Opinion - Research Professional News https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/category/uk/uk-opinion/ Research policy, research funding and research politics news Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:54:52 +0000 en-GB hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.5 Changing parameters https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-changing-parameters/ Sun, 28 Jul 2024 07:17:36 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-changing-parameters/ Gordon McKenzie draws on 18 years’ experience of higher education finance to predict future policy

The post Changing parameters appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Gordon McKenzie draws on 18 years’ experience of higher education finance to predict future policy

Higher education funding is simple—that’s what I was told when I started working on higher education policy as a civil servant in 2006. It’s a compound, they said, of number of students, unit of resource for teaching, and terms and conditions of student finance. So simple, and so contentious in the 18 years since.

As I retire from working in the sector, higher education funding is still being debated, and the stakes seem higher than ever.

“Right system, wrong parameters.” This (from Nicholas Barr, quoting Anna Vignoles) is a good description of the state of income-contingent loans now. Right system because there is no financial barrier to access and, as Karl Marx pointed out, “free” higher education is just a middle-class subsidy from taxes. Wrong parameters because the various changes since 2012 mean that in England we are loaning too much, for too long, in a regressive system with far too little direct government subsidy.

Higher education provides public, as well as private, benefits and the balance of funding should reflect that. But with public subsidy at just 16 per cent, students and graduates are, pretty much, paying for higher education themselves. Yet ministers have moaned about the choices students and graduates make and what the system delivers.

In The Blunders of our Governments, Anthony King and Ivor Crewe show how the Treasury’s zeal for savings destroyed the potential social policy benefits of the child support reforms of the early 1990s. At the time, the Labour spokesman Michael Meacher quipped that the 1994 white paper, Children Come First, should have been called, The Treasury Comes First. While it has taken longer, given where we have ended up, you could make the same joke about the 2011 white paper, Students at the Heart of the System.

The combination of accounting trickery that flattered the national accounts and (full-time) students’ willingness to take out the loans proved addictive. Fees of £6,000 and a smaller reduction in teaching grant? No, push it to £9,000. Keep some level of maintenance grants? No. Like Lou Reed, the Treasury was rushing on its run. Reinstate maintenance as well as extend the repayment period as the Augar panel recommended? No. And after all those changes to loan terms and conditions, the right system for funding mass higher education is now described as not working by the new government. I guess the Treasury just didn’t know.

Public priorities

In between dropping out of one university course and starting another, I worked in a West Midlands factory making plastic bags. The chargehand, Keith, asked what I was studying and I made the mistake of telling him. After a long, incredulous pause he replied: “****ing drama? You ****ing ****er!”

Apart from any personal animosity, I think Keith was making a broader point about the extent to which certain subjects, qualifications or students should be prioritised for publicly supported higher education. At different times, I have met politicians from all three main parties who held broadly similar views to Keith (although not necessarily expressed in the same language)––some scepticism about the number of students and what they study.

In the 11 years since George Osborne said he was ending the cap on aspiration, government policy has enabled anyone suitably qualified to enter higher education if accepted and to study what they choose. The “number of students” factor in the funding calculation has been set aside.

Government rhetoric, particularly in recent years, has been rather different. By the time the 2017 Higher Education and Research Act put in place the legislative underpinning for a regulated market (legislation blocked during the coalition years to save Liberal Democrat blushes), the Conservatives had fallen out of love with expansion. But while ministers trash-talked degrees, they did not restrict student numbers––perhaps because, despite their magical policy thinking, even they could see that 30,000 degree apprenticeship starts was no alternative to a higher education system enrolling half a million new first-degree students.

Getting it right

Yet calls for a re-introduction of student number controls continue to come from both the political left and right. Many taxpayer-supported goods and services are rationed explicitly (e.g. means testing) or as a result of underfunding, so there is nothing wicked in asking whether higher education has got it right––although I would have more sympathy if the system had a much higher level of public subsidy than it does.

Arguments for number controls tend to be around teaching quality (if there is only so much to go around then having fewer students would allow government to spend more per head); questions about whether students are “suitably qualified” (the view that providers have a financial incentive to recruit those who are not); or a mismatch with the labour market (reported under-utilisation of skills, falling graduate premium, absence of promised productivity increases).

And I suspect the arguments won’t go away, despite the Labour manifesto promising to “continue to support the aspirations of every person who meets the requirements and wants to go to university”. Labour wants a skills strategy, supporting an industrial strategy, supporting growth. If new ministers think the system is failing to produce what the country needs at the right price, then they may return to the question, “How many students, studying what?”

Figure 1 in the recent Office for Students publication on the financial sustainability of English providers shows the real-terms value of the unit of resource for teaching over time. And it is now pretty much where it was in 1997 when Labour came to power, accepted the need for top-up fees and subsequently introduced them––first at £1,000 and then £3,000. 

