Category: Research

Research funding requires research capacity

This year marks 100 years since the Leverhulme Trust was established. It’s a moment for us to reflect on the extraordinary research the Trust has supported over that period – but also to look forward.

That’s why the Leverhulme Trust Board has decided to commit an additional £100 million to UK university research over the next few years, on top of our usual £120m annual spend.

Investing in the future

This is not a nostalgic gesture. It is a deliberate investment in a university sector that continues to deliver world-class research, even as it faces immense financial pressure. The UK’s research base is one of the country’s greatest assets. However, it is under strain, despite the welcome increase in funding for research and development in the recent spending review.

Universities are grappling with rising costs and uncertainty around international student income. In this context, the Trust’s centenary investment is a celebration of the sector’s excellence and, we hope, a timely contribution to sustaining that excellence.

We are directing this funding where we believe it can make the greatest difference: into blue skies research and supporting the next generation of researchers. These are areas where funding has become increasingly difficult to secure, and where we can therefore add the most value. We are, however, not changing our usual approach, which is to leave academics, who are at the forefront of their fields, to determine the questions that are most important and pressing.

Blue sky bedrock

Blue skies research – curiosity-driven, often interdisciplinary, and sometimes high-risk – is the core mission of the Trust. This kind of research is also the bedrock on which much social, technological and economic progress rests. It is easy to identify vitally important blue skies research retrospectively. Much harder to prove its value in advance.

Our award to Kostya Novoselov early in his career looks prescient – he went on to win the Nobel for his work on graphene. But predicting which of the novel projects we fund will pay off in the long term is very tricky. While the Trust’s support for Chris Stringer’s work with the Natural History Museum completely changed our understanding of early human life in Britain, it’s hard to put a value on that.

The need to demonstrate likely impact, combined with research funding streams that are more focused on specific economic priorities, has made it harder for some disciplines to pursue discovery research. The value of quality research (QR) funding in England, which was once the major source for discovery research, has also declined by 15 per cent since 2010.

Yet, it is blue skies research that often leads to the most profound breakthroughs. Charity funding that is patient and takes risks can therefore make a real contribution here.

Investment at every stage

To that end, the Trust will use £50m to establish new research centres, each receiving up to £10 million to tackle big questions over a decade. This research centre model has proven to be highly effective, not only in addressing critical issues, but also in building research capacity. Previous Leverhulme Centres have contributed to areas such as climate change, wildfires, the origins of life, ethical AI, and demographic modelling, to name but a few.

We are also investing in the next generation of researchers. We will commit an additional £20m to doctoral training, doubling our usual spend, to support approximately 200 PhD students. This is another area under financial pressure, particularly in some arts and humanities fields.

This investment is not just about producing future academics. We know that not all PhD graduates will stay in academia. Nor should they. One of the strengths of the UK’s research system is its ability to develop talent that contributes across a range of sectors. I recently spoke with a Leverhulme-funded doctoral student whose work explores the ethics of algorithmic decision-making. Their research is deeply theoretical, but its implications are hugely practical. Whether they end up in academia, government, or industry, their skills will be vital in tackling the AI-related challenges ahead.

And funding academics at the beginning of their career is only part of the story. Our centenary awards will support mid-career researchers in building their first research team, a challenging transition given the increasing teaching demands in some institutions. We will also provide funding to support aspiring scholars from underrepresented groups, as well as provide mentoring and networking opportunities. We want to ensure that talented individuals from all backgrounds can access research careers and thrive within them.

Charity funding as part of a research ecosystem

Charities like the Leverhulme Trust have long played a significant role in supporting UK research, contributing about £2 billion per annum in total. But charity funding is not designed to support the basic infrastructure of universities. This means that any grant we award to a university also requires a contribution from the institution itself because, like most charities, we do not cover overhead costs, which is undoubtedly a challenge for universities.

As the Nurse Review highlighted, both domestic student teaching and university research are cross-subsidised from other income streams. Further, while the UK’s research system is one of the most productive and internationally connected in the world, it is also one of the most financially exposed and the model of relying on the cross-subsidy of research with income from international students has come under immense pressure.

We therefore need to find additional ways to sustain the research capacity that underpins so much of the UK’s economic, social, and cultural life. This is not just about protecting and preserving what we have; it is about shaping what comes next. Research is not a luxury. It is a necessity, especially in a world facing complex challenges, from climate change to economic and technological disruptions.

To maintain the UK’s position as a global research leader, we need a funding system that provides long-term stability.

We hope our investment will not only help to sustain the intellectual ambition that defines the UK’s research community but also prompt a wider conversation – one about how we value research, how we fund it, and how we ensure that its benefits are shared as widely as possible.

Source link

July 6, 2025
How Labour’s 10-year health plan for England joins up with higher education and research

The government wants to reinvent the NHS (in England) through three radical shifts – hospital to community, analogue to digital, and sickness to prevention.

Whether like the chief executive of the NHS you believe Labour’s 10-year health plan for England is about creating “energy and enthusiasm”, whether like the secretary of state you believe this is about building a NHS which is about “the future and a fairer Britain,” or whether across its 168 pages you find the government’s default to techno-optimism, AI will solve everything, one more dataset will fix public services, approach to governance to be somewhere between naive and unduly optimistic, it is clear that the NHS is expected to change and do so quickly.

This is a plan that is as much about the reorganisation of the economy as it is about health. It is about how health services can get people into work, it is a guide to economic growth through innovation in life sciences, it is a lament for the skills needed and the skills not yet thought about for the future of the NHS.

Elsewhere on the site, Jim Dickinson looks at the (lack of) implications for students as group with health needs – here we look at the implications for education, universities, and the wider knowledge economy.

Workforce modelling

One of the premises of the plan is that the 2023 Conservative long-term workforce plan was a mistake. The NHS clearly cannot go on as it currently is, and to facilitate this transformation a “very different kind of workforce strategy” is needed:

Until 2023, [the NHS] had never published a long-term workforce plan. The one it did publish did little more than extrapolate from past trends into the future: concluding there was no alternative than continuation of our current care model, supported by an inexorable growth in headcount, mostly working in acute settings.

A new workforce place is being put together, to appear “later this year” and taking a “decidedly different approach”:

Instead of asking ‘how many staff do we need to maintain our current care model over the next 10 years?’, it will ask ‘given our reform plan, what workforce do we need, what should they do, where should they be deployed and what skills should they have?’

