Category: Research

  • Data shows growing GenAI adoption in K-12

    Data shows growing GenAI adoption in K-12

    Key points:

    • K-12 GenAI adoption rates have grown–but so have concerns 
    • A new era for teachers as AI disrupts instruction
    • With AI coaching, a math platform helps students tackle tough concepts
    • For more news on GenAI, visit eSN’s AI in Education hub

    Almost 3 in 5 K-12 educators (55 percent) have positive perceptions about GenAI, despite concerns and perceived risks in its adoption, according to updated data from Cengage Group’s “AI in Education” research series, which regularly evaluates AI’s impact on education.  

    More News from eSchool News

    HVAC projects to improve indoor air quality. Tutoring programs for struggling students. Tuition support for young people who want to become teachers in their home communities.

    Unlocking potential: The power of online courses in our school

    Our school has built up its course offerings without having to add headcount. Along the way, we’ve also gained a reputation for having a wide selection of general and advanced courses for our growing student body.

    5 AI tools for classroom creativity

    When it comes to visual creativity, AI tools let students design posters, presentations, and digital artwork effortlessly. Students can turn their ideas into professional-quality visuals, sparking creativity and innovation.

    Strategies to help girls stay engaged in STEM learning

    Ensuring that girls feel supported and empowered in STEM from an early age can lead to more balanced workplaces, economic growth, and groundbreaking discoveries.

    5 vocabulary strategies powered by technology

    In my work with middle school students, I’ve seen how critical that period of development is to students’ future success. One area of focus in a middle schooler’s development is vocabulary acquisition.

    The power of goal setting: A skill for lifelong success

    For students, the mid-year stretch is a chance to assess their learning, refine their decision-making skills, and build momentum for the opportunities ahead.

    The importance of teacher-student relationships

    Middle school marks the transition from late childhood to early adolescence. Developmental psychologist Erik Erikson describes the transition as a shift from the Industry vs. Inferiority stage into the Identity vs. Role Confusion stage.

    Virtual art meets language learning: A tech-enhanced ESL experience

    Art has a unique power in the ESL classroom–a magic that bridges cultures, ignites imagination, and breathes life into language. For English Language Learners (ELLs), it’s more than an expressive outlet.

    Leadership is key to protecting student data privacy in 2025

    In the year 2025, no one should have to be convinced that protecting data privacy matters. For education institutions, it’s really that simple of a priority–and that complicated.

    Ethical PD: Doing right by the teachers who do right by the world

    Teachers are superheroes. Every day, they rise to the challenge, pouring their hearts into shaping the future. They stay late to grade papers and show up early to tutor struggling students.

    Want to share a great resource? Let us know at [email protected].

    Source link

  • Portability within REF remains key to fairness

    Portability within REF remains key to fairness

    When a researcher produces an output and moves between HEIs, portability determines which institution can submit the output for assessment and receive the resulting long-term quality-related funding.

    However, a joint letter by the English Association, the Institute of English Studies, and University English, and subsequent interventions from other subject associations, demonstrate that unaddressed concerns over the portability of research outputs are coming to a head.

    In REF 2014, if a researcher moved HEI prior to a census date, then only the destination HEI submitted the output. In 2021, to mitigate the potential perceived inflationary transfer market of researchers, the rules were changed so that if researchers transferred, both the original and destination HEIs could return the output. This rightfully recognised the role of both HEIs, having supported the underpinning research and investing in the research of the future respectively.

    The initial decisions published in 2023 had research outputs decoupled from the authors with outputs needing to have a “substantive connection” to the submitting institution. Two years on we still don’t know the impact of this decision on portability. One of the unintended consequences of decoupling the outputs from the researchers who authored them and removing the notion of a staff list, is that only the address line of the author affiliation remains. This decoupling means that any notion of portability of outputs with a specific researcher is problematic.

    The portability of research outputs is a crucial element of the assessment process. It supports key values such as career security and development, equality, diversity, and inclusion, as well as the financial sustainability of HEIs. More importantly, linking outputs to individual researchers rather than institutions is necessary, particularly in the current Higher Education landscape, to ensure the integrity of both research and the assessment exercise itself. This approach ensures that researchers receive due credit for their work, prevents institutions from unfairly benefiting from outputs produced elsewhere or from structural changes such as departmental closures, and upholds a fairer, more transparent system that reflects actual research contributions.

    The sector is in a different place than it was even a few years ago. Many HEIs are financially challenged, with wide-spread redundancies an ongoing reality. Careers are now precarious at every career stage. Making new, or even maintaining, academic appointments is subject to strict financial scrutiny. Across all facets of research – from the medical and engineering sciences to the arts and humanities – the income derived from the REF is essential to the agility of the research landscape.

    Whether we like it or not, the decision to hire someone is in part financial. That an early career researcher could be recruited to improve a unit’s (subject) REF submission and hence income is a reality of a financially pressured system. At a different career stage, many distinguished researchers are facing financially imposed redundancy. The agility of the sector to respond is aided by the portability of the researcher’s outputs to allow them to continue their career and their contributions to the sector at a new HEI. The REF derived income is an important aspect of this agility.

