by Laurent Lioté, Adam Cooper and Neil Strachan
In a recent article published in Policy & Politics, Laurent Lioté, Adam Cooper and Neil Strachan examine how engineering advisers contribute to policy making in the context of UK energy policy. Despite the growing importance of engineering solutions to address societal challenges like climate change, the authors highlight a notable gap in academic research on how engineering advice is actually used — and understood — within government.
By drawing together insights from Science and Technology Studies and policy research, the article develops a novel framework for analysing how engineering advisers operate in the context of the UK government. Based on interviews with engineers embedded in government departments and with the policy teams they support, the article explores how engineering knowledge is mobilised, interpreted and sometimes constrained within the policy process.
Understanding the role of engineering advisers
The authors focus on two key dimensions of engineering advice: its credibility and its usability. Advisers are often valued for their ability to provide ‘real-world’ insight into the feasibility of proposed policy solutions, drawing on professional judgement and systems thinking rather than purely abstract modelling. At the same time, they face pressures to simplify or reframe complex issues in ways that align with political priorities.
One of the article’s core contributions is its attention to the relational and interpretive work involved in engineering advice. Engineering expertise does not speak for itself: advisers must translate their insights into policy-relevant terms, anticipate how their input will be received, and adapt to institutional norms. The authors suggest that this boundary work is essential to making engineering advice usable — but it also limits the scope for advisers to challenge prevailing assumptions or open up new alternatives.
Navigating the politics of expertise
The article raises important questions about how engineering advice is positioned within broader debates about evidence and expertise in government. While engineers are often seen as pragmatic and apolitical actors, the study shows how their advice is shaped by — and sometimes reshaped within — political processes. Advisers may find themselves constrained by short-termism, siloed departmental structures, or narrow understandings of what constitutes valid knowledge.
Rather than portraying engineering advisers as neutral technicians or frustrated truth-tellers, the authors offer a more nuanced picture. Advisers are active participants in the co-construction of policy knowledge, working across disciplinary and institutional boundaries to make their expertise count. This has implications for how governments think about the recruitment, training and deployment of technical experts, especially in fields like energy that involve long-term system change.
By shedding light on the everyday practices and dilemmas of engineering advisers, this article contributes to a richer understanding of how technical expertise is enacted — and contested — within the policy process. It also opens the door to further research on how different types of expertise interact, and on the organisational conditions that help (or hinder) more reflexive, pluralistic approaches to policy making.
…
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at
Lioté, L., Cooper, A. and Strachan, N. (2025). The role of engineering advice in policy making: the case of energy policy in the UK. Policy & Politics, 55, 4, 776–800. doi: https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736y2025d000000077
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading
Migone, A. and Howlett, M. (2025). A theory of policy advisory system quality: Hirschman 2.0 or what makes for good policy advice? Policy & Politics, 53, 4, 44–64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736y2024d000000035
Aagaard, P., Easton, M. and Head, B.W. (2024). Policy expertise in times of crisis. Policy & Politics, 52, 1, 2–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736y2023d000000016
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 