Fee levels

Some commentators have suggested that a Labour government may well raise fees to just under £10,000 early in the Parliament. This is because a) Labour has talked––although not in the manifesto––about a fairer deal for students and graduates, and if that means increased maintenance and/or decreased repayments then it would be the least-worst time politically to increase fees as well; b) Labour will have to do something about university finances as “universities going under” is on Sue Gray’s list of potential crises facing the new government and c) while Bridget Phillipson has said there are “no plans” for fee rises, she has not ruled them out. 

I get the political timing point but I’m not convinced the Labour Treasury team will think the risk that some universities may fail is best addressed by giving all universities a 5-6 per cent fee increase. They may instead agree with the OfS that the “sector as a whole has been in a relatively strong financial position for much of the past decade” and that the “financial challenges it is facing now could be a catalyst to drive positive change and innovation”. And they may see Scotland and Northern Ireland––where very much lower levels of the unit of funding for teaching have not yet caused a university to fail––as canaries in the mine and think maybe this can wait a bit longer.

If so, I hope they also take account of the OfS’s warning that leaving sorting out sector financial crises to the individual actions of institutions risks impacts on the size, shape and reputation of UK higher education––impacts that could damage student choice, the breadth and depth of academic provision, and the ability of diverse institutions to maximise their contribution to local and national economies.

Gordon McKenzie is the former CEO of GuildHE and a former senior civil servant

The post Changing parameters appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Olympic trials https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-olympic-trials/ Fri, 26 Jul 2024 12:00:20 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-olympic-trials/ Ivory Tower: Next on Sky Sports HE, 10 days of the universities and research Olympics

The post Olympic trials appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Ivory Tower: Next on Sky Sports HE, 10 days of the universities and research Olympics

Day 1: Opening ceremony

And here comes Team GB, one of the favourites in this year’s events. No strangers to a league table, we hope to see UK universities competing with the US, Australia and Canada for international numbers. Unusually, this year the teams are not parading around a stadium but sailing in boats up the Seine.

It’s fortunate for Britain that the Conservatives recently lost the election because, of course, their policy was to stop all boats sailing from France. At the front of our vessel, you might be able to spot team captain Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities UK, who will be participating in the early morning TV and radio interviews event, a new category in this year’s games which combines wrestling, fencing and heavy-lifting.

Day 2: Marathon

As we approach the final stages on the streets of Paris, this has been a truly impressive effort from the Brits. After five years of strikes over a defined benefit pension scheme, British universities certainly know a thing or two about arduous marathons.

The frontrunners now approach the Rue des Écoles, famed home of the Sorbonne and other institutions of higher learning. But what’s this? It looks as if the route has been blocked by a flaming barricade with staff and students barring the way.

We haven’t seen anything like this in France since 2009. I can’t quite see what they are protesting about… Ah, yes, it looks like that old bug bear, the Bologna process, to bring universities into line with European and Anglo-Saxon standards.

One banner reads, “After Brexit, why are we still doing this?” But you’ve got to say that’s a misunderstanding. After Brexit, recession and the declining value of tuition fees, British universities are now in line with continental counterparts: they are just as impoverished as everyone else.

Day 3: Track and field

You join us for the final of the academic relay race. Hosts France, like so many others, are using the tried and trusted Erasmus+ method, while the Brits have their own alternative scheme—let’s hope they’ve been practising their exchanges.

The starting pistol fires; there’s an early lead for the European teams. Taith, the Welsh runner, makes the first exchange for Britain. It’s now with the Scottish parliament, which has promised a successful exchange, but we’ve yet to see any evidence of it.

That looks like a terrible fumble from Scotland, but it’s now with Turing from England, who exchanges with no one. Oh dear, someone has really dropped the baton there.

Day 4: Diving

It’s been an exciting day in the pool with success for Britain’s vice-chancellors in the 100-metre crawl, something they’ve practised extensively with ministers in the previous government. Now we take to the high boards for the diving contest.

British universities are hot favourites here, they’ve been taking a nosedive for several years now. And here’s late entrant Jacqui Smith, minister for further education, higher education and skills, whose own career took a sensational dive from home secretary to podcaster in record time.

Smith comes to the edge of the board and looks to take the plunge. She jumps, performs a classic DfE twist and turn, and the water covers over her head. Let’s hope she is not out of depth.

Day 5: Gymnastics

High hopes for Britain in the men’s event as science minister Patrick Vallance now approaches the horizontal bar. So far, UK science has been doing somersaults, taken a pummelling on the horse, and been vaulted over by the likes of Canada and New Zealand, but finally the bar on Horizon has been lifted.

