Government plans to cut research bureaucracy will boost funders’ existing efforts, says Simon Kerridge
The government’s response to Adam Tickell’s independent review of research bureaucracy has been a long time coming—a little over 18 months, to be precise. But overall it appears to be good news.
As the secretary of state for science and innovation, Michelle Donelan, says in her foreword, “From here on, our shared aim must be to reduce bureaucracy, not introduce it.” As always, the devil is in the detail.
It’s important to remember that this is neither the first nor last word on the subject. The ambition for funders to “work together to harmonise and co-ordinate processes”, for example, dates back at least to the turn of the century, when I was involved in research council process and data harmonisation. And UK Research and Innovation’s Simpler and Better Funding (SBF) programme, launched in 2021, is showing promise.
In terms of what’s new in the government’s response, it’s great to see that plans to reduce the burden of funding applications include a commitment to standardising the use of narrative CVs. This will increase equity as well as reduce bureaucracy even if some areas of the response downplay the former’s importance’ at the end of this sentence.
Thankfully, the response to Tickell’s recommendations on assessment processes, including peer review, shows no sign of a one-size-fits-all edict. We are likely to see more two-stage applications, where short proposals are screened before full proposals are required. Lottery models for funding allocation also get a few mentions. Initiatives such as the HiddenREF will have a role here in feeding in experiences from novel assessment practices.
The wording around no-cost grant extensions, giving funders and researchers more flexibility, is pleasing, pointing to progress made by many funders and signposting more to come. This is an easy and long-awaited win.
Streamlining ethics processes, so that collaborative projects need a single approval, would bring large savings. This will require building trust and interoperable systems, but the example of similar initiatives in parts of the US research system shows it is worth the effort.
Recommendations
Tickell made half-a-dozen recommendations on integrating and streamlining digital platforms and research information systems. Here, the game-changer will be greater use of shared identifiers.
The continuing commitment to the Orcid researcher ID should lead to the uptake of related standards. The response mentions the Research Activity Identifier used for projects and the Integrated Research Application System for approvals and permissions—a vital tool for streamlining ethical approvals.
There are many others, such as for research activities (projects) and author contributions. However, the government’s plans are disappointingly short on specific targets, especially given the opportunity to eliminate millions of pounds worth of inefficiencies each year.
Also in matters digital, the government’s acknowledgement that current reporting platforms “can be burdensome for users” sounds like a death knell for UKRI’s relationship with the Researchfish impact tracker. Few in universities will mourn its passing.
How the government’s plans play out will depend on UKRI’s new Funding Service, which is being rolled out after long delays. So far, the moves towards simplification look promising. Not having to provide an itemised breakdown of costs, for example, certainly saves time.
Tickell’s recommendations, as well as the government’s response, show the influence of UKRI and other funders’ conversations, not only with researchers and research leaders, but also with research managers and administrators, often facilitated by the Association of Research Managers and Administrators.
It’s good to see the government acknowledge this formally, noting that “UKRI continues to engage end users, including applicants, assessors and research office administrators”. And it’s good to see ARMA recognised as a key player and facilitator in the research ecosystem.
What’s next?
In terms of next steps, research performing organisations need to look at their own processes. Quite reasonably given its remit, the government has fewer concrete things to say about institutional bureaucracy than about funders.
I will also be keeping an eye on the Innovation and Research Caucus, the new metascience team, and the ‘red team’ charged with sniffing out “creeping, unnecessary bureaucracy across the wider public research system”. Will that include the stated ambition to make the Research Excellence Framework more cost-efficient?
Simon Kerridge is the founder of Kerridge Research Consulting, an honorary staff member of the University of Kent, and a past chair of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators
This article also appeared in Research Fortnight