The bottom line is that, therefore, “there will be fewer staff in the NHS in 2035 than projected by the 2023 workforce plan” – but these staff will have better conditions, better training, and “more exciting roles”.

So one immediate question for universities in England is what this reduced staffing target means for recruitment onto medical, nursing and allied health degrees. Places have been expanding, and under previous plans were set to expand at growing rates in the coming years, including a doubling of medical school places by 2035. There were questions about how optimistic some of the objectives were – the National Audit Office last year criticised NHS England for not having assessed the feasibility of expanding places, in light of issues like attrition rates and the need to invest in clinical placement infrastructure.

We won’t get a clear answer of what Labour is proposing until the new workforce plan emerges – especially as there is an accompanying aspiration in today’s plan to reduce the NHS’ dependence on international recruitment. But there are some clear directions of travel. Creating more apprenticeships gets a mention – though of course not at level 7 – but the key theme is a tight link between growing medical student numbers and widening participation:

Expansion of medical school places will be targeted at medical schools with a proven track record of widening participation… The admissions process to medical school will be improved with better information, signposting and support for applicants, and more systematic use of contextual admissions.

This is accompanied by endorsement of the Sutton Trust’s recent research into access disparities. And in one of those “holding universities to account” measures that everyone is so keen on, part of reinforcing this link will be done via work with the Department for Education to “publish data on the relevant background of university entrants, starting with medicine.” If you are thinking that we already did that – yes we did. The UK-wide HESA widening participation performance indicator was last published in 2022 – each regulator now has their own version (for example this from the Office for Students) which doesn’t quite do the same thing.

Education and students

Of course, creating more pathways into working in the NHS is one mechanism to grow its workforce. The other is to unblock current pathways that prevent people from getting into and getting on with their chosen careers in health.

For example, there is a (somewhat tepid) commitment on student support: the plan commits to “explore options” on improving the financial support on offer to medical students from the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds.

For nursing students, the offer is slimmer still – a focus on the “financial obstacles to learning”, including faster reimbursement of placement expenses, and tackling the time lag between completing a course and being able to start work. This latter measure will involve working with higher education institutions to revise the current approach to course completion confirmation, and is billed for September 2026. The Royal College of Nursing has suggested that these “modest” changes go nowhere near far enough.

Nursing and midwifery attrition also comes under scrutiny – the government spots that reducing the rate of non-continuation by a percentage point would result in the equivalent of 300 more nurses and midwives joining the NHS each year. But rather than looking deeper at why this is a growing issue, the buck is handed over to education providers to “urgently address attrition rates.”

Elsewhere the interventions into education provision are more substantial. There’s an already ongoing review of medical training for NHS staff, due to report imminently. On top of this, the plan sets out how the next three years will see an “overhaul” of education and training curricula, to “future-proof” the workforce. There’s lots of talk about faster changes to course content as and when needed, to reflect changes in how the NHS will operate. This comes with a warning:

Where existing providers are unable to move at the right pace, we may look to different institutions to ensure that the education market is responsive to employer needs.

Clinical placement tariffs for undergraduate and postgraduate medicine will be reformed – the plan suggests the tariff system currently “provides limited ability to target funding at training where it is most needed to modernise delivery,” and wants to do more in community settings and make better use of simulation. There will also be expansion of clinical educator capacity, though this will be “targeted” (which is often code for limited).

And course lengths could fall – the plan promises to “work with higher education institutions and the professional regulators as they review course length in light of technological developments and a transition to lifelong rather than static training.” While this does not explicitly suggest shorter medical and nursing programmes – and a consequent growth in provision aimed at professionals – the preference is pretty obvious.

On that last point every member of NHS staff will get their own “personalised career coaching and development plan” which will come alongside the development of “advanced practice models” for nurses (and all the other professional roles in the NHS: radiographers, pharmacists, and the like).

Data and (wider) employment

The plan stretches much wider than simply making commitments on training though and, as the plan makes clear, if the answer isn’t always going to be more money there has to be more efficiency.

There’s a fascinating set of commitments linking health and work – one of those things that feel clunky and obvious until you note that “getting the long-term sick back into work” has just been a soundbite with punitive vibes until now.

Of course, everything has a slightly cringeworthy name – so NHS Accelerators will support local NHS services to have an “impact on people’s work status”, something that may grow into specific and measurable outcomes linking to economic inactivity and unemployment and link in other local government partners. And health support in the traditional sense will link with wider holistic support (as set out in the Pathways to Work green paper) for people with disabilities.

There’s also a set of commitments on understanding and supporting the mental health needs of young people – although the focus is on schools and colleges, there is an expectation that universities will play a part in a forthcoming National Youth Strategy (due from the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport “this summer”) which will cover support for “mental health, wellbeing, and the ability to develop positive social connections.”

All these joined up services will need joined up data, so happy news, too, for those looking for wrap-around support in transitions between educational phases – there will be a single unique identifier for young people: the NHS number. And for fans of learner analytics, a similar approach (with a sprinkling of genomics) will “tell [the NHS] the likelihood of a person developing a condition before it occurs, support early detection of disease, and enable personalised prevention and treatment”.

For some time, universities and other trusted partners have benefited from access to deidentified NHS healthcare administrative data via ADRUK – which has been used for everything from developing new medicine to understanding health policy. This will be joined by a new commercially-focused Health Data Research Service (HDRS) backed by the Wellcome Trust. This is not a new announcement, but the slant here is that it will support the private sector – and as such there will be efforts to “make sure the NHS receives a fair deal for providing access”, which could include a mix of access charges and equity stakes in new developments.

Research, research, research

In effect, the government’s proposals set out how improving the conditions, configurations, and coordination of the NHS workforce, and the information provided to them and their partners, can improve healthcare. The next challenge then is targeting the right kinds of information in the right places, and this depends on the quality of research the NHS can access, make use of, and produce.

The health of the nation does not begin and end at the hospital door. As The King’s Fund points out, “we can’t duck the reality that we are an international outlier with stagnating life expectancy and with millions living many years of life in poor health.” The point of this plan is not only about making health services better but about narrowing health inequalities and using life sciences research to grow the economy.

