Mainstreaming social sciences expertise in UK environment policy and practice organisations: retrospect and prospect

The study addresses how social sciences are being mainstreamed within United Kingdom environment policy and practice (EPP) organisations and what is required for their meaningful integration. Against a context where environmental problems are recognised as fundamentally social and where people-centred and evidence-based approaches are increasingly emphasised in policy and practice, the authors note persistent uncertainty about what counts as evidence—particularly social science evidence—and continued dominance of natural sciences and economics in decision-making. The paper aims to: (1) examine the current state of the social sciences function in EPP organisations and identify factors—distinct from academic settings—that enable or constrain mainstreaming; and (2) develop practical ‘integration indicators’ to assess organisational progress toward integrating social science expertise. Meaningful integration is defined as embedding social sciences in the design, implementation, monitoring and assessment of EPP work, with organisational capability to utilise diverse social science insights. The study is important because EPP organisations are expanding social science roles and responsibilities, yet social science contributions remain variably understood, resourced, and utilised; a systematic, practitioner-informed assessment framework is lacking.

The paper builds on a growing literature arguing for greater inclusion of social sciences and humanities in environmental governance to enhance legitimacy, salience and effectiveness (e.g., Castree et al., 2014; Bennett et al., 2017a; Devine-Wright et al., 2022). Within conservation and EPP, an evidence-based turn has raised debates about what constitutes valid evidence, with calls to value qualitative, local and Indigenous knowledge alongside quantitative natural science (Adams & Sandbrook, 2013). Prior studies show social scientists’ involvement can improve processes and outcomes in policy-making and research (Kattirtzi, 2016, 2017; Eisenhauer et al., 2021), but also document misunderstandings about social science disciplines, late or tokenistic involvement, and organisational cultures predisposed to natural science (Bennett et al., 2017b; Shortall, 2013). Social scientists in transnational conservation settings often undertake undervalued ‘hidden labour’ to challenge dominant framings, working within asymmetric interdisciplinarity (Claus, 2022). The authors draw specifically on Bennett et al. (2017b)’s concept of ‘mainstreaming’ social sciences, expanding it beyond conservation research organisations to EPP agencies and NGOs. The literature also highlights preferences for quantitative metrics and the privileged status of economics in government, shaping knowledge hierarchies (e.g., evaluation frameworks and budgetary decision processes), and common pitfalls when non-experts undertake social research (Martin, 2020; Keith et al., 2022). This study addresses a gap by investigating social science mainstreaming inside EPP organisations and translating insights into actionable integration indicators.

The study employed a participatory action research design co-developed by social scientists employed in UK EPP organisations and an academic social scientist to generate actionable insights. Ethical approval was granted (March 2020); participation was voluntary with informed consent. Recruitment used purposive and snowball sampling to include social scientists (or those extensively working with social sciences) from UK EPP organisations: central government (Defra and equivalents), non-departmental public bodies (e.g., Natural England, Environment Agency, NatureScot, NRW, Forest Research), environmental NGOs (e.g., RSPB, WWF), consultancies, and academia. Nineteen participants from 11 organisations contributed; 53% were from non-departmental public bodies, 16% government departments, 16% NGOs, 16% academia, 5% consultancy. Data collection occurred in four stages: (1) Semi-structured interviews (n=9; 26–60 minutes) and a parallel emailed survey (n=5) in 2020, covering qualifications, roles, organisational context, enablers/constraints; (2) An online workshop (2020, 5 hours; 18 participants) to deliberate on enhancing social science roles, integration, evidence gaps, and support mechanisms; (3) An online expert elicitation (2021) adapted from the Sutherland research prioritisation method, where nine participants ranked and commented on research questions derived from earlier stages; and (4) Feedback/reflection sessions (two 60-minute discussions) to consider priorities and next steps. Data from transcripts, survey responses, workshop/elicitation notes were analysed in NVivo using Braun & Clarke’s six-stage thematic analysis: familiarisation; in vivo and literature-informed coding; collation into themes; review; refinement; definition and evidencing of themes. An additional design component translated themes into a practical set of integration indicators. Following Mills et al. (2021), indicators are defined as quantitative or qualitative variables that reliably measure achievement, reflect change, or assess performance. Indicators and sub-indicators were iteratively developed to capture organisational progress and gaps in integrating social sciences. The study also explicitly acknowledged methodological limitations: the advocacy positionality of authors/participants and the relatively small sample typical of in-depth qualitative research, offset by breadth of organisational types and triangulated, multi-stage methods.