    Setting aside financial considerations, separating research outputs from the researchers who created them sends a damaging message. It downplays the fundamental role of individuals in driving research and undermines the sense of agency that is crucial to its integrity and rigor.

    Auditing the future

    As researchers, we recognise the privilege of being supported in pursuing what is often both a passion and a vocation. Decoupling outputs from their creators disregards the individual researcher, their collaborations, and their stakeholders. It also oversimplifies the complex research ecosystem, where researchers work in partnership with their employing institutions, sector bodies, archives, charities, funders, and other key stakeholders.

    REF-derived income should not be seen just as a retrospective reward for an HEI’s past support of research, but rather as the nation’s forward-looking investment in the discoveries of tomorrow. To treat it merely as an audit is to overlook its transformative potential. Hence the outputs on which the assessment is based should be both the researchers who contributed to the unit while employed by the university and the researchers who are currently in the unit to contribute to the research that is ongoing, indelibly linking and interweaving past, present and future research.

    In addition to concerns over portability, decoupling outputs from the researchers that authored them risks undermining a central premise of the assessment that many of us working to improve our research culture want to see. Decoupling means there is no auditable limit to the number of outputs written by any one individual that can be submitted for assessment. Within the REF, we wish to see outputs authored by a diversity of staff within the unit, staff at different career stages and staff working in different sub areas. By decoupling the author from outputs, a future REF risks undermining the very fairness that the rule change was introduced to ensure.

    Not fair not right

    Sometimes the unintended consequences of an idea outweigh the benefits it was hoping to achieve. The decoupling of outputs from the researchers that made them possible and the knock-on consequences through restrictions to portability and reduced diversity is one of these occasions.

    There has never been a more critical time to uphold fairness in research policy.

    If the four funding bodies are to remain agile they must recognise that decoupling research outputs from the individuals who created them is not only harming those facing redundancy but also undermining HEIs’ ability to support the next generation of researchers upon whom our future depends. By the same count, ensuring the portability of outputs is essential for maintaining integrity, protecting careers, and sustaining a dynamic and equitable research environment. The need for change is both urgent and imperative.

    Source link

  • R&D spending brings the era of strategic ambiguity to an end

    R&D spending brings the era of strategic ambiguity to an end

    I was working with a university on how they communicate their research work.

    An academic remarked to me that they simply couldn’t understand why the university didn’t talk more about the leading work they were doing in defence research.

    At the time, I thought talking about research into the things that kill people would be an obvious and enormous error. I now think I may be wrong.

    Missiles have a PR problem. They are not the soft embrace of a civic university which wraps its arms around their places. They are not the technician helping to solve the pandemics and global disasters of our time. And they are not the lofty ideals of pushing forward the shared understanding of the human experience.

    Conducting research into defence is to acknowledge that universities are part of the unsavoury end of geo-politics too.

    Universities have generally followed the lead of the government on the international research front. This is to say universities work with people, even where they may disagree with them, if it furthers a common cause of research. In an era of sharpening geo-political divides, increased defence spending, and pressure on the moral mission of universities highlighted by what they choose or choose not to cut, this feels untenable.

    Strategic ambiguity is possible where the strategy is clear and the policy is not. The government has now made its spending policy for defence clear.

    Defence and its detractors

    There are plenty who have made the moral case against UK universities being involved in research into lethal weapons. Open Democracy carried out work in 2023 where they drew the line between weapons manufacturers, university research, and global conflicts, to make the case that

    “Responding to Freedom of Information requests, 44 universities told openDemocracy they had taken a combined total of at least £100m in funding and donations from eight of the biggest UK and US defence firms: RTX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce.

    All are listed in the top 100 arms and military services in the world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.”

    And there are a constellation of left-wing blogs that have sought to make the same arguments. Novara Media, for example, have sought to bring to attention the links between university weapons research and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. It is not that universities are undertaking research directly for difficult and despotic regimes and demagogues directly. It is that they are undertaking research with companies where their technologies may either be used directly, or through their dual applications, in the defence of nations and by extension the killing of people all over the world.

    This attention is likely only to grow as the government increases investment into defence technologies. The 2020 Spending Review committed to an extra £6bn of defence R&D over four years. In 2024, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak promised a further uplift in defence spending with a significant proportion dedicated to R&D. Keir Starmer has now promised that defence spending will reach 2.5 per cent of GDP, with an ambition to reach 3 per cent, and further increases to R&D in defence.

    This includes a further £2.9bn of spending in the coming financial year compared to 2024–25. This is a big increase but in context BAE systems alone spent £1.45bn on R&D in 2022 as a combination of their own and government money.

    This presents a challenge for universities. The flows of R&D spending are increasingly toward defence but they have, collectively, not found the language which sets out the moral case for doing the work.