The plan talks about making up for a “lost decade” of life sciences research. In doing so, it cites an IPPR report (the author is now DHSC’s lead strategy advisor) which demonstrates that the global research spend on life sciences in the UK has reduced and that this has had an impact on life sciences GVA. Following this line of thought suggests that if the UK had maintained levels of investment the economy would have got bigger, people’s lives would have been better and because of the link between poverty and ill health, the NHS would be under less pressure.

The issue with this citation is that the figures used are from 2011–16 and some of the remedies, like association to Horizon Europe, are things the UK has done. Though the plan makes clear that “the era of the NHS’ answer always being ‘more money, never reform’ is over,” it is in fact the case that the government has ploughed record levels of public money into R&D without fundamental reform to the research ecosystem. The premise that economic growth can be spurred by research and leads to better health outcomes is correct – but it isn’t necessary to reference research carried out in 2019 to make the case.

This isn’t merely an annoyance – it speaks to a wider challenge within the plan which oscillates widely between the optimism that “all hospitals will be fully AI-enabled” within the next ten years (80 per cent of hospitals were still using pagers in 2023 despite their ban in 2019), and the obviously sensible commitment to establish Health Innovation Zones which will bring health partners within a devolved framework to experiment in service innovation.

The fundamental challenge facing innovation within health is the diffusion of priorities. There are both a lot of things the NHS and life science researchers might focus their time on, and a lot of layers of bureaucracies that inhibit research. The plan attempts to organise research priorities around five “big bets” (read missions but not quite missions). These include the use of health data, the use of AI (again), personalised health, wearables, and the use of robots. One of the mechanisms for aligning resources will be:

a new bidding process for new Global Institutes. Supported by NIHR funding, these institutes will be expected to marshal the assets of a place – industry, universities, the NHS – to drive genuine global leadership on research and translation.

It’s very industrial strategy – the government is setting out big ideas with some incentives, and hoping the public and private sector follows.

There are some more structural changes to research aside from the political rhetoric. Significantly, there is a proposal to change the funding approaches of the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research to pivot funding toward “prevention, detection and treatment of longterm conditions”. The hope is this approach will drive private investment. Again, like the industrial strategy, the rationale is that the state can be an enabling force for growing the economy.

Ten years’ time

The ten year plan, if it is to mean anything, has to be focused on delivering a different kind of health service. The fundamental shift is about moving toward personalised community orientated care. The concern is that the plan is light on delivery, which would tally with reports that a ninth chapter on delivery is missing all together.

The NHS is stuck in a forever cycle of reform, failing to reform, entering crises, and then being bailed out from crises. The mechanisms to break the cycle includes changes to the workforce, new skills provision, using data differently, and reorientating life sciences research toward prevention and economic growth.

The higher education sector, research institutes, and companies working in research are not only central to the new vision of a NHS but with the amount of investment placed on their capacity to bring change they are no less than the midwives of it. The government’s biggest bet is that it can grow the economy, improve people’s lives, and in doing so reduce pressure on public services. Its biggest risk is that it believes it can do this without fundamental reform to higher education or research as well.

Source link

July 4, 2025
It’s up to universities to make the industrial strategy a success

The industrial strategy is not only an economic document it is also a roadmap for how the country will be governed.

At its heart is a simple premise. Places know what is best for people locally and power should be devolved to them. Not all powers, because some things like defence have to be coordinated at a national level, and certainly not lots of fiscal policy like taxation, but powers over things like spatial planning (where the government allows it), investment, and some parts of the R&D ecosystem.

The ideal body for distributing these powers is the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA). These are the collection of councils in one area, usually a city, that work together to achieve more than they could alone. The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the West Midlands Combined Authority are just two examples

Process not an event

In 1997 then Secretary of State for Wales Rob Davies called devolution “a process not an event”, and he was right. Powers are not spread evenly through the UK, London has quite a lot and a local town council has very few. And the propensity for government to operate through pots of money that local government bid for to do stuff is unusual by international comparisons. This level of financial control limits many places to being the delivery arm of government more so than independent decision makers in their own right.

This patchwork approach also means higher education providers have a mixed relationship with the devolution story.

Solely through an academic lens research intensive universities have done well out of (even if they do not like it) how centralised the UK is. The REF just isn’t interested in geography. It follows quality, impact, and environments wherever they may be. Previous research pots like the Regional Innovation Fund which apply a funding multiplier to places underserved by research funding are the exception not the norm.

The industrial strategy is different in that it at least attempts some kinds of rebalancing in acknowledging that if the government funds the same things in the same places the same kinds of research outputs will be produced. The fact there is some money behind it is even better. As DK noted in his review of research in the industrial strategy:

The £500m Local Innovation Partnerships Fund is intended to generate a further £1bn of additional investment and £700m of value to local economies, and there are wider plans to get academia and industry working together: a massive expansion in supercomputer resources (the AI research resource, inevitably) and a new Missions Accelerator programme supported by £500m of funding. And there’s the Sovereign AI Unit within government (that’s another £500m of industry investments) in “frontier AI”. On direct university allocation we get the welcome news that the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) is here to stay.

The places that are located outside of major cities without large research portfolios have more reason to be sceptical about devolution. Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner has called for local leaders to “fill in the map” of devolution but this is easier said than done. Places have distinct histories, geographies, and can’t as easily be accommodated into MCAs as places like Greater Manchester.

While there has been interest in towns from time to time, the Towns Fund provided some funding to some places on some research projects, they risk being left behind within a devolution system that prioritises larger conurbations.

The universities problem

Let’s take the government’s proposals at face value and assume it is going to implement the full version of the devolution agenda it is proposing. This would mean local government has more funding to buy land, freeports and investment zones will be streamlined to provide even more business incentives, the British Business Bank (among other funders) will release and coordinate capital aligned to regions and the eight industrial strategy priorities, a further £200m will be spent on further education in England, and a series of growth funds will run directly through mayors.There are more announcements to come on skills, local economic regulation and infrastructure.

Universities are not losers in any of these measures but nor are they inevitably complementary to everything the governments wants to do. Former universities minister David Willetts, who had some reservations about the draft strategy, has softened his tone writing:

Most of the key industries set out in that visual [the one explaining the industrial strategy priorities] are heavy users of higher education. Universities will play a crucial role in the strategy. One of the biggest risks to delivering it is the financial fragility of these core institutions. It is good to see them getting a vivid illustration as well – on page 73. But the Government has not yet taken the decisions needed to ensure they can thrive and continue to be such a national asset.