Vallance begins his routine. The Brits might be a little rusty on the horizon programme after years of absence from the competition. There will be deductions for slips and errors using a complex repayment system to the Treasury that no one quite understands.

Vallance has got a strong grip, and that’s some impressive flips and twists from the UK government, man. He should now be looking to dismount but he seems unable to let go. That’s what comes of being a life peer in the science minister role. He could be here for some time, going round and round…

Day 6: Rowing

The Brits have really come to dominate rowing in higher education. Some say it’s because you can sit down while doing it, but some of our best rowers do it standing up.

In recent years we have some great rows in higher education. Who can forget science secretary Michelle Donelan’s row with members of an equality advisory board, or education secretary Gillian Keegan’s row over minimum staffing levels.

And, of course, the brief but glorious career of skills minister Andrea Jenkyns, who could start a row in an empty house. Our best hope this year is in the mixed pairs, where the University and College Union and the Universities and Colleges Employers Association will be rowing about the annual pay rise, even though everyone agrees higher education in the UK is bankrupt.

Day 7: Cycling

This is another set of events that British higher education excels at, going round and round the same track for ages until someone finally crashes. And, of course, UK universities have their own Trac programme they complete every year, even though no one can really remember why.

We’ve had some great successes over the years. Perhaps most memorably when universities minister Jo Johnson introduced the gold, silver and bronze awards for the Teaching Excellence Framework, which was widely recognised as a recycling of a bad idea that took everyone for a ride.

Later on, science minister Peter Kyle will be leading the UK in the team pursuit with a target of 3 per cent of GDP by 2030 to meet. Let’s hope no one in the Treasury puts a spoke in his wheels.

Day 8: Track and field 2

Welcome back to the Stade de France, where later we’ll see the blue-ribbon event of the 100-metre sprint. Competing for Britain is outgoing UKRI chief executive Ottoline Leyser, who tells us she can’t wait to make a dash for it.

In a great evening of athletics, we will also see some long-distance running. We spoke to many representatives of UK universities today who have said they would run a mile if the Tories ever got back in.

But first let’s go over to the hurdles, where the Office for Students has been laying out some pretty high barriers for universities to jump over. However, we understand James Wharton has pulled out of the race as he was obviously for the high jump.

Day 9: Shooting

So far, these games have been a great success for British universities, with education secretary Bridget Phillipson winning friends for her unexpected performance in the graduate visa route slalom. There’s also been success for the Brits in the modern pentathlon of REF, TEF, KEF, LEO and NSS.

Now we’re on the shooting range for an event the Brits are currently world champions at: the large-bore circular firing squad event. What an array of talent we have, from vice-chancellors and trade unions to government ministers and sector thought leaders.

This year the group will be led by the free speech tsar, Arif Ahmed—a controversial choice since he declared that no one should be shot down just for voicing an unpopular opinion. However, with the new government pressing pause on new free speech legislation set to take effect in a matter of days, it seems as if the guy charged with tackling cancel culture may already have been cancelled.

Day 10: Closing ceremony

Now, that’s a heart-warming sight after a such a competitive and challenging set of events. It really is something to see so many people from British universities still working in August.

Such a pity that Team GB became embroiled in that doping scandal when former education secretary Gavin Williamson took part in the A-Level Results Judo. The organisers said they had never seen such a big dope in the system and have banned the UK from all subsequent events.

Terms of use: this is a free email for fun on a Friday. It should be passed on like the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. Want to order a replica of Team GB’s higher education Olympics mascots, Russell the Fresher and Nandos the Returner? Want to say hello? Email ivorytower@researchresearch.com

The post Olympic trials appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Labour’s tone shift https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-labour-s-tone-shift/ Wed, 24 Jul 2024 07:00:00 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-labour-s-tone-shift/ Ministers’ fresh approach welcome, but they cannot sidestep systemic problems for universities and research

The post Labour’s tone shift appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Ministers’ fresh approach welcome, but they cannot sidestep systemic problems for universities and research

Bridget Phillipson’s recent interview with BBC Radio 4’s World at One may have amounted to the most an education secretary has said about higher education policy in any substantive sense in the last 14 years. Indeed, she may have said more about higher education policy in that single interview than all her predecessors put together managed over the last 14 years (and there were a lot of them).

Not all of what she said will have been easy listening for university and research leaders: the government has “no plans” to ease the crisis in higher education funding by lifting the tuition fee cap, or by increasing direct public funding for universities, Phillipson said.

But she did take care to set out her desire to see the graduate visa route maintained, and for the government generally to support, rather than hinder, universities’ international student recruitment as a means to help ensure their financial sustainability.

There are problems with that position (more of which in a moment). However, it does meet a threshold set by sector leaders: if you can’t put any cash universities’ way directly, find ways to take off the pressure.