    Re-arm for Britain

    Today’s piece from Jess Lister makes it clear that a plurality of citizens in the UK are in favour of increased defence spending. A majority of the public also agree it would be better to invest in R&D in new defensive technologies. Of course, this presumes there is always a clear and practical difference between the use of weaponry for defensive and offensive purposes, and the reasons for research are as important as the actual mechanism through which research is deployed.

    There are the universities that undertake research which makes the country safer but isn’t directly involved in the business of lethality. The examples of universities building partnerships, engagements, projecting the UK across the world, making the UK a better place to live, are numerous. In an era of constrained funding and increasing concerns about defence spending, the ability for universities to talk about national safety, the tolerability of living in the UK, and national security, the freedom to live free from the threat of harm or death from a foreign power, may end up moving closer together. The decision to cut Oversees Development Assistance, funding used to promote social, economic, and welfare capacity, to fund defence spending is in this regard an absurd political decision in making the UK less safe on the one hand while making it, potentially, more secure on the other.

    And there is the business of the production of the UK’s defensive capabilities. There are a range of regulations which cover this work. In particular, the rules on dual use technologies which place extra restrictions on the exports of research that could have both civilian and military applications. There are specific cases which have come under scrutiny particularly under the use of technologies which could be used for drones. As a minimum, if universities are going to increasingly grow their R&D and defence budget they will need the internal capacity to navigate what has been a difficult and changing world.

    Narrative interventions

    Aside from the regulation there is a real narrative problem on defence research. There are generally three explanations used when a university is asked about defence research. The first is that we follow all of the rules. The second is that we work directly with companies and what companies choose to do beyond our due diligence isn’t within our control. And the third is that even where projects are within the rules we continually monitor them. The problem with all of these responses is that they are the minimum of procedural compliance not explanation of work.

    In his acceptance speech newly appointed Chancellor of the University of Oxford and once foreign secretary William Hague stated that

    We do not need to agree on everything, indeed we should not. I am pleased to say we do not need a foreign policy: we are not a country. Nor do we need a view on every daily occurrence: we are not a newspaper. The concern of a university is that opinions are reached on the basis of truth, reason and knowledge, which in turn requires thinking and speaking with freedom.

    This is the same William Hague who suggested in 2015 that

    In the 21st Century, foreign policy is no longer the preserve of governments speaking behind closed doors. It’s also about that web of connections between individuals, groups, companies and all kinds of organisations, on social media and international travel.

    The William Hague of 2015 is correct and the William Hague of 2024 is mostly wrong. The frustration with university work into defence isn’t because the public believe what they are doing is illegal – in fact the public support what they are doing. It is that universities are trying to pursue an amoral approach to defence (as in, without a moral position, as opposed to immoral or evil), which leaves them open to charges of hypocrisy.

    The reason for this is a refusal to commit to bright red lines. It would be totally legitimate for universities to state there are certain partners, certain countries, and certain contexts in which they will not work. It also would be totally legitimate for universities to say they work with anyone regardless of their politics, but universities have done neither.

    The one unilateral intervention in refusing to work with Russia was the morally correct step, and has of course opened up the charge of hypocrisy. The line seems to be that universities will work with foreign partners irrespective of what they do unless they are legally barred from doing so and/or said foreign partners undertake a full scale invasion of a neighbour.

    The age of strategic ambiguity is over because ambiguity cannot be funded, supported, or made consistent to a public who don’t always appreciate the value of universities. Universities are not a country but they are a global network that allows for the movement of people, ideas, and technologies. The basis on which these things are allowed to move is the moral mission of our era for universities.

    Source link

  • The politics of universities, defence, and R&D spending

    The politics of universities, defence, and R&D spending

    Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement had little in it for the sector to celebrate.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility,(who provide independent analysis of the country’s finances), downgraded 2025 growth forecasts from two per cent to one per cent.

    For all the flurry of pro-growth activity since the election, the growth outlook to 2029 is basically unchanged. Economic growth and the much desired fiscal headroom (which gives the Government capacity for extra spending) still seem unlikely to materialise.

    For universities who are hoping for a crumb of additional funding at some point in the future, there was nothing to settle their nerves about the increasingly difficult financial position the Government finds itself in.

    Winners and losers

    It’s safe to say that some sectors are doing better than others. Defence is clearly one of the winners. Starmer’s commitment to increase defense spending (made before the Spring Statement) to 2.5 per cent of GDP from April 2027 was a significant one. The measures taken to generate the fiscal headroom to pay for it- particularly cutting overseas development aid, and slashing welfare budgets – were not particularly popular ones. This is not an era of win-win policy choices – but boosting defence spending is a critical part of what Starmer’s government sees as a core responsibility: to position Britain as a steady hand in an unstable world.

    The continuation of the war in Ukraine, renewed conflict in the middle east, and a second Trump presidency, renewed trade wars and global volatility all point towards this being the difficult but correct choice to make.

    A significant uplift to its budget is the sort of things the higher education sector can only dream of. The increase to defence spending is not only massive, it’s also moderately popular. In a new Public First/Stonehaven poll, which looked at the trade offs the Government will need to make in the current era of hard choices, we found it which has moderate public support: 57 per cent back the uplift.