This is the core problem. It is possible to imagine how industries may rely on universities but it is more difficult work out how universities, specifically, can deploy their capacity in the most effective ways. Universities cannot expect government money for everything they do but it is also true that if they fall over the industrial strategy will fall with them.

Philosophically, the industrial strategy neither supports enormous state intervention nor is it a hands off document of supply-side reform. It sees the state as an enabling force which can reduce risks to business, catalyse investment, and reconfigure the public sector. The industrial strategy does not tell universities what to do, or even what they might do in great detail, because that is not what it is designed to do. It gives an approach and it is for universities to choose whether and how they follow it.

Adapt or perish

This suggests a significant period of adaptation for universities. If more investment and political attention is flowing through their places then being involved in their places becomes significantly more important. Fundamentally, the industrial strategy is not an instruction manual but it is a guide to the things that the government will and will not fund.

There are lots of devolved things that universities would generally find unpalatable like top-slicing QR funds to MCAs. There are lots of things that universities could do and are doing to set an example which might one day be backed up by legislation. Organising regional bodies to coordinate the provision of education to meet local labour market needs. Forming joint research programmes and investment vehicles to form one front door for research in their area. Using their own research capacity to interrogate the best forms of devolution and devolved structures. And, perhaps most importantly, being embedded in the important but unglamorous business of transport and spatial planning.

The bigger mental shift is that the industrial strategy has two core centres of control. Its eight priority industries and regions and clusters within them. The challenge for universities, if they want to see sustained government support for their work, is to answer how what they do supports those two agendas. This is not a PR exercise but a careful interrogation of the limits and approaches of universities in their places and within those core industries.

In some places this might mean tweaking existing work, in others it might mean new partners or new projects, and in some it might mean a more fundamental reimagining of the shape of the education sector in a region. Given the perilous state of university finances it is the institutions that look like they have solutions that will do well in the era of uncertainty.

The industrial strategy does not leave universities behind, but it might. The opportunity is for universities to shape the settlement they want through being proactive in shaping their regions. This is not about another civic strategy but about creating the governance apparatus to support economic growth. Anything short of this risks an economic agenda which is done to universities rather than with them.

Source link

June 30, 2025
The risk of unrepresentative REF returns hasn’t gone away

The much awaited Contributions to Knowledge and Understanding (CKU) guidance for REF 2029 is out, and finally higher education institutions know how the next REF will work for the outputs component of the assessment. Or do they?

Two of us have written previously about the so-called portability issue, where if a researcher moves to a new institution, it is the new institution to which the research outputs are credited and potentially future REF-derived funding flows.

We and others have argued that this portability supports the mobility of staff at the beginning of their careers and the mobility of staff that are facing redundancy. We believe that this is an important principle, which should be protected in the design of the current REF. If we believe that the higher education system should nurture talent, then the incentive structure underpinning the REF should align with this principle.

We maintain that the research, its excellence, and the integrity with which it is performed depends upon the people that undertake it. Therefore, we continue to support some degree of portability as per REF 2021, acknowledging that the situation is complex and that this support of individual careers can come at the expense of the decoupling and the emerging focus on institutions. The exceptions delineated around “longform and/or long process outputs” in the CKU guidance are welcome – the devil will lie in the detail.

Who the return represents

Leaving aside portability, the decoupling of outputs from individuals has also resulted in a risk to the diversity of the return, especially in subject areas where the total number of eligible outputs is very high.

In previous REF exercises the rules were such that the number of outputs any one researcher could return to the department/unit’s submission was restricted (four in REF 2014 and five in REF 2021). This restriction ensured that each unit’s return comprised a diversity of authors, a diversity of subdisciplines and diversity of emerging ideas.

We recognise that one could argue the REF is an excellence framework, not a diversity framework. However – like many – we believe that REF also has a role to play in supporting the inclusive research community we all wish to champion. REF is also about a diversity – of approaches, of methodologies, of research areas – research needs diversity to ensure the effective teams are in place to deliver on the research questions. What would the impact be on research strategies if individual units increasingly are dominated by a small number of authors?

How the system plays out

Of course, the lack of restriction on output numbers does not preclude units from creating a diverse return. However, especially in this time of sector-wide financial pressures, those in charge of a submission may feel they have no option other than to select outputs to maximise the unit score and hence future funding.

This unbounded selection process will likely lead to intra-unit discord. Even in an ideal case will result in the focus being on outputs covering a subset of hot topics, or worse, subset of perceived high-quality journals. The unintended consequence of this focus could place undue importance on the large research groups led by previously labelled “research stars”. For large HEIs with large units including several of these “stars”, the unit return might still appear superficially diverse, but the underlying return might be remarkably narrow.

While respecting fully the contribution made by these traditional leaders, we think the health of our research future critically depends upon the championing of the next and diverse generation of researchers and their ideas too. We maintain the limits imposed in previous exercises did this, even if that was not their primary intent.

Some might, for a myriad of reasons, think that our concerns are misplaced. The publication of the guidance suggest that we have not managed to land these important points around diversity and fairness.

However, we are sure that many of those who have these views wish to see a diverse REF return too. If we have not persuaded Research England and the other funding councils to reimpose output limits, we urge them at least to ensure that the data is collected as part of the process such that the impact upon the diversity of this unrestricted return can be monitored and hence that future REF exercises can be appropriately informed. This will then allow DSIT and institutions to consider whether the REF process needs to be adjusted in future.

Our people, their excellence and their diversity, we would argue, matter.

Source link

June 25, 2025
a-closer-look-two-areas-changes-in-student-expectations The Cengage Blog
Reading Time: 3 minutes

As the world of higher ed continues to evolve at lightning speed, many students are understandably feeling some pressure to keep up. And that’s having a significant impact on the way they’re operating day-to-day in and out of the classroom. Over the past few years, faculty have reported noticeable changes in student expectations, with 49% recently telling us that the need to adapt to those expectations is a top challenge.

So, what’s shifting, and how can faculty better adapt to meet their students where they are without going overboard? Let’s examine two examples of how needs and expectations are changing: AI use and deadline extension requests.

The line between responsible AI use and cheating is fuzzy for some students

Last year, 46% of those we surveyed in our annual Faces of Faculty report named combating cheating and plagiarism as a top challenge, down only slightly from 49% in 2023. And as AI becomes a bigger, more integral part of the higher ed experience, it’s growing increasingly difficult for many students to distinguish between responsible AI use and academic dishonesty.