And there’s another way in which Phillipson has set out an important direction in her media appearances and meetings with sector leaders: changing the tone; putting the emphasis on working in partnership with the sector on policy, rather than waging culture wars against it for perceived political benefit; and focusing on the things the government can do.

Sector leaders see her more collegiate approach echoed across government. They view Peter Kyle, secretary of state in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, as understanding the interaction between higher education and science, and the importance of international student recruitment in the cross-subsidy of research in universities.

There has also been a warm reception for science minister Patrick Vallance’s early willingness to be combative on the need for visa reform to make it easier for the UK to attract research talent. Though behind closed doors, that may perhaps have earned him some guidance from civil servants on what it means to be a minister.

As the new government takes a new tone and approach on universities and research, there are some key tests for that coming up.

In this issue of Research Fortnight, we look at the decision-making that will be involved in the appointment of the next UK Research and Innovation chief executive, an organisation previously dragged into the culture wars, to its detriment, by Conservative science secretary Michelle Donelan.

That position will be key to the ambitions of Vallance to step up the UK’s performance as an international force in research and in key technologies.

And in our feature, we look at how, despite an absence of major legislation directly impacting universities and research in the King’s Speech, Keir Starmer’s government could reshape the sector: from measures to prevent universities going bust, to R&D budgets, to the implications of Securonomics.

Ministers’ shift in tone and apparent desire to work in a collegiate way—both across government with colleagues and with the sectors they are responsible for—is an important start.

But also in this issue of Research Fortnight, Nick Barr, the economist who helped design the income-contingent student loans system for the last Labour government, sets out the case as to why fundamental, far-reaching reform is needed in higher education funding. He argues that the solution is not a fee rise but an increase in direct public funding for universities, rebalancing the contribution towards the government and away from graduates—perhaps with the aid of an element of employer funding via increased National Insurance Contributions. Increased public funding would give the government more clout to get what it wants from the system.

Paving the way to such a rebalancing of funding, says Barr, would require the government to initiate a review of tertiary education that gets to grips with what society, employers and the economy need from universities, and how they should be financed.

Government moves to ease international student recruitment might offer a short-term solution to alleviate the immediate crisis for universities. But in the medium and longer term, that will extend the roots of one of the biggest problems in the system: the overreliance of universities’ teaching and research on cross-subsidy from international students.

A shift in tone won’t pay the wages of university lecturers and researchers; eventually, the systemic problems will need to be grasped.

The post Labour’s tone shift appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Third Degree: JD Vance’s war with academia https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-third-degree-jd-vance-s-war-with-academia/ Wed, 24 Jul 2024 07:00:00 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-third-degree-jd-vance-s-war-with-academia/ Back page gossip from the 24 July issue of Research Fortnight

The post Third Degree: JD Vance’s war with academia appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Back page gossip from the 24 July issue of Research Fortnight

Donald Trump’s choice of running mate for his US presidential bid will be of interest to universities on both sides of the pond.

Ohio senator and best-selling author JD Vance formally accepted the Republican nomination to run for vice-president at the Republican National Convention last week, making a speech that pledged unwavering allegiance to Trump despite previously having described him as “cultural heroin”.

Vance has long stated his antipathy to universities. At a National Conservatism Conference in 2021, he gave a speech called The Universities are the Enemy, which he opened by saying: “If any of us want to do the things that we want to do for our country and for the people who live in it, we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities.”

He has praised Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán’s approach to higher education (Orbán placed universities under foundations loyal to his regime) and criticised higher education institutions for encouraging students to take on unaffordable debts.

In an interview with The European Conservative earlier this year, Vance said: “Universities are not so much after the pursuit of truth as they are about enforcing dogma and doctrine.”

That doesn’t mean giving up on them, he said. “We should be really aggressively reforming them in a way to where they’re much more open to conservative ideas.”

One way, he suggested, would be “to really go after the university bureaucracy focused on diversity, equity and inclusion”.

For many prospective international students weighing up study in the US or the UK, the UK might be about to become more appealing.

The post Third Degree: JD Vance’s war with academia appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
How will Labour approach England’s universities? Clues from Australia https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-how-will-labour-approach-england-s-universities-clues-from-australia/ Wed, 24 Jul 2024 06:00:03 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-how-will-labour-approach-england-s-universities-clues-from-australia/ Australian Labor’s reset of higher education policy is ambitious but incremental, says Paul Harris

The post How will Labour approach England’s universities? Clues from Australia appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Australian Labor’s reset of higher education policy is ambitious but incremental, says Paul Harris

As ministers settle in, what will a UK Labour government mean for higher education and research? Recent history in Australia can provide a point of comparison. Here, the Labor Party regained power in May 2022 after almost a decade of conservative coalition government.