    There is an opportunity for the higher education sector here that they may be reluctant to take. Universities are a relatively silent partner in the UK’s defense capabilities, despite the fact this is a clear area of opportunity. Defense companies are increasingly avoiding campuses for graduate recruitment after a rising wave of student protests – the Times reported that 20 companies have been advised against attending on campus events because of security fears.

    Who will defend the defenders?

    Many universities are trying to balance their industrial R&D and skills partnerships with the defense sector with a growing generational divide in attitudes towards the defense industry. Negative perceptions of the defense sector are particularly entrenched among Gen Z. Just under a fifth (17 per cent) of the general population say that they would be ashamed to work for the defense industry – but this rises to 31 per cent of 18-24 year olds. Nearly a third of 18-34 year olds say their friends would judge them if they worked in the defense industry. Going too hard on defence and being seen to be doing too much may risk a knock-on impact on student recruitment.

    The increased investment in defense and security isn’t just about more soldiers and sailors and more ships and planes. It includes commitments on research and skills, and a ringfenced post of 10 per cent of the uplift for “novel technologies”. Increasingly, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will become a major strategic procurer and funder in advanced research and development across the UK, which presents an increasingly rare and hard won opportunity for UK universities – and one where the public opinion is more balanced.

    Talking about the role for university led R&D which boosts national security is a reputation win for the sector as a whole. In our large-scale research with the Campaign for Science and Engineering, which explored what the UK public think and feel about R&D, we found a strong preference for investment in new defensive technologies over more military personnel – a view broadly shared across all ages, and across the political spectrum

    When we asked what the highest priority should be to improve national security, investment in R&D was the joint second most popular option, behind tackling cyber attacks and misinformation.

    Hard choices

    The defense sector as a whole might be an unpopular thing to talk about on campus. But there is a significant government investment being made in defense spending, and a clear moral and social argument that we live in a time when increasing the capacity and capability of our national security systems is the right thing to do. We know there is broad public support for this investment going towards research and development, and that there are significant skills gaps across our defense sector, impacting our broader defense and security offering.

    In a time when politicians are making hard choices, university leaders need to be doing the same.

    The modern armed services need highly skilled graduates in a range of roles – not just as professional soldiers, sailors or pilots but also in a myriad of supporting roles such as cyber security, communications, quantum technology, logistics, engineering, advanced manufacturing, foreign languages, and diplomacy. And equally too, the government will need academics and university research labs to step up, in partnership with businesses, to help design and roll out technologies that will support this expanded defence effort. This is both an economic case and a moral case – and one that universities should seize.

    And if this is an opportunity which universities shy away from, they may be waiting a long time for the next economic windfall to come their way.

    Source link

  • Charles Darwin uni loses $200,000 US research funding – Campus Review

    Charles Darwin uni loses $200,000 US research funding – Campus Review

    A research contract valued at about $200,000 has been lost by Charles Darwin University (CDU) as a result of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Why History Instruction is Critical for Combating Online Misinformation – The 74

    Why History Instruction is Critical for Combating Online Misinformation – The 74

    Can you tell fact from fiction online? In a digital world, few questions are more important or more challenging.

    For years, some commentators have called for K-12 teachers to take on fake news, media literacy, or online misinformation by doubling down on critical thinking. This push for schools to do a better job preparing young people to differentiate between low- and high-quality information often focuses on social studies classes.

    As an education researcher and former high school history teacher, I know that there’s both good and bad news about combating misinformation in the classroom. History class can cultivate critical thinking – but only if teachers and schools understand what critical thinking really means.

    Not just a ‘skill’

    First, the bad news.

    When people demand that schools teach critical thinking, it’s not always clear what they mean. Some might consider critical thinking a trait or capacity that teachers can encourage, like creativity or grit. They could believe that critical thinking is a mindset: a habit of being curious, skeptical and reflective. Or they might be referring to specific skills – for instance, that students should learn a set of steps to take to assess information online.

    Unfortunately, cognitive science research has shown that critical thinking is not an abstract quality or practice that can be developed on its own. Cognitive scientists see critical thinking as a specific kind of reasoning that involves problem-solving and making sound judgments. It can be learned, but it relies on specific content knowledge and does not necessarily transfer between fields.

    Early studies on chess players and physicists in the 1970s and ’80s helped show how the kind of flexible and reflective cognition often called critical thinking is really a product of expertise. Chess masters, for instance, do not start out with innate talent. In most cases, they gain expertise by hours of thoughtfully playing the game. This deliberate practice helps them recognize patterns and think in novel ways about chess. Chess masters’ critical thinking is a product of learning, not a precursor.

    Because critical thinking develops in specific contexts, it does not necessarily transfer to other types of problem-solving. For example, chess advocates might hope the game improves players’ intelligence, and studies do suggest learning chess may help elementary students with the kind of pattern recognition they need for early math lessons. However, research has found that being a great chess player does not make people better at other kinds of complex critical thinking.