Forty-two percent of faculty we surveyed say they see significant or severe ethical and legal risks associated with generative AI in education, with 82% of instructors expressing concern specifically about AI and academic integrity. While today’s students expect AI to play some kind of role in the learning process, many stand on shaky ground when it comes to applying it ethically in their coursework.

How instructors are responding

As we reported, many instructors are taking a proactive approach when it comes to combatting this issue:
- Many faculty have told us that they like to set clear expectations at the beginning of the semester/term around AI-use, either verbally or within their syllabus. By doing so, they can provide students with clear-cut guidance on how they should approach their coursework.
- Faculty are finding that the more they know about AI, the better they can safeguard assignments from potential overreliance. One educator from Missouri told us, “I am learning more about Al and Al detection this year, and am making quite a few adjustments to my assignments so they are more personal and reflective, rather than Al-tempting assignments.”
- Using anti-cheating software has become a very popular method for instructors, with many using online plagiarism detection tools like turnitin or “locked down” browsers.
“Spending a lot more time and effort identifying and using reliable plagiarism detection software, especially AI detectors.” – Faculty member

Extension requests: pushing deadlines and boundaries

Another example of changing student needs is the growing expectation from students that their extension requests will be granted. But this has left many instructors feeling overwhelmed, not only by the number of requests to keep track of, but by a rising uncertainty over which requests are based on legitimate reasons. This may very well be a contributing factor for 35% of faculty who cited perceived dishonesty and lack of accountability from students as a top driver of dissatisfaction in 2024.

An adjunct professor from Virginia told us, “I leaned into adapting to students’ expectations, but this became somewhat unmanageable when teaching multiple courses. I am also concerned with setting a precedent for future students in my courses if current students share that accommodations are easily given.”

How instructors are responding

Despite the challenges that this shift presents, many instructors are jumping in to accommodate extension requests from students, offering both patience and a generally high level of understanding. Faculty acknowledge that today’s students have a lot to contend with these days — from financial stressors to academic and social pressures — and they’re prepared to flex to those challenges.

“I became more flexible. I get annoyed by professors my age who ignore the fact that today’s students are under ten times the pressure we were when we were undergraduates. Some of these students are carrying a full course load while working two jobs.” – Other professor role/lecturer/course instructor, Ontario

While they’re empathic to students’ evolving needs, instructors are ready to set their own boundaries when necessary. One faculty member told us, “For the most part, I held firm in my deadlines. I did however increase the number of reminders I sent.”

Regardless of the approach, clear communication with students remains at the heart of how faculty are dealing with this particular shift. Another instructor said, “I look at the individual situation and adapt…I remind students to complete items early to avoid unexpected delays. If there is a technology issue, then I will extend if it is communicated timely.”

We’re happy to see our faculty skillfully weaving through these obstacles while remaining committed to adapting to new student expectations.

To get a full picture about what 1,355 surveyed U.S. and Canadian faculty had to say about changes in student expectations, read our 2024 Faces of Faculty report.
Source link
June 25, 2025
Research and innovation in the industrial strategy

The UK needs a plan for growth and innovation – an industrial strategy is a way of picking winners in terms of sector investments and prioritisation.

Today’s iteration (the fourth in recent times, with Theresa May’s government providing the previous one) chooses eight high-potential sectors to prioritise funding and skills interventions, with the overall intention of encouraging private investment over the long term.

Picking winners for the long term

The choices are the important bit – as the strategy itself notes

Past UK industrial strategies have not lasted because they have either refused to make choices or have failed to back their choices up by reallocating resources and driving genuine behaviour change in both government and industry.

And there are clear commonalities between previous choices and the new ones. Successive governments have prioritised “clean growth”, data and technology, and health – based both on the potential for growth and the impact that investment could have.

What is different this time is the time scales on which the government is thinking – much of the spending discussed today is locked in to the next five years of departmental spending via the spending review, and of course we have those infamous 10-year research and development plans in some areas: the Aerospace Technology Institute (linked to Cranfield), the National Quantum Computing Centre (at the Harwell STFC campus), the Laboratory of Molecular Biology (MRC supported at Cambridge), and the new DRIVE35 automotive programme are the first to be announced.

The headlines

My colleague Michael Salmon has analysed the skills end of the strategy elsewhere, here we are looking at investments in research and innovation – both in the industrial strategy itself and the five (of eight) IS-8 sector plans published alongside it (Advanced manufacturing, Creative industries, Clean energy, Digital and technologies, Professional and business services – with defence, financial services, and life sciences pending)

Government funded innovation programmes will prioritise the IS-8, within a wider goal to focus all of research and development funding on long term economic growth. This explicitly does not freeze out curiosity delivered research – but it is clear that there will be a focus on the other end of the innovation pipeline.

At a macro level UKRI will be pivoting financial support towards the IS-8 sectors – getting new objectives around innovation, commercialisation, and scale-up. If you are thinking that this sounds very Innovate UK you would be right, the Catapult Network will also get tweaks to refocus.

The £500m Local Innovation Partnerships Fund is intended to generate a further £1bn of additional investment and £700m of value to local economies, and there are wider plans to get academia and industry working together: a massive expansion in supercomputer resources (the AI research resource, inevitably) and a new Missions Accelerator programme supported by £500m of funding. And there’s the Sovereign AI Unit within government (that’s another £500m of industry investments) in “frontier AI”. On direct university allocation we get the welcome news that the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) is here to stay.

There’s an impressively hefty chunk of plans for getting the most out of public sector data – specifically the way in which government (“administrative”) data can be used by research and industry. Nerds like me will have access to a wider range of data under a wider range of licenses – the government will also get better at valuing data in order to maximise returns for the bits it does sell, and there will be ARDN-like approaches available to more businesses to access public data in a safe and controlled way (if parliamentary time allows, legislation will be brought forward) – plus money (£12m) for data sharing infrastructure and the (£100m) national data library.

By sector

The sector plans themselves have a slant towards technology adoption (yes even the creative sector – “createch” is absolutely a thing). But there’s plenty of examples throughout of specific funding to support university-based research, innovation, and bringing discoveries to market – alongside (as you’ll see from Michael’s piece) plenty on skills.

