Dr Jane Horton – Previous ESRC Postdoctoral Fellow

At the start of my Fellowship in October 2024 (ESRC postdoctoral fellowships – UKRI)I, like many postgraduates and early career researchers, had heard about ‘engaging with policy’, but was unsure how to do this in practice. A key turning point for me was taking part in the ESRC Post Doctoral Fellows Development Programme, delivered by Sealey Associates (https://sealeyassociates.com/a-pilots-eye-view-the-esrc-postdoctoral-fellows-development-programme). The programme was valuable throughout, but the training on engaging with policy makers in January 2025 felt particularly relevant to my work. It demystified the policy world and, crucially, made engagement feel possible rather than aspirational. It was clear to see that my research could contribute to important, current debates in areas beyond academic journals and conferences.

I was fast approaching the end of my one-year ESRC-funded Post Doctoral Fellowship and was pleased with the academic outputs of the year but conscious that also wanted to share my research more widely. I began planning an in-person practitioner conference; however, a serious arm injury midway through my fellowship prevented this from going ahead and made me reliant on voice-activated technology for several months.

I had seen the call for evidence from the Home Affairs Select Committee (https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9126/combatting-new-forms-of-extremism). The inquiry closely aligned with my research interests, particularly around young people and extremism. Encouraged by the professional development training, I decided to submit written evidence. As I had broken my arm and, could not meet the original deadline, I contacted the Committee directly to explain my situation. Thankfully, I received a supportive email response inviting me to submit by a later date. This was an early lesson that policy engagement is often more human and flexible than we imagine it might be.

Instead of submitting a traditional academic document, I decided to write a policy brief, aware that Committee members are busy, and need clear, direct information. A short and accessible policy brief felt like the most effective way to communicate some of the key messages from my research. I received some support from Tom Arnold at the Heseltine Institute for Public Policy (https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/heseltine-institute/), who freely shared their time and expertise. I put into practice their advice, the ESRC training and ideas from other policy briefs to refine my argument and ensure the brief spoke to a policy audience rather than an academic one.

Once the content was finished, the brief was professionally produced by a graphic designer AndMark (https://andmark.design/) recommended by colleagues at the University. I was keen for both the content and its presentation to be clear, credible, and fit for purpose. I submitted the written evidence which was subsequently published on the Home Affairs Inquiry website. Seeing my work there was strange but affirming.

What I didn’t expect was what came next: a direct invitation to attend an oral evidence session. Ahead of the session, I met with a civil servant who talked me through the format of the day and the kinds of questions Committee members might ask. This preparation was invaluable in easing my nerves and helping me focus on how to communicate effectively under pressure. I focused on what I wanted the members to ‘take away’ from the meeting.

On 25th November, I travelled down to London. Navigating the tube and making my way to Parliament, with an injured arm, felt especially momentous. Security was very high, and I was issued a pass before being shown to the waiting area upstairs in the depths of Westminster. Outside the Committee room, I waited (nervously) with the other expert witness, Leo Ratledge, the Co-Director of Children’s Rights International Network (https://home.crin.org/). From the outset, we were made to feel welcome and at ease by the staff, the Chair and members of the committee.

The session itself was demanding, with around ten MPs present at any one time, and the questioning was robust. However, it was also genuinely engaging. The members were interested in our evidence and keen to explore the wider issues surrounding young people and extremism. What stood out most was that this was not a hostile environment; it was a space for informed discussion. The session lasted around an hour and (with our consent) running over its scheduled time, a sign of the Committee’s interest in the research and its topic area.

By the end, I was exhausted but glad I had taken part and proud of myself for stepping up to the challenge, rather than shying away from it. Afterwards, I was sent the written transcript to approve, a final reminder of the seriousness and transparency of the process.

For fellow postgraduates and early career researchers, I would say: engaging with Parliament is possible, worthwhile and less daunting than it might seem. With preparation, encouragement, and a willingness to step outside your comfort zone, your research can contribute to policy and public debate (with or without a broken arm).

You can see the evidence in written form and the oral transcript here: https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9126/combatting-new-forms-of-extremism/publications/

Horton, J. L., Mythen, G., & Astley, J. (2025). Preventing and countering extremism in the educational sector: Interrogating policy, challenging practices. Critical Social Policy, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183251379386

Mythen, G., Horton, J., & Astley, J. (2025). Implementing Safeguarding to Counter Extremism in the Classroom: Practicalities, Practices and Problematiques. British Journal of Educational Studies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2025.2537437

The Educator’s Brief: Extremism and Young People

Dr Jane Horton – Honorary Research Fellow SSPC at the University of Liverpool and Lecturer in Early Years and Childhood Studies at Manchester Metropolitan University.