Hi Lewis, can you summarise your research focus for someone unfamiliar with the field?

My research sits within sociology and prison studies, and is broadly concerned with understanding the challenges seen within prisons in England and Wales. Mostly, I seek to explore how challenges in prisons are discussed, how these challenges are experienced, and, crucially, how we can navigate opportunities to change prisons.

By taking a sociological approach to understanding prisons, I explore experiences, voices, and the politics and policy that surrounds the management and accountability of prisons in England and Wales. This also means I focus on lived experience, power, and discourse. This extends beyond the prison walls; I look at how politics, policy, and public narratives shape what happens inside. In that sense, my work is as much about the governance of prisons as it is about imprisonment itself.

My doctoral work examined prison inspection and accountability, asking how institutions are scrutinised, whose voices are heard in that process, and what that means for the everyday realities of imprisonment.

My current research can be explained by three ‘projects’ that I am working on. The first is part of a collaborative project on the experiences of Prison Officers who become imprisoned; this project is looking at the narratives presented on this group in the media with the aim of helping us to explore how media presentation has a consequence to the experience of imprisonment. The second is work I am doing on the use of data within politics and policy in prisons, thinking about the benefits and challenges of ‘data stories’ in helping to change prisons. The third is a project working on policy brief design for people studying prisons, using my own experiences of policy engagement to construct a framework for others to use.

What does research impact mean to you, in the context of your work?

Impact, for me, is not simply about demonstrating that research has been “used”; it is about whether it contributes to meaningful change in a system that is often resistant to it.

Within prison research, impact means ensuring that the realities of imprisonment - particularly those that are uncomfortable or politically inconvenient - are made visible and taken seriously. However, I also question the assumption that evidence translates into policy in a straightforward way. Impact is often partial, contested, and slow. It requires persistence (a lot of rejection), as well as a willingness to engage critically with people and systems you are looking to change.

I also want to answer this from my experience as an Early Career Researcher (ECR), who, being only a year after PhD completion, is trying to figure out and navigate how to do research that engages with both interesting topics whilst thinking about impactful opportunities for change. Therefore, research impact for me is something to be considered at the opening stages of research, so I tailor my research interest to the potential to transform communities – therefore seeing impact as something embedded in the process rather than an afterthought.

Can you share an example of how you are working with external partners or public audiences to increase the impact of your research?

Last year I took part in an event called ‘Evidence Week’ in the UK Parliament. This was done through the organisation ‘Sense About Science’, who offered support, training, and guidance on engaging with parliamentarians to put forward a policy brief.

The work with external partners can be seen in three ways. The first was engaging with Sense About Science, taking part in their training and working with their advisors to construct a policy brief that would interest and draw attention to those in Parliament. This process involved many drafts on a policy brief – as the process of translating my research findings to a policy brief felt a daunting experience – alongside producing a video that could be used and sent to those I engaged with. I learnt a lot at this stage of the process, but the experience was often daunting and demotivating, as I felt I was battling to keep my findings seen as ‘evidence’ even when they produced a call to change political practice.

The second stage can be seen as the ‘event’ - the day in Parliament when I was to talk to parliamentarians who had booked to speak to me. This day offered the challenge of communication, thinking how to explain and persuade my research findings to those looking to find support for their agendas and interests. Luckily, with support from Juliet Harrison, Research Impact and Policy Engagement Manager, I identified a clear line of argument, a simple ‘ask’, and a straightforward approach to persuade parliamentarians that my ideas were worth actioning.

This leads to the final stage of Evidence Week, which was centred on maintaining communication, following up with additional information, and pushing for the change I suggested. Here, I made a very strong connection with an advisor to a Lord, who both shared my passion for changing political practice on prisons and who had the political standing and political capital to speak to the right people for the change to take place (in my case this Lord was considered a champion on prisons and was well respected by the Minister of Prisons). These three activities, working with charities, parliamentarians, and political advisors, led to my research having political impact and my ideas published as procedural policy.

How important is it for you to engage policymakers and politicians in your research, and how have you approached developing these relationships?

For me, engaging policymakers and politicians is really important, but I do not think it is as simple as saying “research should influence policy.” A lot of my work is about prisons as political and policy-driven spaces, so if I am interested in changing or improving those systems, then engagement with policymakers becomes central.

That said, I also question the idea that evidence naturally leads to change - especially in a context like prisons, where decisions are often shaped by politics, ideology, and public narratives as much as they are by research. For me, engaging policymakers and politicians is about building in opportunities for engagement, while also being realistic about how slow, partial, and sometimes frustrating that process can be. It is not always clear what will “land,” and there’s often a lot of rejection or lack of response.

In terms of how I’ve approached developing relationships, a key example is taking part in Evidence Week in the UK Parliament through Sense About Science. Building relationships did not happen on the day; it happened afterwards through conversations and maintaining contact. That led to a strong connection with a political advisor who was genuinely interested in the work and had the networks to take it further. Therefore, engaging policymakers is less about a single moment of “impact” and more about an ongoing process of building relationships, navigating challenges, and being persistent.

Are there any networks, training or resources that you have found useful for expanding the impact of your research or engaging with policy?

Networks are crucial; they provide a strong base of support, a soundboard of suggestions, and connection building, all while you engage with likeminded researchers and people interested in similar topics to you. I found engaging with national networks on prisons – such as the British Society of Criminology’s Prison Research Network (PRN) – to be vital to get this level of support and connection. Through the PRN, I have been able to expand on ideas and share activities with others, such as a policy brief development training that we have created for this year’s annual conference – helping to strengthen the policy impact that we can have as a network.

Whilst I think training is important for engaging with policy, experience counts more. The most important training comes from experiences of having to work smart around engagement, communication, and presentation of ideas for those you are seeking to engage with.

What advice would you give to researchers who are looking to begin engaging with external partners or policymakers for the first time?

The first piece of advice I would give would be to encourage relevance of ideas to support engagement. I use a theory of discourse by Hajer (1994), who discusses political storylines that are used for policy development – a good read in my view – but find someone who is looking at your storyline and make sure you can get that hook into their want for change.

Then comes translating your research; what are your main findings, why should these actors be interested in them, and how can you make these findings understandable in a very short space of time?

Second, is to think about why your research is important to you, to consider the moral edge of your research, and to keep pushing through the lack of interaction and communication that you might get. This sort of resilience is essential to keep your research findings alive.

The final piece of advice would be to remember the voice you are trying to present, the voice of your participants, of those who are often marginalised or ignored, or the voice of reason and logic that pushes for progressive change. The responsibility of researchers is to present these voices – so keep this the core. Impactful research is not just about making change; it is about making sure that the voices we collect matter and that they are not overlooked.

LBU Research Voices is a blog series that celebrates the experiences, journeys, and expertise of our LBU research community. Through this series, we explore the knowledge our researchers have gained, not just from their work, but from their lived experiences, career paths, and the communities they engage with. By sharing their stories, we hope to inspire learning, reflection, and connection across our LBU research culture.

Explore the full LBU Research Voices series to read more stories from across our LBU research community.

Find out more about the LBU Early Career Researcher (ECR) Network here.