    Historical thinking

    Since context is key to critical thinking, learning to analyze information about current events likely requires knowledge about politics and history, as well as practice at scrutinizing sources. Fortunately, that is what social studies classes are for.

    Social studies researchers often describe this kind of critical thinking as “historical thinking”: a way to evaluate evidence about the past and assess its reliability. My own research has shown that high school students can make relatively quick progress on some of the surface features of historical thinking, such as learning to check a text’s date and author. But the deep questioning involved in true historical thinking is much harder to learn.

    Social studies classrooms can also build what researchers call “civic online reasoning.” Fact-checking is complex work. It is not enough to tell young people that they should be wary online, or to trust sites that end in “.org” instead of “.com.” Rather than learning general principles about online media, civic online reasoning teaches students specific skills for evaluating information about politics and social issues.

    Still, learning to think like a historian does not necessarily prepare someone to be a skeptical news consumer. Indeed, a recent study found that professional historians performed worse than professional fact-checkers at identifying online misinformation. The misinformation tasks the historians struggled with focused on issues such as bullying or the minimum wage – areas where they possessed little expertise.

    Powerful knowledge

    That’s where background knowledge comes in – and the good news is that social studies can build it. All literacy relies on what readers already know. For people wading through political information and news, knowledge about history and civics is like a key in the ignition for their analytical skills.

    Readers without much historical knowledge may miss clues that something isn’t right – signs that they need to scrutinize the source more closely. Political misinformation often weaponizes historical falsehoods, such as the debunked and recalled Christian nationalist book claiming that Thomas Jefferson did not believe in a separation of church and state, or claims that the nadir of African American life came during Reconstruction, not slavery. Those claims are extreme, but politicians and policymakers repeat them.

    For someone who knows basic facts about American history, those claims won’t sit right. Background knowledge will trigger their skepticism and kick critical thinking into gear.

    Past, present, future

    For this reason, the best approach to media literacy will come through teaching that fosters concrete skills alongside historical knowledge. In short, the new knowledge crisis points to the importance of the traditional social studies classroom.

    But it’s a tenuous moment for history education. The Bush- and Obama-era emphasis on math and English testing resulted in decreased instructional time in history classes, particularly in elementary and middle schools. In one 2005 study, 27% of schools reported reducing social studies time in favor of subjects on state exams.

    Now, history teachers are feeling heat from politically motivated culture wars over education that target teaching about racism and LGBTQ+ issues and that ban books from libraries and classrooms. Two-thirds of instructors say that they’ve limited classroom discussions about social and political topics.

    Attempts to limit students’ knowledge about the past imperil their chances of being able to think critically about new information. These attacks are not just assaults on the history of the country; they are attempts to control its future.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Source link

  • Why doesn’t higher education make a difference?

    Why doesn’t higher education make a difference?

    by Amir Shahsavari and Mohammad Eslahi

    This blog is based on research reported in Shahsavari, A, & Eslahi, M (2025) ‘Dynamics of Imbalanced Higher Education Development: Analysing Factors and Policy Implications’ in Policy Reviews in Higher Education.

    Our study addresses the paradox of expanding higher education, particularly in Iran, failing to translate into substantial societal impact. We adopted an interpretive research paradigm to explore participants’ experiences and perspectives, emphasising qualitative inquiry. Specifically, we applied a basic qualitative research approach, focusing on thematic data analysis to understand underlying meanings and patterns. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 23 professionals from Iran’s higher education system, including executive experts and academic scholars. The data was analysed using qualitative theme analysis with the thematic network approach. It highlights the interplay of internal and external factors driving this imbalance and offers practical recommendations for policymakers and university administrators. The study identifies multiple external and internal factors contributing to the imbalanced development of Iranian higher education.

    External Factors:

    1. Conflicting Political Discourse: Political divisions create inconsistent policy directions that hinder higher education reform. The resulting instability restricts universities from pursuing coherent strategies for social development.
    2. Deficient Decision-Making Structures: Inefficient policy frameworks restrict universities’ ability to align with national development goals. This limits their capacity to engage in long-term planning, research commercialization, and innovation.
    3. Lack of Social and Cultural Cohesion: Weak societal integration reduces higher education’s ability to contribute to social progress. Universities struggle to connect their knowledge outputs to broader societal needs without a shared cultural framework.
    4. Low Demand for Science and Technology in the Economy: Limited integration of scientific advancements into economic sectors hinders universities’ relevance. Weak industry-university linkages prevent research outcomes from driving innovation and economic growth.
    5. International Sanctions: Economic constraints and restricted access to global knowledge networks impede higher education progress. This isolation limits opportunities for research collaboration, technological exchange, and funding access.