In opposition, Australian Labor committed to an Australian Universities Accord—a new partnership between government, universities and the community. Once elected, it kicked this off with the largest review of the university system in 15 years, with students and staff given a seat at the table. In parallel, the new government also commissioned an independent review of the Australian Research Council (ARC), the first since its founding in 2001.

Through two waves of expansion, in the 1970s and 1990s, the Australian university system extended the benefits of higher education and research to communities across the country. The members of the Innovative Research Universities network trace their history back to these expansions.

Labors education minister, Jason Clare, has made equity his top priority. Going into the Accord review, IRU identified three trends that threaten this objective, making universities less representative of their communities.

Boosting participation

First, while higher education participation overall has increased in Australia, there are still significant gaps for students from underrepresented groups.

Second, expansion has turned into concentration, with students, research and resources increasingly found in a few large metropolitan universities.

Third, a growing focus on the private benefits of education, justifying increased tuition fees, and on research commercialisation over broader public benefits, risks privatising what should be public goods.

The final report of the review panel—led by Mary OKane, a computer scientist, former vice-chancellor and government adviser—was released in February this year. It made 47 detailed recommendations across a range of areas.

Asked to sum up the review, OKane summed up the review’s goal as growth for skills through equity”—that is, increasing participation in post-secondary education by focusing on underrepresented students, and so giving the future workforce the skilled graduates it will need.

Strategic examination

This Mays federal budget contained the governments first response to the review. This included changes to student loan indexation to reduce debt, fee-free courses to prepare students for undergraduate study, a National Student Ombudsman, and paid placements on courses where work experience is compulsory, such as nursing and teaching.

The budget also featured bigger—and as yet unfunded—structural reforms, such as an independent Australian Tertiary Education Commission and a managed growth” funding model for universities, with needs-based” allocation of government support.

On university research, the government has not so far adopted any of the reviews many recommendations, which included major funding reform and a greater focus on the uptake and impact of university research. Instead, it has announced a strategic examination” of government support for R&D, which will take place over the next 18 months.

But Clare has acted on recommendations from the review of the ARC, getting legislation through parliament earlier this year to strengthen the funders governance. A new, independent ARC board has been appointed and a revised ARC Act limits the ministers power to veto individual research grants.

The act also codifies the ARCs responsibility to evaluate the excellence, impact and depth of Australian research”. While we are still waiting to see the detail, this will mean a new version of the Excellence in Research for Australia and the Engagement and Impact Assessment exercises—Australias version of the Research Excellence Framework.

What to expect

So what have the last two years taught us about universities under Labor?

First, a new administration doesnt necessarily change things inherited from its predecessor that many might expect them to. In Australia, these include the proliferation of numerous policies on research security and foreign interference, as well as the Job-ready Graduates package, which skewed tuition fees across disciplines, and which OKanes review recommended scrapping.

Second, a big review can be useful to reveal issues, build consensus and highlight the interdependencies between different areas of policy. But it cant do everything—hence, for example, the Australian governments follow-on review of research, along with separate new processes for policy on international education.

Finally, it is possible to reset the relationship between government and universities. We will have a new, independent commission, and the focus on equity is welcome. But big questions remain, such as whether students or the government will pay for an expanded system, and how to balance university autonomy with a more managed system featuring increased government intervention.

We dont yet have a full accord between universities and government, but the Australian experience shows just how much can happen in a governments first two years.

Paul Harris is executive director of Innovative Research Universities

The post How will Labour approach England’s universities? Clues from Australia appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Universities need to start experimenting on themselves https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-universities-need-to-start-experimenting-on-themselves/ Wed, 24 Jul 2024 06:00:02 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-universities-need-to-start-experimenting-on-themselves/ Internal meta research units could help tackle challenges of resourcing and culture, says Marcus Munafò

The post Universities need to start experimenting on themselves appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Internal meta research units could help tackle challenges of resourcing and culture, says Marcus Munafò

There is growing interest in meta research in the UK. Also known as metascience, or research-on-research, this is the study of the research ecosystem itself, using a range of methods from the sciences and social sciences.

The most recent example is the metascience unit created late last year by the previous government, and run jointly by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and UK Research and Innovation.

The unit’s aim is to fund “cutting-edge research into more effective ways of conducting and supporting R&D”. A call for £5 million worth of grant applications closed on 16 July.

The unit is an encouraging initiative that builds on existing strengths. Examples include the London-based Research on Research Institute, launched in 2019, and the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN). Both are academic initiatives that include a strong meta research element.

Funders themselves are also evaluating new approaches. The British Academy’s pilot of a partial lottery scheme for one of its grant programmes found that this method increased the diversity of principal investigators funded.

