Category: Research

  • Coaching can be a strategic act of research culture

    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

  • Co-creation of research agendas could strengthen policy research engagement

    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

  • REF is about institutions not individuals

    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

  • Horizon Europe revisited in wake of Trump’s attacks on unis – Campus Review

    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

  • That Was the Quarter That Was

    That Was the Quarter That Was

    What’s been going on around the world since the end of March, you ask? 

    Well, unsurprisingly, the biggest stories have come from the United States.  There are in effect four fronts to the Trump administration’s attacks on the world of higher education.  First of all, the government’s new budget is going to reduce student eligibility for student loans and grants, meaning there will be less opportunity available to American students.  Second, the budget also proposes to radically slash the budgets of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (the cuts you heard about in the early months of the Trump administration were cuts to existing and in-progress grants – the new budget is about slashing expenditures going forward).   Third, it had decided to get itself into an enormous spat with Harvard, starting with issuing a bizarre set of demands on April 11th, followed by an admission that the letter had been sent in error, followed by enraged bellicosity that Harvard wasn’t submitting to a letter the administration had not meant to send.  Things escalated: the Trump administration impounded more billions of dollars, Harvard responded by shrugging and raising a few hundred million on the bond market, and Trump escalated by, eventually, banning Harvard from accepting or hosting any international students.  And fourth, shortly after a court granted Harvard an injunction on the international students matter, the Trump administration began delaying all student visas and aggressively cancelling Chinese student visas.

    (Whew.)

    This is of course a massive own goal with dangerous implications, as commentators such as Holden Thorp and William Kirby have pointed out.  But it is not simply about Americans losing scientific/technological supremacy.  As the Economist has pointed out, the entire world has a stake in what happens to American science; its hobbling will have consequences not just for global science but for the global economy as well.

    It has been fascinating over the past few weeks watching how the American debacle had grabbed the attention of the rest of the world as well.  It has been very difficult this past month or so to be somewhere where the papers weren’t obsessing about what was happening to students at Harvard (check out a representative smattering from Ethiopia, Iceland, Vietnam, Malaysia, India and Kazakhstan).   At the policy level, almost every OECD government is revving up plans to poach US-based researchers even in places which genuinely don’t have the scientific infrastructure to poach anyone (Ireland?  Czechia?  C’mon).  In other words, you have basically the entire world looking at how the American debacle in a massively self-centred way.  Basically, it’s all: “Yeah, yeah, death of the American research university, how does this affect me/how can I profit?”

    But the world has yet to grapple in any kind of serious way is how to maintain growth and innovation in a world where the largest spender on research is reducing expenditures by 50%.  This has implications for absolutely everybody and at the moment there are no serious discussions about how the world gets by without it.  Obviously, other countries can’t replace what used to come out of NSF and NIH.  But they can, as Billy Beane from Moneyball might say, recreate it “in the aggregate” by working together.  Unfortunately, that’s not quite what they are doing.  That would require Australia, Canada, Japan and Korea to be working actively with the European Union; not only is that not happening, but these days the EU can’t even get it’s own act together on research.

    Meanwhile, in large parts of the world, the main higher education story we hear about is one of “cutbacks”, “austerity” and the like.  But there are, I think, some fundamentally different issues at work in different countries.  In the rich Anglosphere, which happens to be where most of the big producers of higher education are located, mature higher education systems highly reliant on market fees are being forced into big cuts as governments remove their ability to attract funds, usually by changing their student visa regimes.  (An aside here: many people ask: where will international students go if not Canada/US/Australia/wherever?  To which the answer is usually: to a great extent, they will just stay home. But a few countries do seem to be doing better on international students as of late, mostly in Asia.  Turkey, Dubai and Uzbekistan in particular seem to be the big winners, though the growth in their intakes is lower than the drop in the intakes of the big anglophone countries).