    Internal Factors:

    1. Limited Engagement with National and Local Ecosystem Needs: Universities lack meaningful interaction with regional industries and communities. This disconnect limits their ability to address localized development challenges.
    2. Insufficient Attention to Territorial Advantages in Development Planning: Universities often fail to leverage local strengths and opportunities, weakening their contribution to regional economic development.
    3. Weak Endogenous Creativity: Overreliance on Western educational models stifles innovative academic approaches. As a result, Iranian universities struggle to develop unique solutions suited to local challenges.
    4. Promotion of Emigration: University environments inadvertently encourage student and faculty migration, reducing local impact. This trend diminishes the human capital available to drive national innovation.

    This study contributes new insights by highlighting the interplay between external political pressures and internal university strategies. While previous studies have emphasized government interventions and economic constraints, this research reveals the disruptive effects of conflicting political ideologies and weak social cohesion. Additionally, the study expands on the “quadruple helix” model by illustrating the absence of place-based leadership and strategies as critical gaps in Iranian higher education. The study also introduces a framework for integrating participatory governance models into university decision-making processes, enhancing institutions’ responsiveness to societal needs. The study emphasizes three key strategies for improving higher education’s societal impact:

    1. Promoting National Dialogues via Universities: Encouraging open dialogue among academic leaders and policymakers can bridge ideological divides, fostering consensus on long-term educational goals. This step is vital to mitigate political interference and improve strategic planning for university development. Higher education can contribute to national stability and long-term planning by positioning universities as mediators in political debates.
    2. Increasing Science and Technology Demand: Policymakers should enhance economic incentives for scientific research integration. Encouraging industrial partnerships and market-driven research will amplify universities’ role in economic growth. By creating a more dynamic innovation ecosystem, universities can expand their influence on industry practices and economic modernization.
    3. Developing Science and Technology Diplomacy: Expanding diplomatic ties to bypass sanctions can enhance Iranian universities’ access to global scientific collaboration, fostering innovation and knowledge exchange. Such efforts include developing partnerships with international research centers and increasing participation in global academic networks.

    The study to address internal factors recommends:

    • Expanding participatory teaching models, such as service learning, to connect universities with community development. These models empower students to engage with social challenges directly, enhancing their sense of responsibility and practical skills.
    • Aligning government support for universities based on regional strengths, promoting competition, and enhancing educational quality. By linking funding models to regional priorities, universities can better tailor their strategies to local economic and social needs.
    • Supporting creative teaching and research initiatives to foster academic innovation. This includes incentivising faculty to develop unconventional teaching methods and interdisciplinary research projects.
    • Encouraging initiatives that promote national pride and social responsibility among students and faculty, mitigating emigration trends. Universities can strengthen students’ connection to local development through values-based education and encourage talent retention.

    The study highlights a critical limitation: its participants were drawn solely from the supply side of the science and technology ecosystem (university faculty and administrators). Future research should include stakeholders from the demand side, such as industry leaders, policymakers, and civil society representatives, to develop a more comprehensive understanding of higher education’s role in societal development. Exploring the interplay between social values, economic incentives, and political frameworks would provide deeper insights into higher education’s transformative potential.

    This research underscores the need for a holistic approach to higher education reform. By addressing internal and external challenges, policymakers can create an educational landscape promoting social, economic, and political progress. Universities must evolve beyond expanding access to higher education and focus on fostering creativity, engagement, and accountability to enhance their contributions to society. Developing partnerships with industry, embracing participatory governance, and promoting inclusive dialogues will empower universities to become key drivers of social and economic transformation.

    Amir Shahsavari is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran, Iran. His academic interests lie in higher education policy, academic management and planning, and teaching and learning, mainly focusing on higher education studies in Iran. Drawing on his research, he seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing Iranian universities to inform policy and improve educational practices. [email protected]

    Mohammad Eslahi holds a PhD in Higher Education from the University of Tehran, Iran, specializing in Educational Administration and Planning. His research interests focus on the economics of higher education and the economics of university research. He is a lecturer and research assistant at the University of Tehran, actively contributing to teaching and scholarly endeavors in these fields. [email protected]

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Trump cuts research funding to six Aus universities and counting – Campus Review

    Trump cuts research funding to six Aus universities and counting – Campus Review

    At least six Group of Eight (Go8) universities have had research grants terminated by the United States amid an anti-diversity and gender ideology studies crackdown from US President Donald Trump’s office.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • What’s driving low levels of full economic cost recovery in research?

    What’s driving low levels of full economic cost recovery in research?

    Media attention has emphasised that the financial issues facing universities continue to worsen. While research is a cornerstone and strength of the sector, it is often regarded as a cost, which leads to scrutiny as part of institutional savings targets. Despite calls to acknowledge the value of research, the focus understandably remains on research costs.

    The focus of universities on the volume and cost of unfunded research, or more accurately, internally funded research, is a question that must be addressed. Institutions are reflecting on and revising internal research allowances as part of their efforts to achieve a more sustainable financial position, as the cross-subsidy from international student fees is no longer as viable as it once was.

    The question of funded research, however, is a different matter. For quite some time, there have been questions about what constitutes the full economic cost (FEC) and how these costs are recovered when projects are funded. Both issues have once again come to the forefront in the current climate, especially as institutions are failing to recover the eligible costs of funded projects.