Clearly the focus varies between sectors. For example, there will be a specific UKRI professional and business services innovation programme; while digital and technologies work is more widely focused on the entirety of the UK’s research architecture: there we get promises of “significant” investment via multiple UKRI and ARIA programmes alongside a £240m focus on advanced communication technologies (ACT). The more research-focused sectors also get the ten-year infrastructure-style investments like the £1bn on AI research resources.

Somewhat surprisingly clean energy is not one of the big research funding winners – there’s just £20m over 7 years for the sustainable industrial futures programme (compare the £1bn energy programme in the last spending review). With sustainability also being a mission it also gets a share of the missions accelerator programme (£500m), but for such a research-intensive field that doesn’t feel like a lot.

The creative industries, on the other hand, get £100m via UKRI over the spending review period – there’s a specific creative industries research and development plan coming later this year, alongside (£500m) creative clusters, and further work on measuring the output of the sector. And “createch” (the increasingly technical underpinnings of the creative industries) is a priority too.

It’s also worth mentioning advanced manufacturing as a sector where business and industry are major funders. Here the government is committing “up to £4.3bn” for the sector, with £2.8bn of this going to research and development. Key priorities include work on SME technology adoption, and advanced automotive technologies – the focus is very much on commercialisation, and there is recognition that private finance needs to be a big part of this.

Choice cuts?

The IS-8 are broadly drawn – it is difficult to think of an academic research sector that doesn’t get a slice. But there will be a shaking out of sub-specialisms, and the fact that one of the big spenders (health and medicine) is currently lacking detail doesn’t help understand how the profile of research within that area will shift during the spending review period.

Industrial policy has always been a means of picking winners – focusing necessarily limited investment on the places it will drive benefits. The nearly flat settlement for UKRI in the spending review was encouraging, but it is starting to feel like new announcements like these need to be seen both as net benefits (for the lucky sectors) and funding cuts (for the others).

Source link

June 23, 2025
Coaching can be a strategic act of research culture

In higher education institutions, we often speak of “developing talent,” “building capacity,” or “supporting our people.” But what do those phrases really mean when you’re a researcher navigating uncertainty, precarity, or a system that too often assumes resilience, but offers limited resources?

With the renewed focus of REF 2029 on people, culture and environment, and the momentum of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, there’s a growing imperative to evidence not only what support is offered, but how it’s experienced.

That’s where I believe that coaching comes in – as a strategic, systemic tool for transforming research culture from the inside out.

At a time when UK higher education is facing significant financial pressures, widespread restructuring, and the real threat of job losses across institutions, it may seem counterintuitive to invest in individuals’ development. But it is precisely because of this instability that our commitment to people must be more visible and deliberate than ever. In moments of systemic strain, the values we choose to protect speak volumes. Coaching offers one way to show – through action, not just intention – that our researchers matter, that their growth is not optional, and that culture isn’t a casualty of crisis, but a lever for recovery.

By coaching, I mean a structured, confidential, and non-directive process that empowers individuals to reflect, identify goals and navigate challenges. Unlike mentoring, which often involves sharing advice or experience, coaching creates a thinking space led by the individual, where the coach supports them to surface their own insights, unpick the unspoken dynamics of academia, build confidence in their agency, and cultivate their personal narrative of progress.

Coaching is not just development – it’s disruption

We tend to associate coaching with senior leadership, performance management, or executive transition. But over the last seven years, I’ve championed coaching for researchers – especially early career researchers – as a means of shifting the developmental paradigm from “this is what you need to know” to “what do you need, and how can we co-create that space?”

When coaching is designed well – thoughtfully matched, intentionally scaffolded, and thoughtfully led – it becomes a quiet form of disruption. It gives researchers the confidence to think through difficult questions. And it models a research culture where vulnerability is not weakness but wisdom.

This is especially powerful for those who feel marginalised in academic environments – whether due to career stage, background, identity or circumstance. One early career researcher recently told me that coaching “helped me stop asking whether I belonged in academia and start asking how I could shape it. For the first time, I felt like I didn’t have to shrink myself to fit in.” That’s the kind of feedback you won’t find in most institutional KPIs – but it says a lot about the culture we’re building.

Why coaching belongs in your research strategy

Coaching still suffers from being seen as peripheral – a nice-to-have, often under-resourced and siloed from mainstream provision. Worse, it’s sometimes positioned as remedial, offered only when things go wrong.

As someone who assesses UK institutions for the European Commission-recognised HR Excellence in Research Award, I’ve seen first-hand how embedding coaching as a core element of researcher support isn’t just the right thing to do – it’s strategically smart. Coaching complements and strengthens the implementation of institutional actions for the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, by centring the individual researcher experience – not just a tick-box approach to the principles.

What’s striking is how coaching aligns with the broader institutional goals we often hear in strategy documents: autonomy, impact, innovation, wellbeing, inclusion. These are not incidental outcomes; they’re the foundations of a healthy research pipeline, and coaching delivers on these – but only if we treat it as a central thread of our culture, not a side offer.

Crucially, coaching is evidence of how we live our values. It offers a clear, intentional method for demonstrating how people and culture are not just statements but structures – designed, delivered, and experienced.

In REF 2029 institutions will be asked to evidence the kind of environment where research happens. Coaching offers one of the most meaningful, tangible ways to demonstrate that such an environment exists through the lived experiences of the people working within it.

Culture is personal – and coaching recognises that

In higher education, we often talk about culture as though it’s something we can declare or design. But real culture – the kind that shapes whether researchers thrive or withdraw – is co-created, day by day, through dialogue, trust, and reflection.

Culture lives in the everyday, unrecorded interactions: the invisible labour of masking uncertainty while trying to appear “resilient enough” to succeed; the internal negotiation before speaking up in a lab meeting; or the emotional weight carried by researchers who feel like they don’t belong.

Coaching transforms those invisible moments into deliberate acts of empowerment. It creates intentional, reflective spaces where researchers – regardless of role or background – are supported to define their own path, voice their challenges, and recognise their value. It’s in these conversations that inclusion is no longer an aspiration but a lived reality where researchers explore their purpose, surface their barriers, and recognise their value.

This is especially needed in environments where pressure to perform is high, and space to reflect is minimal. Coaching doesn’t remove the pressures of academia. But it builds capacity to navigate them with intention – and that’s culture work at its core.