    But in other countries, the fundamental financial tension is that demand for higher education is far outstripping the ability of either public or private funding to keep the system afloat (government could choose not to meet so much demand, but political needs must).   Kenya, with its widespread university financial problems comes into this category, and Nigeria, where funding new universities seems to come at the expense of funding existing ones clearly come under this category. Intermediate cases here include France (increasing demand, flat funding), Brazil (which has done a series of policy U-turns on transfers to federal universities and whose overall policy might best be described as “confused”), and perhaps Colombia (promises of money co-existing with widespread institutional precarity, even in the public sector).  What is common here is that a lot of countries seem to have built systems which are too big/expensive for what the public – collectively or individually – is willing to pay. 

    A common response to the problem of inadequate public funding is the expansion of private higher education.  Almost unbelievably, private higher education now makes up about 20% of total provision in Spain, France and Germany (in two of those countries, tuition is free, and in the third it is minimal – under 1000 euros per year in most cases).  In many cases, the expansion is in relatively cheap classroom-heavy courses (often in business) but in many cases these universities are moving into other areas such health care provision.  This explosion has led to a significant tightening of regulations on private universities in Spain and a “tri” (meaning triage”) on France’s Parcoursup system, meaning that certain types of private college will have a harder time advertising themselves to prospective students.  This phenomenon is not constrained to Europe: Tunisia is also currently pre-occupied with how to regulate private institutions.  An alternative to letting domestic private universities rip is to invite foreign institutions into the country.  India is the country most in the news for attempting this at the moment but places like Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Vietnam are also eagerly heading down this route.

    Tuition fees are always an issue, and at public universities we see evidence both for and against the idea that fees are rising.  On the one hand, we have Namibia introducing free tuition (though – note – without fully announcing its operational details), and a Labor government in Australian winning on a promise to – in effect – shorten graduate repayment periods by cancelling debt.  On the other hand, Korea and Russia – both countries with abysmal youth demographics – are allowing their institutions to raise fees after years of both falling enrolments and largely frozen tuition.  Finland may be introducing fees for certain forms of continuing education.  But higher tuition isn’t the only way governments deal with crashing demographics; in Pennsylvania, the solution is outright campus closures.

    In terms of student activism, the main story so far this year is Serbia, which is now in the seventh month of student-led anti-government protests. At this point, it’s very hard to see how the students obtain their maximalist demands of regiment change.  After six months of protests, students are starting to go back to school and finish their academic year.  Recent evidence from North America suggests the movement will have trouble maintaining itself over the summer months and into next year.

    War continues to re-shape universities around the world.  Ukraine has announced changes to its system of conscription which will lower its university attendance rate (particularly for graduate studies).  Something similar has happened in Ethiopia, where new rules have been introduced requiring students to do a year of national service before graduation.  Russian universities continue to atrophy in different ways, partly due to government policy but also due to the exodus of many scholars who have fled the regime.

    Among other things from this quarter that bear watching going forward: Greece is continuing the modification of its university system at a furious pace both in terms of altering curricula and in terms of changing the post-dictatorship convention that campuses are police-free zones.  Algeria is moving its entire university system from French to English instruction, which may not have a huge effect in higher education, but certainly tells you which way global linguistic politics are going.  Hong Kong is experimenting with a new institutional type, and a billionaire in China is putting some serious coin behind a new university. 

    My tip for the story this summer?  Watch graduate unemployment rates around the world, particularly in India and China (where the situation is so bad the government has just announced a kind of emergency blitz on graduate hiring which sure seems like it is set up for failure).  I think the push to align higher education more with the labour market is about to go into overdrive.

    All caught up now!  See you back here in September.

    Source link

  • The centrality of university research to the industrial strategy cannot be underestimated

    The centrality of university research to the industrial strategy cannot be underestimated

    Blue-sky research is the basis for the successful development of future technologies. The evidence that UK universities are global leaders in this is clear – the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) ranks the UK university system as third in the world on this basis.

    Yet it has often been said the UK has not capitalised enough on its world-leading research to drive economic growth. Now though, the UK has, at last, a coherent and comprehensive industrial strategy that can realise the huge potential of this global advantage.

