Recognising local communities as co-creators of knowledge, not passive recipients.
- Rethinking research impact to prioritise relevance and resilience overreach.
- Institutionalising policy engagement as a legitimate academic contribution.
- Strengthening communication and translation capacities to connect evidence with action.
“Inclusive development depends not only on generating evidence but on ensuring that those most affected by policy decisions help define what counts as evidence.”
By embracing this transformation, academia can move from identifying gaps to acting upon them—mobilising perspectives, partnerships, and policy evidence for a more inclusive and accountable future.