Embedding a coaching culture as part of researcher development shouldn’t be a fringe benefit or pilot project – it should be an institutional expectation. We need more trained internal coaches who understand the realities of academic life and more visibly supported coaching opportunities aligned with the Researcher Development Concordat. The latter encourages a minimum of ten days’ (pro rata) professional development for research staff per year. Coaching is one of the most impactful ways those days can be used – not just to develop researchers, but to transform the culture they inhabit.

A call to embed – not bolt on

If we’re serious about inclusive, people-centred research environments, then coaching should be treated as core business. It should not be underfunded, siloed, or left to goodwill. It must be valued, supported, and embedded – reflected in institutional KPIs, Researcher Development Concordat and Research Culture Action Plans, and REF narratives alike.

And in a sector currently under intense financial pressure, we should double down on culture as a lived commitment to those we ask to do difficult, meaningful work during difficult, uncertain times. Coaching is a strategic lever for equity, integrity, and excellence.

Source link

June 19, 2025
Co-creation of research agendas could strengthen policy research engagement

The University Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) recently announced that it had been successful in a UKRI bid to develop and expand UK policy to research infrastructure, facilitating connections and engagement between public and civil servants on one hand, and research organisations on the other.

This call is a recent manifestation of a perennial and important interest in evidence-informed policymaking, and policy and research engagement. Policy engagement is also part of an increased focus on engagement with and impact of research, driven by the Research Excellence Framework.

We recently published a journal article exploring what researchers and policymakers need to know and understand when engaging with each other, based on interviews with 11 experts working with higher education regulators, other major sectoral bodies, and higher education institutions who had extensive expertise across the UK higher education sector.

University-based researchers and policymakers respond to different incentives in ways that are not always conducive to engagement. Interviewees described a wide range of influences on policy, including many types of research, much of which is produced outside the university sector. For some types of research, such as rapid research, researchers at higher education institutions were seen as being at a disadvantage. To address these considerations, our interviewees suggested that research co-creation – involving policymakers earlier in the process to develop research ideas and design projects – could promote engagement with policy.

Engagement from the start

In a typical research process, university-based researchers develop, conduct, and publish their research with a high degree of independence from the stakeholders of their research. Once the research is completed, researchers disseminate their findings, hoping to reach external stakeholders, including policymakers. In contrast, co-created research brings research stakeholders into the research process at the beginning and maintains stakeholder influence and co-creation throughout.

When asked how researchers can increase engagement with policy, one participant said: :

Co-designing projects with people involved in policy from the outset rather than, you know, what I often see, which is ‘we’ve done this stuff and now, who can we send it to?’ So, getting people involved from the outset and the running of it through advice.

Because policy priorities shift and because research often takes a long time to complete, co-creation is not a perfect solution for policy research engagement. But co-creation may increase the likelihood that research findings are relevant to and usable for the specific needs of policymakers. Another benefit of co-creation is that, by taking part in the research process, policymakers are more likely to feel invested in the research and inclined to use its findings.

Co-creation of research with policymakers requires access to and some form of relationship with relevant policymakers. While some researchers have easier access to policymakers than others, there are structures in place to facilitate the networking required to build relevant relationships, including through academic fellowship with the UK Parliament. Researchers can sometimes connect more easily to ministers and policymakers via intermediary organisations such as mission groups, representative bodies, think tanks, and professional organisations.

Designing successful co-creation

In a policy-research co-creation model, one of the questions that is worth asking is what is co-created: is research co-created, policy co-created, or both? For example, one participant in our study viewed researcher engagement with policymakers as policy-co-creation, rather than as research co-creation. Researchers can ask themselves: “What policy am I well-positioned to co-create based on my research?” as well as “How can my research benefit from co-creation with its stakeholders?”

Our article highlights that one of the more frequent pathways for researchers based at universities to engage with policy is through conducting commissioned research. Commissioned research is often aligned with policy needs and facilitates co-creation. Yet independence, rigour, and criticality – markers of quality research – still need to be ensured even as part of co-created and commissioned research.

Commissioned research was not the only type of research discussed by our participants that led to policy engagement. Interviewees provided examples of researchers with an established and rigorous body of work that answered policy-relevant questions which were successful in shaping policy. Sometimes, a body of research developed over time and over multiple studies is better suited for policy engagement. Sometimes this takes the form of a systematic review designed to bring a large body of research literature to bear on a current policy problem.

This raises an important consideration for mechanisms that incentivise engagement: how does incentivising engagement affect the multiple priorities that researchers based at higher education institutions need to meet? The danger here is that, as more policy engagement is incentivised, researchers at higher education institutions might prioritise forms and qualities of research which lend themselves to engagement over those which higher education is uniquely placed to offer.

As current efforts to expand UK-wide policy to research infrastructure develop, it is important to consider the multiple complexities associated with policy research engagement. In our view, for policy and research engagement to be meaningful, policy to research infrastructure needs to support high quality research, targeted engagement, and have a clear sense of what each of these means in practice.

Source link

June 18, 2025
REF is about institutions not individuals

The updated guidance on Contributions to Knowledge and Understanding (CKU: formerly known as outputs) will be seen as the moment it became clear what REF is.

REF is not about solely, or even mostly, measuring researcher performance. Its primary purpose is to assess how organisations measure research excellence.

It is the release which signals that research may be produced by individuals but it is assessed at an institutional level and the only measure that matters is whether the institution was responsible for supporting the research that led to the output.

2014 Redux

It is worth rehashing how we got here.

REF is the tool Research England and its devolved equivalents use to decide how much QR funding universities will receive. One thing it measures is the research output of universities. The research output of universities are the outputs of the researchers that work there (or a sample of the outputs.)

The question that REF has always grappled with is whether to measure the quality of research or the quality of researchers. The latter would be quite a straightforward exercise and one that has been done in different formats over the years. Get a cross-sample of researchers to submit their best research at a given point in time and then ask a panel to rate its quality.

Depending on the intended policy output the exercise might make every researcher submit some research to ensure a sample is truly representative. It might limit how much any one researcher can submit to ensure a sample is balanced. It might tweak measurements in any number of ways to change what a researcher can submit and when depending on the objectives of the exercise.

The downside of this approach is that it is not an entirely helpful way to understand the quality of university research across an entire institution. It tells you how good researchers are within a specific field, like a Unit of Assessment, but it does not tell us how good the provider is at creating the conditions in which that research takes place. Unless you believe, and it is not an unreasonable belief, that there is no difference between the aggregate of individual research outputs and the overall quality of institutional research.