    Previous industrial strategies identified some of the right industries, but the new strategy has a far more comprehensive approach. It recognises the breadth of sectors that are likely to be at the forefront of global technology-led growth, not just the fashionable few like AI or pharmaceuticals. Crucially, place has now taken a central role. A myriad of global growth “hot spots” show us that this is key to understanding the detailed collaborations that will deliver growth in different UK regions, cities and innovation districts.

    In that sense this industrial strategy is the welcome and long needed economic policy that the UK economy has been lacking. Universities and their research are an essential core component, but all stakeholders across higher education, industry and government need to engage in a step-change in joined-up working if the UK is to translate the real advantage its research system has into a new level of growth and prosperity. There will need to be effective partnerships and collective momentum between universities, industry and government at both national and local levels.

    Yet risks remain in successfully translating this strategy into the growth the government wants – particularly in the persistence of certain myths about university research.

    Busting myths

    A key myth is that blue sky research only equates to growth in the long term, when the government wants growth sooner. In fact, it does not work like that. Blue sky research delivers growth both now and later. Long term gains may be greater overall, but even in the short term research brings in highly skilled global scientists, attracts leading global firms, and is a draw to medium-sized firms who want to be at the forefront of the next innovation wave.

    Research also builds place-based specialised skills that are essential for other industries and sectors, as can be seen in the Oxbridge Arc, Imperial’s White City innovation district, Manchester’s Sister district or Glasgow City Innovation District. Fostering research excellence across the UK’s places is an effective short and long-term growth strategy.

    A second myth is about the breadth of impact of university research on growth. It is natural for policymakers to focus on university spin-outs and commercialisation, but in many ways these are a small, if important, part of the story. The lesson from successful university-based growth ecosystems around the world is that the role of large global firms and their relationship with university research and innovation is much more important.

    There is understandable and laudable excitement at the prospect of nurturing UK-born unicorns, but in a globally competitive economy around future technologies it is large global firms that very often have substantial research and innovation capability. They employ global leading talent, have great market reach and also can absorb some of the risk necessary for success in future technology-based growth. They also have the interest in, and capacity and capability to partner with universities around research – as we see with Microsoft in Cambridge, Novartis in Imperial’s White City campus, Cranfield’s industry research with Airbus, AstraZeneca in Glasgow or Legal & General’s partnerships with Edinburgh and Newcastle.

    In my own university, Brunel, we have long standing research relationships with Jaguar Land Rover and Constellium, one of Europe’s largest aluminium alloy firms. Yet there needs to be much more focus on increasing the number and deepening these relationships. These are near and long term relationships that will lock in longer term growth.

    Third, is the misconception that university research exists in any freestanding way in just a small number of universities. It is certainly true that the UK’s leading research universities are absolutely key, but the research system operates in a much more complex, distributed and symbiotic way. Different types of universities play different but equally important roles, and they can and will contribute to the industrial strategy. Whether that is applied research, skills development in the workforce or building entrepreneurial capacity in a region, the university research and innovation system as a whole is key to making sure the benefits of cutting edge technology research are realised for the UK.

    The government must not underestimate the centrality of university research and its contribution to future technology-led growth to any industrial strategy worldwide, let alone the UK’s. The industrial strategy is bold and ambitious, and UK universities are well positioned to propel its implementation. However, global competition in the development of future technologies is fierce. The UK cannot afford to underplay or misapply one of its core strategic assets. The opportunity with this strategy is greater than at any time for decades, but it is not going to succeed without harnessing the power of university research.

    Source link

  • With better coordination we can break down barriers to academic policy engagement

    With better coordination we can break down barriers to academic policy engagement

    How can universities best support the UK’s research base to deliver better outcomes for people? This is becoming an ever more urgent challenge for our sector, in the context of a changing geopolitical landscape and the desire of the UK government for research and innovation to better serve the public good.

    One route to deriving greater public benefit from academic research lies in research better connecting with and informing public policy development. Recent years have seen a growing number of universities establishing policy units – at least 46, at the last count, and almost certainly more now. There has also been increased investment in policy-focused activity from research funders, for example, Research England’s Policy Support Fund, UKRI policy fellowships, and ESRC investments to increase policymaker engagement with research. New mechanisms to strengthen evidence use, such as government areas of research interest and parliamentary thematic research leads, have been introduced, alongside an increased focus on building capacity for evidence use across sub-national government.