Know thyself

Growing interest in research-on-research can be traced to a number of interacting trends. There is a recognition that there is too much bureaucracy in academia, that many fields have issues with quality, robustness, integrity and reproducibility, that the working environment in universities is not all it could be, that academia has issues of equity, diversity and inclusion, and so on.

So far, though, most of the running has been made by funders, policymakers and grassroots organisations such as UKRN—but many of the challenges lie within institutions.

This poses the question: to what extent should universities and other research organisations have their own meta research units, focused on evaluating processes, and testing and evidencing novel approaches?

In some industries, this sort of empirical, internal effort is common. Digital companies regularly and extensively use what is known as A/B testing—giving random sub-samples of their users’ alternative versions of, say, headlines, recommendations or pricing information, in an effort to tweak content to their maximum advantage.

Could a similar approach be used in academia? For example, promotion applications often need several external letters of reference. Do these have any influence on promotion decisions? If not, can we do away with them and reduce the associated paperwork?

Levels of risk

Of course there are challenges. Not all institutional processes lend themselves to A/B testing. In particular, there can be ethical implications: experiments on promotion processes, for example, need to avoid inadvertently disadvantaging those randomised to one condition or the other. Staff would also need to be aware that they were subject to experiment, and if directly affected should be able to grant or withhold consent.

The level at which the risk is held is critical—in promotion processes, this potentially falls on applicants. But other things could be randomised, with the risk held by the institution itself. For example, the frequency, length and structure of meetings could usefully lend itself to A/B testing.

These may be difficult challenges but they are not necessarily insurmountable. Research studies in, for example, social, health and medical research regularly face and allow for such issues.

When randomisation isn’t possible for ethical or practical reasons, simply collecting data and tracking change over time can still be informative. And if institutions collaborate, then one could introduce and evaluate a process, with the other serving as a comparator, returning the favour later.

Untapped expertise

The irony is that the sector has an abundance of expertise for this kind of work, but it is rarely used. The report on research culture initiatives, published by UKRI in January, showed that remarkably few initiatives are designed in this way, or even evaluate for their effects.

How and why institutions should use meta research is itself a research question (meta-meta research?), and one that UKRN is currently investigating. Phase one will report this autumn and phase two, funded by Wellcome, in 2025.

With financial pressures looming large in the minds of universities’ senior management teams, internal meta research may not seem like a priority compared with increasing student numbers or reducing staff headcount.

But the first of these is not entirely within universities’ control, particularly when it comes to international students, and the second comes at a cost to operational effectiveness and morale.

Perhaps turning our research tools on ourselves can offer a better alternative—optimising how we work and getting more from the resources we have, and in turn helping to balance the books while also simply getting better at what we do.

Marcus Munafò is a professor of biological psychology and associate pro vice-chancellor for research culture at the University of Bristol

The post Universities need to start experimenting on themselves appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
On manufacturing, the UK should think like a developing country https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-on-manufacturing-the-uk-should-think-like-a-developing-country/ Wed, 24 Jul 2024 06:00:01 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-on-manufacturing-the-uk-should-think-like-a-developing-country/ Reversing decades of decline means focusing R&D on imitation and adaptation, says Pranesh Narayanan

The post On manufacturing, the UK should think like a developing country appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Reversing decades of decline means focusing R&D on imitation and adaptation, says Pranesh Narayanan

The Labour party won the general election on a simple mandate: change. In the days since, attention has turned to what that broad mandate means. What change did 2024 Labour voters actually want, beyond a change in government?

Analysis carried out by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think tank and Persuasion UK, a non-profit research organisation, has found that, broadly, this base is united by a desire for economic change. There is also consensus on climate change, where over two-thirds of the Labour voter coalition believe that government should be going further and faster.

Labour’s manifesto recognised both these priorities, stating that the clean energy transition represents a huge opportunity to generate growth”. This view emphasises the experimentation and innovation—rather than the spending—needed to achieve a net-zero economy.

This is particularly true for the UK manufacturing sector, which is in dire need of renewal. IPPR research shows that Britains manufacturing capabilities, in terms of the number of products that can be made competitively here, has declined by a third over the past 30 years, suggesting that British manufacturing has become less diverse and technologically advanced.

This matters, even for a country that prides itself on its service industries. Countries such as the US and France, which are similarly services-focused, have not seen any equivalent decline in manufacturing.

Green opportunity

The green transition is an opportunity to turn things around. The International Energy Agency projects that by 2030 there will be a shortfall of manufacturing capacity in several low-carbon technologies. UK manufacturing already has a comparative advantage in a third of the products and components needed to achieve net zero.