• Evidence of progress but uneven mainstreaming: Participants reported increased employment and visibility of social scientists, more people-oriented initiatives, and examples of positive impact. However, capacity grew from a low base and remains highly variable within and across organisations. Public sector capacity generally exceeds NGOs, where social science is often commissioned externally rather than developed in-house. - Capacity constraints and role scope: Organisations often have too few social scientists to cover a wide range of topics and methods, limiting time for reflection, innovation, and strategic development of social science functions. Some roles contain little to no social science activity due to project management burdens or unclear expectations. - Diverse backgrounds with notable natural science foundations: Among interviewed/surveyed participants (n=14), 8 held undergraduate degrees in natural sciences; all but one later obtained social science qualifications. Mixed backgrounds facilitated interactional expertise with natural scientists but sometimes left participants feeling underprepared for specialist academic social science debates. - Role range skewed to instrumental/supportive functions: Social science work commonly involved research commissioning, evaluation, translation of evidence, and methodological advice. Participants wanted broader roles including diagnostic, disruptive/critical challenge, reflexive, generative, innovative, training/capability building, translational, and inspirational leadership—aligning with Bennett et al. (2017a)’s ten contributions. - Knowledge hierarchies: Natural sciences and economics often dominate. Colleagues may perceive social sciences as subjective or as ‘not really science,’ privileging quantitative metrics and economic appraisal frameworks. Qualitative methods face scepticism and editorial gatekeeping. Economists’ institutional access (e.g., Treasury, No.10) amplifies economics’ influence. - Enrolment timing and tokenism: Social scientists are frequently engaged late as a ‘bolt-on’ to fix instruments (e.g., surveys) or to ‘socialise’ projects, rather than being involved from problem framing onward. Some improvement is noted with newer leaders valuing earlier social science input. - Narrow framings and behavioural science dominance: Social sciences are often equated with behaviour change, sidelining other disciplines (e.g., anthropology, sociology, human geography) and questions of power, justice, and social practices. - Professionalisation and ‘home’: Some practitioners lack an obvious professional ‘home’; Government Social Research membership provides professional identity for some, but gatekeeping and limited journal publishing pathways in EPP settings were noted. - Consequences for policy and practice: Insufficient or misapplied social science leads to ineffective or inequitable policy interventions (e.g., tech/practice adoption assumptions for farmers), wasting resources and missing social dynamics (information-deficit fallacy). - Output: A practical set of eight integration indicators with sub-indicators was developed to assess organisational progress: (1) Social sciences capacity; (2) Range of roles; (3) How much social science social scientists get to do; (4) Interdisciplinary working; (5) Professional regard; (6) Reach and influence; (7) Impact; (8) Professionalisation. These indicators reflect capacity, institutional, and ideological barriers and provide a diagnostic and improvement framework.

The findings directly address the research objectives by evidencing both advances and persistent barriers in mainstreaming social sciences within EPP organisations and by translating practitioner experiences into a structured, actionable indicator set. While organisations increasingly recognise the value of social sciences, mainstreaming remains uneven due to capacity limitations, narrow role definitions, hierarchical privileging of natural sciences and economics, and late or tokenistic inclusion. These conditions mirror challenges documented in academic multi-/interdisciplinary research—late enrolment, selective use, undervaluation of qualitative methods—but in EPP settings are compounded by institutional processes (e.g., quant-heavy appraisal systems, depoliticised evidence norms, civil service role mobility). The indicator framework operationalises ‘meaningful integration,’ providing a common language and measures for EPP organisations to assess current practice, identify gaps (e.g., role breadth, early involvement, disciplinary diversity), and guide strategic change. The study highlights the need for institutional reflexivity and multilayered organisational commitments—bureaucratic, ideological, structural—to embed social sciences across problem framing, design, implementation, and evaluation. By making politics, power, and values explicit in evidence use, social sciences can enhance the legitimacy, effectiveness, and justice of environmental policy and practice, moving beyond instrumental roles to include diagnostic, disruptive, reflexive, generative, and leadership contributions.

The study investigates how social sciences are being mainstreamed within UK EPP organisations and develops a practical set of eight integration indicators and sub-indicators to assess and advance meaningful integration. Empirical insights show positive momentum—growing teams, visibility, and impacts—yet continued constraints related to capacity, knowledge hierarchies, narrow framings, and late enrolment. The indicators enable organisations to benchmark progress, reveal gaps, and prioritise actions spanning capacity building, early and substantive interdisciplinary engagement, widening disciplinary scope beyond behaviour change, enhancing professional regard, and institutionalising impact and learning. Sustained progress requires organisational transformation—bureaucratic, cultural, and structural—and strengthened institutional reflexivity to centre social science insights in evidence-led practice. Future work will test and refine the indicators with EPP partners, develop guidance on measurement, and evaluate outcomes across diverse organisational contexts.

Two key limitations are acknowledged: (1) Positionality/advocacy: All authors and participants are social scientists interested in advancing the mainstreaming of social sciences, raising potential concerns about bias. The study mitigated this through breadth of authorship, multi-stage design, and reflexive analysis. (2) Sample size: The number of participants is relatively small (n=19), consistent with qualitative, in-depth research aiming for insight rather than representativeness. Nonetheless, participants spanned multiple EPP organisation types. The indicator framework is intended for broader application and iterative refinement in future studies.