    Through the Covid-19 pandemic, we saw the myriad ways in which research evidence informed policy to deliver benefits for people, whether understanding and treating the disease, informing the public health response, or mitigating the wider social impacts.

    You can’t always get what you want

    “Academic-policy engagement” is becoming increasingly mainstream, as part of universities’ wider knowledge exchange or civic engagement strategies. However, considerable barriers to engagement between academic researchers and policymakers remain. These include significant cultural differences, lack of incentives and investment, mismatched timescales and approaches, lack of access to academic research, and difficulties in parsing an ever-growing volume of information.

    Policymakers often express a desire for a streamlined, “one stop” interface with academics to enable them to quickly and easily reach the right expertise at the right time. Given such barriers, this is much easier said than done.

    Too often, where interaction does happen, it is short-term, ad hoc, dependent on individual contacts, and enabled through fixed-term funding rather than sustainable approaches. Many institutions lack both the capacity and the necessary capabilities to respond to policy needs.

    There is no systematic mechanism for policymakers to engage with universities in order to identify and access the expertise they need, or for universities and researchers to identify policy needs, still less provide a coordinated response. This means that policymakers do not necessarily have access to the best evidence, only that which is most readily available.

    What is now required is a serious focus on establishing a more systematic and sustainable approach. Such an approach requires organisational capacity and individual capability, alongside greater collaboration and coordination across the academic-policy ecosystem.

    The policy connection cavalry is here

    This is where the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) comes in. Established in 2018 UPEN is a voluntary network of over 120 universities, research centres, and policy organisations across the UK, currently hosted at UCL. Our university members comprise diverse institutions, from large, research-intensive to small, specialist institutions, across all parts of the UK. UPEN provides an interface between all areas of academic research and public policymaking, with strong relationships with the UK’s four national legislatures and 25 government departments and growing links with local and regional policymakers.

    UPEN has until now been powered by the contributions of our members: both financial and, crucially, time. With a new funding award from Research England and ESRC, we now have the opportunity to build a national “connective infrastructure” which can respond to growing policy demand, at multiple levels of government, for academic expertise and evidence.

    Enhancing UPEN’s ability to provide this interface will enable us as a sector to work in a more coordinated and efficient way. It will also foster greater diversity in academic-policy engagement by ensuring a greater breadth of evidence and voices are heard. And it will build on previous UKRI investments to underpin stronger collaboration and collective action to harness the full potential of the university research base.

    Our new programmes of work will focus on three key areas. First, supporting universities to strengthen their academic engagement with public policy by enhancing individual and organisational capabilities. Second, strengthening place-based approaches to academic-policy engagement. Third, developing a national knowledge brokerage function to mobilise academic expertise to respond at the point of policy need.

    The UK government is grappling with multiple complex and cross-cutting policy challenges – from bolstering a weak economy, to improving energy security and sustainability, to tackling problems with the health service, to addressing housing needs. It is time for us, as a sector, to better leverage the knowledge of universities to address these challenges in order to deliver better outcomes for citizens across the UK.

    Source link

  • Brian Schmidt and Richard Holden on Australian research – Campus Review

    Brian Schmidt and Richard Holden on Australian research – Campus Review

    A Nobel laureate and an esteemed economist outlined the sub-par state of Australian research funding and sovereignty in a joint address to the National Press Club last Wednesday.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • The spending review is a critical moment for UK science and innovation

    The spending review is a critical moment for UK science and innovation

    A series of key government announcements over the coming weeks will set the direction of travel for research and innovation for years to come. Next week’s spending review will set the financial parameters for the remainder of this Parliament – and we shouldn’t expect this outcome to maintain the status quo, given this is the first zero-based review under a Labour government for 17 years.

    Accompanying this will be the industrial strategy white paper, which is likely to have a focus on driving innovation and increasing the diffusion and adoption of technologies across the economy – in which the UK’s universities will need to be key delivery partners. We can also expect more detail on the proposals in the immigration white paper, with implications for international student and staff flows to the UK.