Individuals and teams

To look at it another way. Jude Bellingham looks very different playing for England than he does Real Madrid. He is still the same footballer with the same skills and same flaws. It is that for Real Madrid he is playing for a team with an ethos of excellence and a history of winning. And for England he is playing for a team that consistently fails to achieve anything of note.

The only fair way to measure England is not to use Jude Bellingham as a proxy of their performance but to measure the performance of the England team over a defined period of time. In other words, to decouple Bellingham’s performance from England’s overall output.

As put in a rather punchy blog by Head of REF Policy Jonathan Piotrowski,

REF 2029 shifts our focus away from the individual and towards the environment where that output was created and how it was supported. This change in perspective is essential for two key reasons: first, to gather the right evidence to inform funding decisions that enable institutions to support more excellent research and second, to fundamentally recognise the huge variety of roles and outputs that contribute to the research ecosystem, including those whose names may not appear as authors and outputs that extend beyond traditional journal publications.

Who does research?

The philosophical questions are whether research is created by researchers, institutions, or both and to what degree. And in a complex system involving teams of researchers, businesses, and institutions, whether it is any easier or accurate to ascribe outputs to researchers than it is to institutions. The policy implication is that providers should be less concerned about who is doing research but the conditions in which research occurs. The upshot is that the research labour market will become less dynamic, there is less incentive to appoint people as they are “REFable”, which will have both winners and losers.

The mechanism for decoupling in REF 2029 is to remove the link between staff and their outputs. The new guidance sets out precisely how this decoupling process will work.

There will be no staff details submitted and outputs will not be submitted linked to a specific author. Instead, outputs are submitted to a Unit of Assessment. This is not a new idea. The 2016 review of the REF (known as the Stern Review) recommended that

The non-portability of outputs when an academic moves institution should be helpful to all institutions including smaller institutions with strong teams in particular areas which have previously been potential targets for ‘poaching’.

However, it is worth emphasising that this is an enormous change from previous practice. In REF 2014 the whole output was captured by whichever institution a researcher was at, at the REF census date. In REF 2021 if a researcher moved between institutions the output was captured by both. In REF 2029 the output will be captured by the institution where there is a “substantive link.”

Substantive links

A substantive link will usually be demonstrated by employment of a period of 12 months at least 0.2 FTE equivalent. The staff member does not have to be at the provider at the point the output is submitted. Other indicators may include

evidence of internal research support (for example, funding for research materials, technical or research support, conference attendance) evidence of work in progress presentations (internally and externally) evidence of an external grant to support a relevant program of research.

In effect, this means that the link between researchers and REF is that their research took place in a specific institution, but it is ultimately the institution that is being assessed. The thing that is being assessed is the relationship between the research environment and the creation of the output. Not the relationship between the output and the researcher.

As the focus of assessment shifts so do the rules on what can or cannot be submitted. As we know from previous guidance there is no maximum or minimum submissions from staff members. There may be some researchers at, or who were at, a provider who find their work appears in an institution’s submissions a number of times, and maybe even across disciplines (there will no be now no inter-disciplinary flags but an output may be submitted to more than one UOA and receive different scores.)

The obvious challenge here is that while providers should submit representative outputs the overriding temptation will be to submit what they believe to be their “best” and then work backwards to justify why it is representative. The REF team have anticipated this problem and the representativeness of a submission will be assessed through the disciplinary led evidence statements. The full guidance on what these contain is yet to be released but we know that

The important issues of research diversity, demographics and career stages will be assessed as part of the wider disciplinary level evidence statements

Research England’s position is that aligning outputs to where they are created, not who creates them is a better way to measure institutional research performance. This should also end the incentive for universities to recruit researchers and in doing so capture their REF output. The thinking is that this favours the larger universities that can afford to poach research staff.

Debates had and debates to come

In a previous piece for Wonkhe Maria Delgado, Nandini Das, and Miles Padgett made the case that portability is key to fairness in REF. The opposite argument that is being put forward by Research England. Maria, Nandini, and Miles made the case that whether we like it or not one of the ways in which academics secure better career prospects is by improving the REF performance of a provider’s UOA. Research England makes the case that

The core motivation is to minimise the REFs ability to exert undue influence on people’s careers. To achieve this, institutional funding (remember, QR funding does not track to individuals or departments) should follow the institutions that have genuinely provided and invested in the environment in which research is successful. Environments that recognise the collaborative nature of research and the diverse roles involved, rather than simply rewarding institutions positioned to recruit researchers to get reward for their past output.

It is possible that both arguments may be right. If outputs are tied to institutions the incentive for institutions who want to do well in REF is to capture a greater number of high quality outputs to include in their submission. The way to do this is to have more researchers supported to do high quality work. On the other hand, at an individual level and in a time of financial crisis for the sector, there are likely some researchers who benefit from being able to take their research output with them when they move institutions.

In the comments of our initial portability piece it was flagged that researchers’ work could form part of an assessment where they had no relationship with the provider. This feels particularly egregious if they have been made redundant as part of wider cost saving. The message being that the research output is high quality but nonetheless it is necessary to remove your post. The REF team have considered this and

Outputs where the substantive link occurred before the submitted output was made publicly available, will not be eligible for submission where the author was subject to compulsory redundancy.

The guidance explains that there may be times where there is a substantive relationship but the research has not yet been published. On the face of it this seems a sensible compromise but if the logic is that a provider is the place where research outputs are created it seems contradictory (albeit kinder) to then limit the conditions through which that work can be assessed. It is possible there will be some outputs which were in the process of being published but not yet assessed which would fall into this clause.

The guidance confirms a direction of travel that was established as far back as REF 2021 and made clear in the guidance so far for REF 2029. While the debate on who should be assessed in which circumstances continues the wider concern for many will be that there is still significant guidance outstanding, particularly on People Culture and Environment, and the submission window for REF closes in 30 months from now.

A direction has been set. The sector needs to know the precise rules they are playing by if they are going to go along with it. There is undoubtedly a lot of good will around measuring research environments, culture, and the ways in which outputs are created more comprehensively. That good will, will evaporate if guidance is not timely, clear, or complete.

Source link

June 12, 2025
Horizon Europe revisited in wake of Trump’s attacks on unis – Campus Review

Universities Australia (UA) has again called on the Albanese government to invest in research fund Horizon Europe amid growing uncertainty from the United States.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

June 11, 2025