These seeds of green industry will only bloom if businesses, researchers and government work together. Much of the debate around innovation-led growth—and much of the lobbying from the research sector—emphasises the discovery of new technologies. Decades of decline, however, mean that, on manufacturing at least, a more developmental attitude is needed.

The new government should target what the economists Ricardo Hausmann and Dani Rodrik call self-discovery—the process by which sectors and countries identify opportunities for growth in established industries. Rather than pursuing the technological cutting edge, this often involves importing and adapting production processes from leading countries.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, for example, Japan used this approach to grow both its cotton textile and steel industries. On cotton, it imported American technology. On steel, it hired British and German companies. Both experienced teething troubles but, with government support, were adapted to local circumstances, becoming international leaders.

More recently, in the 1970s, government subsidies and protectionist policies helped the South Korean giant Hyundai adapt ship designs and production process from Scotland, eventually becoming the world’s largest shipbuilder.

The common themes are collaboration between public and private sectors, and the transfer and adaptation of technology and skills from pioneering to developing countries. Public-sector support is vital because, as with other forms of R&D, the companies that drive self-discovery create knowledge that others can use without paying the same costs, meaning that, without other incentives, pioneers are at a disadvantage.

Follow the leaders

By our analysis, Britain is well placed to develop industries in supply chains related to wind equipment, green transport and heat pumps. Many of the skills, infrastructure and supply-chain networks needed are already present.

In some cases, such as electric trains, some manufacturing is already going on. However, self-discovery is needed to scale up this production efficiently.

As the world seeks to ramp up production of green technologies, there are likely to be shortages in manufacturing equipment. Importing cutting-edge equipment from industrial conglomerates based in places such as Japan and South Korea, and adapting these to the UK’s economy and environment, could bring much-needed productivity growth.

The research sector can play a major part in facilitating this process, particularly by identifying and building links with technological leaders around the world.

The government’s mission boards for economic growth and clean energy are likely to drive the strategic direction for industrial and innovation policy. The newly announced National Wealth Fund is another potential vehicle for bringing cutting-edge production processes into the UK, as it seeks to co-invest with the private sector in green industries.

Innovators should engage with these institutions to highlight opportunities to learn from technological leaders and help design an economic strategy that creates a balance between research into new technologies and those related to self-discovery.

Pranesh Narayanan is a research fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research’s Centre for Economic Justice

The post On manufacturing, the UK should think like a developing country appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Loans in the long view https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-loans-in-the-long-view/ Sun, 21 Jul 2024 07:29:20 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/?p=530963 Nicholas Barr suggests how Labour should approach the tuition fee system he helped design

The post Loans in the long view appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Nicholas Barr suggests how Labour should approach the tuition fee system he helped design

To address the dire financial situation in higher education, the new government needs to operate along two time tracks. Short-run government actions will be defensive––notably any necessary emergency action to stop institutions going bankrupt. A robust longer-term solution, ideally with some cross-party support, will need time to develop, pointing to some sort of review.

Any durable long-term solution will involve more public finance than at present. Rebalancing what the taxpayer pays and what the graduate pays in fees as part of a wider reform of tertiary education is not something that can be fixed immediately. A properly considered strategy is needed, both for finance and delivery.

Meanwhile, the short-term need to stop some universities going bust will demand additional resources. Where could that money come from?

Private funding

The government has said it is not going to change rates of income tax, National Insurance or VAT—but that does not rule out enlarging the tax base. An example is removing the VAT exemption for private schools. The government may also want to consider restricting other VAT exemptions, such as for some luxury food items.

There is another intriguing possibility. An extra penny on the National Insurance Contribution of all employers––not just graduate employers––would generate £8.6 billion a year, some of which could contribute to university finance. Clearly employers would want something in return, notably a more productive connection between universities and the needs of employers.

Universities are about the transmission of knowledge and values, such as democracy or the rule of law, and about the development of new knowledge. That has always been true, but today they are also part of the growth economy. It is therefore legitimate to think about the relationship between universities and employers and what they may be able to offer each other.

While it would be politically difficult to get employers to stump up money on a promise of future gains, it is either that or forcing universities to compete for resources with schools, nurseries, the NHS––a competition they are likely to lose.

Public investment

But universities cannot do without public money entirely. The argument that tax cuts lead to growth is mistaken; lower taxes are not always better. Productive private investment needs to be complemented by productive public investment. Without investment in public services––and 14 years of austerity have robbed us of this––you get low growth.

The current system has high fees and large loans which most graduates do not repay in full––a high and scary sticker price together with invisible subsidies. The obvious answer is to have a lower sticker price and less leaky loans. That means bringing back some sort of teaching grant.