    The outcome for higher education and research remains hard to call, but the government has sent early signals that it recognises the value of investment in R&D as crucial to transforming the UK’s economy. In a volatile fiscal environment, DSIT’s R&D budget saw a real-terms increase of 8.5 per cent for 2025–26 with protection for “core research” activity within this.

    Looking ahead to the spending review, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that the fiscal envelope set by the Chancellor for capital spending – which is how R&D is classified – at the spring statement is significantly frontloaded. There is scope for increases in the early years of the spending review period and then real-terms declines from 2027–28. With such significant constraints on the public finances, it’s more essential than ever that the UK’s R&D funding system maximises efficiency and impact, making the best possible use of available resources.

    International comparisons

    Last month, the Russell Group published a report commissioned from PwC and funded by Wellcome which considered the experiences of countries with very different R&D funding systems, to understand what the UK might learn from our competitors.

    Alongside the UK, the report examined four countries: Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and South Korea, scoring them across five assessment criteria associated with a strong R&D system: strategic alignment to government priorities; autonomy, stability and sustainability; efficiency; and leveraging external investment. It also scored the countries on two measures of output: research excellence and innovation excellence.

    The analysis can help to inform government decisions about how to strike a balance between these criteria. For example, on the face of it there’s a trade-off between prioritising institutional autonomy and ensuring strategic alignment to government priorities. But PwC found that providing universities with more freedom in how they allocate their research funding – for example, through flexible funding streams like Quality-Related (QR) funding – means they can also take strategic long-term decisions, which create advantage for the UK in key research fields for the future.

    Over the years, QR funding and its equivalents in the devolved nations have enabled universities to make investments which have led to innovations and discoveries such as graphene, genomics, opto-electronics, cosmology research, and new tests and treatments for everything from bowel disease to diabetes, dementia and cancer.

    Conversely, aligning too closely to changing political priorities can stifle impact and leave the system vulnerable. PwC found that, at its extreme, a disproportionate reliance on mission-led or priority-driven project grant funding inhibits the ability of institutions to invest outside of government’s immediate priority areas, resulting in less long-term strategic investment.

    With a stretching economic growth mission to deliver, policymakers will be reaching for interventions which encourage private investment into the economy. The PwC report found long-term, stable government incentives are crucial in leveraging industry investment in R&D, alongside supporting a culture of industry-university collaboration. This has worked well in Germany and South Korea with a mix of incentives including tax credits, grants and loans to strengthen innovation capabilities.

    Getting the balance right

    The UK currently lags behind global competitors on the proportion of R&D funded by the business sector, at just over 58 per cent compared to the OECD average of 65 per cent. However, when considering R&D financed by business but performed by higher education institutions, the UK performs fifth highest in the OECD – well above the average.

    This demonstrates the current system is successfully leveraging private sector collaboration and investment into higher education R&D. We should now be pursuing opportunities to bolster this even further. Schemes such as the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) deliver a proven return on investment: every £1 invested in HEIF yields £14.8 in economic return at the sector-level. PwC’s report noted that HEIF has helped develop “core knowledge exchange capabilities” within UK HEIs which are crucial to building successful partnerships with industry and spinning out new companies and technologies.

    In a time of global uncertainty, economic instability and rapid technological change, investments in R&D still play a key role in tackling our most complex challenges. In its forthcoming spending review – the Russell Group submission is available here – as well as in the industrial strategy white paper and in developing reforms to the visa system, the government will need to balance a number of competing but interrelated objectives. Coordination across government departments will be crucial to ensure all the incentives are pointing in the right direction and to enable sectors such as higher education to maximise the contribution they can make to delivering the government’s missions.

    Source link

  • The economic cost of an unequal R&D workforce

    The economic cost of an unequal R&D workforce

    The argument for investment in R&D goes as follows.

    The more innovative an economy is the greater level of economic output it will produce. The more output an economy produces the wealthier a country will be and by extension its citizens will enjoy higher wages, better public services, and a greater quality of life.