    As part of the Innovation & Research Caucus, an investment funded by UKRI, we have been investigating why the recovery of UKRI-funded research is often below the stated rates. To put it simply, if the official recovery rate is 80 per cent FEC, why is 80 per cent not being recovered on UKRI-funded projects?

    Understanding under-recovery

    We conducted a series of interviews with chief financial officers, pro vice chancellors for research, and directors of research services across mission groups, the Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) group, and various geographic regions. They identified several key reasons why universities are not recovering the funding to which they are entitled.

    Before exploring the causes of under-recovery on UKRI-funded projects, the project aimed to establish the extent to which TRAC data was curated and utilised. Notably, the study found that the data collected for TRAC does not exist within research organisations and would not otherwise be collected in this form if it were not for the TRAC reporting requirement.

    While scrutinising TRAC data was less of a priority when the financial situation was more stable, in many institutions, it is now of interest to the top table and serves as the basis for modelling, projections, and scenario planning. That said, such analysis did not always recognise TRAC’s limitations in terms of how it was compiled and, therefore, its comparability.

    In many of the research organisations consulted, the responsibilities for TRAC, project costing, and project delivery are distinct. Given the growing significance of TRAC data in influencing resource allocation and strategic decision-making, it is essential for research organisations to adopt a more integrated approach to compiling and utilising TRAC data to achieve improved outcomes.

    Drivers of under-recovery

    A wide range of factors explains why the cost recovered at the end of a funding grant is less than anticipated at the point of submission and award. Almost all respondents highlighted three factors as significant in low cost recovery:

    1. Equipment and facilities costs were consistently cited as a factor, including issues associated with allocating and costing overheads and estates. Several institutions highlighted the difficulty in realistically costing equipment and facilities shared between research projects or between research projects and teaching.
    1. Staff under-costing was frequently mentioned, as principal investigators (PIs) underestimated their own and their colleagues’ time commitment to projects. This ineffective practice was driven by a (mis)perception that lower costs will likely improve success rates – despite the emphasis being on value rather than cost within a specific funding envelope.
    2. Inflation has been identified as a factor affecting all cost elements – from staff costs related to pay settlements and promotions to the rising expenses associated with consumables, equipment, and energy. This reveals a growing gap in applications, delivery, and reporting.

    Beyond these top three, the report highlights the implications of the often “hidden” costs associated with supporting and administering UKRI grants, the perennial issues of match funding, and the often inevitable delays in starting and delivering projects – all of which add to the cost and increase the prospect of under-recovery.

    In addition, an array of other contributing factors were also raised. These included the impact of exchange rates, eligibility criteria, the capital intensity of projects, cost recovery for partners, recruitment challenges, lack of contingency, and no cost extensions. While not pinpointing the importance of a single factor, the interplay and cumulative effect were considered to result in under-recovery.

    Addressing under-recovery

    Universities bear the cost of under-recovery, but funders and universities can take several actions to improve under-recovery – some of which are low- or no-cost, could be implemented in the short term, and would make a real difference.

    Funders, such as UKRI, should provide clearer guidance for research organisations on how to cost facilities and equipment, as well as how to include these costs in research bids. Similarly, applicants and reviewers should receive clearer guidance regarding realistic expectations from PIs in leading projects, emphasising that value should be prioritised over cost. Another area that warrants clearer guidance is match funding, specifically for institutions regarding expectations and for reviewers on how match funding should be assessed. We are pleased to see that UKRI is already taking steps to address these points in its funding policies [editor’s note: this link will be live around 9am on Friday morning].

    In the medium term, research funders could also review their approaches to indexation, which could help mitigate the impact of inflation in driving under-recovery, although this is, of course, not without cost. Another area worth exploring by both research organisations and funders is the provision of shared infrastructures and assets, both within and across institutions – again, a longer-term project.

    We are already seeing institutions taking steps to manage and mitigate under-recovery, and there is scope to extend good practice. Perhaps the main challenge to improving cost recovery is better managing the link between project budgets – based on proposal costs – and project delivery costs. Ensuring a joined-up approach from project costing to reporting is important, but more important is developing a deeper understanding across these areas.

    A final point is the need to ensure that academics vying for funding really understand the new realities of cost and recovery. This has not always been the case, and arguably still is not the case. These skills – from clarifying the importance of realistic staff costs to accurately costing the use of facilities to effectively managing project budgets – will help close the cost recovery gap.

    The real FEC of research funding

    The current project has focused on under-recovery in project delivery. The next step is to understand the real cost to research organisations of UKRI grant funding.

    This means understanding the cost of developing, preparing and submitting a UKRI grant application – whether successful or not. It means understanding the costs associated with administering and reporting on a UKRI grant during and beyond the life of a project (think ResearchFish!).

    For more information, please get in touch – or watch this space for further findings.

    The Innovation & Research Caucus report, Understanding low levels of FEC cost recovery on UKRI grants, will be published on the UKRI site later today.