    Innovation is dependent on two things. The first is the infrastructure to make innovation happen. The great universities, laboratories, equipment, and less prosaically the roads, broadband, and public transport, that facilitate the physical transfer of ideas. The second is human capital. The educated workforce that can turn the raw materials of our collective knowledge into new products and services which make the economy strong and society better.

    The ideal scenario has two major assumptions. The first is that the products of innovation will be widely felt in the economy to spur economic growth and these benefits will be felt by the workers who are not taking part in R&D intensive activities. In other words, private activities have a spill over benefit to the public at large. The second is that human capital will be allocated efficiently where the best people to do R&D will be placed in the best roles and the market will reward them for their time.

    This means that work in R&D should return higher wages through the input (people’s labour) and through its output (a more productive economy.) A new independent report for DSIT has raised questions on whether the benefits of R&D are felt evenly either by its producers or the population at large.

    Skill issue

    As the report highlights there is little empirical evidence on the kind of R&D workforce the UK needs. The evidence of which kinds of people in which kinds of roles will spur which kinds of R&D activity is poorly understood across geographies, it is poorly understood which specific skills are needed, and it is poorly understood which skills are needed to meet the R&D challenges of the future.

    This is surprising when we learn that 56 per cent of all business R&D spend is spent on staff and the number of people working in roles essential for R&D activity has grown by over a million in the past eleven years. Owing to changes in R&D accounting methodology it’s hard to suggest whether R&D activity or spending intensity has increased at the same rate. It is however true that there are regional imbalances in R&D spending, R&D intensive roles generally pay more, and despite an increase in the R&D workforce the UK’s overall productivity levels remains frustrating low.

    Successive government industrial strategies, incentives, and supply-side reforms, aimed at any kind of redistribution of the proceeds of R&D activity may not have been an effective counterweight to the incentives of business to simply invest where they will see the largest private returns.

    Imbalances

    There is a distinct problem that the R&D workforce is imbalanced. Some parts of the R&D economy, particularly roles like software, have an underrepresentation of women, a significant number of people with level four and above qualifications, and growth is rapid in London and the South East. There is both a demographic and geographic equality issue which means the benefits of R&D investment are not broadly felt across the UK population.

    This is bad on its own terms. It is not a good outcome for society that the public investment in R&D through subsidies, tax credits, capital investment, infrastructure, and the myriad of kinds of corporate welfare, is producing a workforce which has gendered earning inequalities amongst even the highest paid R&D workers (albeit this less than some parts of the labour market), where growing investment is concentrated in the most economically prosperous part of the country, and where there is significantly more instability for the least qualified workers.

    As the report points out, academic literature demonstrates that a more diverse workforce is good for economic growth, productivity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. The inequality of inputs limits the UK’s innovation potential, which in turn impacts how widely the benefits of R&D are felt. Compounding this innovation trap is the UK’s poor record at in work training, geographic inequalities in access to jobs, challenges with university pipelines into specific skills, and geographic imbalances in hard to fill vacancies.

    Universities

    The solution to a more dynamic R&D workforce does not fall exclusively at the door of universities. As the report highlights, universities are churning out large numbers of graduates in subjects aligned to the R&D intensive roles. However, there is a significant undermatching in those graduates then being able to deploy their skills in the labour market. There is also a significant gender imbalance in university recruitment into STEM programmes which then leads into the imbalances in the workforce.

    Interviewees for the report also suggested that university CPD for R&D industries could help close skills gaps and redefining their commercial approaches with SMEs could help with the workforce challenges. Yes, but it also doesn’t feel like universities should be responsible for the permanent reskilling of their graduates. Again, in work training in the UK is low.

    The labour market in R&D is the product of every step up to someone entering the workforce and then the conditions once they are in it. At the current trajectory the UK will have an ever large R&D workforce but the expansion in its size will not occur conterminously with a geographic or demographic expansion of its impacts.

    Universities are not factories that churn out graduates with neatly aligned skills to the ever changing demands of the labour market. However, this report does convincingly point out that the UK’s economy benefits from diverse firms and more diverse firms will only happen with more diverse graduates.

    Source link