    Source link

  • Research funding won’t redistribute itself

    Research funding won’t redistribute itself

    On the whole research funding is not configured to be sensitive to place.

    Redistribution

    It does good things in regions but this is different to funding being configured to do so. For example, universities in the North East performed strongly in the REF and as a consequence they received an uplift in QR funding. This will allow them to invest in their research capacity, this will bring agglomerate benefits in the North East, and go some small way to rebalancing the UK’s research ecosystem away from London.

    REF isn’t designed to do that. It has absolutely no interest where research takes place, just that the research that takes place is excellent. The UK isn’t a very big place and it has a large number of universities. Eventually, if you fund enough things in enough places you will eventually help support regional clusters of excellence.

    There are of course some specific place based funds but this doesn’t mean they are redistributive as well as being regionally focussed. The Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) is focussed on regional capacity but it is £260m of a total annual Research England funding distribution of £2.8bn. HEIF is calculated using provider knowledge exchange work on businesses, public and third sector engagement, and the wider public. A large portion of the data is gathered through the HE-BCI Survey.

    The result of this is that there is place based funding but inevitably institutions with larger research capacities receive larger amounts of funding. Of the providers that received the maximum HEIF funding in 2024/25 five were within the golden triangle, one was in the West Midlands, one was in the East Midlands, two were in Yorkshire and the Humber, one was in the North West, and one was in the South East but not the golden triangle. It is regional but it is not redistributive.

    Strength of feeling/strength in places

    RAND Europe has released a process evaluation of wave two of the Strength in Places Fund (SIPF). As RAND Europe describe the fund is

    The Strength in Places Fund (SIPF) is a £312.5 million competitive funding scheme that takes a place-based approach to research and innovation (R&I) funding. SIPF is a UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) strategic fund managed by the SIPF delivery team based at Innovate UK and Research England. The aim of the Fund is to help areas of the UK build on existing strengths in R&I to deliver benefits for their local economy

    This fund has been more successful in achieving a more regionally distributed spread of funding. For example, the fund has delivered £47m to Wales compared to only £18m in South East England. Although quality was a key factor, and there are some challenges to how aligned projects are to wider regional priorities, it seems that a focus on a balanced portfolio made a difference. As RAND Europe note

    […]steps were taken to ensure a balanced portfolio in terms of geographical spread and sectors; however, quality was the primary factor influencing panel recommendations (INTXX). Panel members considered the projects that had been funded in Wave 1 and the bids submitted in Wave 2, and were keen on ensuring no one region was overrepresented. One interviewee mentioned that geographical variation of awards contributed to the credibility of a place-based funding system[…].

    The Regional Innovation Fund which aimed to support local innovation capacity was allocated with a specific modifier to account for where there had historically been less research investment. SPIF has been a different approach to solving the same conundrum of how best support research potential in every region of the UK.

    It’s within this context that it is interesting to arrive at UKRI’s most recent analysis of the geographical distribution of its funding in 2022/23 and 2023/24. There are two key messages the first is that

    All regions and nations received an increase in UKRI investment between the financial years 2021 to 2022 and 2023 to 2024. The greatest absolute increases in investment were seen in the North West, West Midlands and East Midlands. The greatest proportional increases were seen in Northern Ireland, the East Midlands and North West.

    And the second is that

    The percentage of UKRI funding invested outside London, the South East and East of England, collectively known as the ‘Greater South East’, rose to 50% in 2023 to 2024. This is up from 49% in the 2022 to 2023 financial year and 47% in the 2021 to 2022 financial year. This represents a cumulative additional £1.4 billion invested outside the Greater South East since the 2021 to 2022 financial year.

    Waterloo sunset?

    In the most literal sense the funding between the Greater South East and the rest of the country could not be more finely balanced. In flat cash terms the rest of the UK outside of the Greater South East has overtaken the Greater South East for the first time while investment per capita in the Greater South East still outstrips the rest of the country by a significant amount.

    The reasons for this shift is because of greater investments in the North West, West Midlands, and East Midlands who cumulatively saw an increase of £550m worth of funding over the past three years. The regions with the highest absolute levels of funding saw some of the smallest proportions of increases in investment.

    The evaluations and UKRI’s dataset present an interesting picture. There is nothing unusual about the way funding is distributed as it follows where the highest numbers of researchers, providers, and economic activity is located. It would be an entirely arbitrary mechanism which penalised the South East for having research strengths.

    Simultaneously, with constrained resources there are lots of latent assets outside of the golden triangle that will not get funding. The UK is unusually reliant on its capital as an economic contributor and research funding follows this. The only way to rebalance this is to make deliberate efforts, like with SIPF, to lean toward a more balanced portfolio of funding.

    This isn’t a plea to completely rip up the rule book, and a plea for more money in an era of fiscal constraint will not be listened to, but it does bring into sharp relief a choice. Either research policy is about bolstering the UK’s economic centre or it is about strengthening the potential of research where it receives less funding. There simply is not enough money to do both.

    Source link