Increasing fees––even by inflation––would be bad economics, bad politics and bad social policy. But fees and loans should not be abolished. It is still mainly students from better off backgrounds who go to university, so over-reliance on public finance would benefit them at the expense of many less privileged taxpayers. Higher education would also lose out to more politically salient pressures on public spending, leading to less money for universities and for policies that improve access.

Access points

Loans allow young people to tap into their own future earnings and invest in their own skills. They are not primarily a device for widening participation, for which the important drivers are earlier in the system, from nursery education onwards. Making loans less leaky frees resources for those policies.

Graduates with good earnings trajectories should therefore repay their loans in full in present value terms, at or close to the government’s cost of borrowing, thus giving students access to the government’s risk-free interest rate.

In theory, a graduate pays for the private benefits, the taxpayer pays for the social benefits. The problem is that social benefits vary widely from subject to subject and are hard to measure.

Yet that should not be an excuse for ignoring them. Restoring some kind of teaching grant would give government a policy lever, allowing it to give extra funding to areas it wants to encourage, such as particular subjects or types of student.

Meanwhile, universities will need to learn to live within their means. When the £9,000 fee came into effect in 2012, they suddenly had a lot more money. That extra money was a bubble but some were wiser than others in recognising that and planning accordingly.

Tertiary sector

Crucially, all of this should be seen in terms of an overarching system of tertiary education. The time has long gone for further and higher education to be in separate silos, and it would be disappointing if any review concentrated only on how to pay for universities. What is needed is a strategy for tertiary education as a whole.

Ultimately, someone should be able to take out a loan to get a plumbing qualification and then, if they wish, turn that into a degree by adding courses in management or accounting, or, for that matter, history or philosophy.

The 2019 Augar review set out this line of thinking. A future review should build on that report, developing in more detail a system with more granular delivery––the ability to build skills in a modular way––supported by more granular finance. Since it will take time to put these policies into place, the terms of reference of the review and its membership should be an early item on the government’s in-tray.

There was a time when universities could insist they were pure institutions that had nothing to do with tawdry things like producing goods and services. They were part of the cultural life of the nation, like the opera house or the symphony orchestra, rather than part of economic growth.

Technology has changed that and universities should embrace the fact. Contributing to economic growth is an additional purpose of universities. Getting that right would be a win for universities, a win for employers, and a win for the economy.

Nicholas Barr is professor of public economics, European Institute, LSE

The post Loans in the long view appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
My week, by Patrick Vallance https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-my-week-by-patrick-vallance/ Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:30:15 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-my-week-by-patrick-vallance/ Ivory Tower: Exclusive extracts from the diary of the science minister

The post My week, by Patrick Vallance appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Ivory Tower: Exclusive extracts from the diary of the science minister

Monday

“I’ve drawn up a list,” says the secretary from the House of Lords appointments committee.

“I’ve already chosen the scarlet wool with the fur collar,” I tell them.

“And I’m sure it will suit you very well. No, I mean for your title,” they say.

“Minister for science—I thought that was agreed,” I say.

“For your peerage,” they reply.

“Lord of Science?” I offer.

“I’m sure that’s what the tabloids will call you. It’s better than Lord Covid anyway,” they mutter. “But I was thinking of a place name.”

“Ah, bit trickier, that one. There are so many peers, most of the good ones have gone.”

“Hence the list. Might I run through some suggestions?”

“It should be something connected to me, right?” I ask.

“Absolutely…but it can’t be something from your childhood like Essex or Truro—those have already gone. So we thought, what about your time at St George’s, University of London?”

“Baron St George, that sounds heroic,” I think out loud.

“No, we thought Baron of Tooting.”

“It’s a bit Citizen Smith.”

“Jacqui Smith will be a peer as well,” they say, confused.

“What about my time with GSK?”

“Where did they have their offices?” they reply.

“Barnard Castle.”

“I’d advise against that.”

“How about when I was chief scientific adviser?”

“Lord of the Three Podiums, Lord of the Teatime Telly Briefing, Lord Help Us, Lord Not Again, Lord Not Chris Whitty…” they reel off.

“I can’t believe I came on the bus from Balham for this.”

“Oh, you can have that one,” they say, “it’s not taken.”

“The Baron of Balham? Sounds like a pub.”

“Looking at my list, it seems very suitable,” they add.

“What’s the difference between Balham and Tooting?”

“About £500,000 per house. There’s a Waitrose in Balham,” they say.

I sigh and go back to flicking through the ermine samples.

Tuesday

I’ve been asked to take part in an induction for new ministers. I’m running through my slides when a hand goes up.

“What was that you just said about imposter syndrome?” says Peter Kyle.

“It is when you think you don’t know as much as other people in the room, but you really do,” I explain.

“But what if you really don’t?”

“I don’t understand,” I say, peering down at him through the glasses at the end of my nose.

“What if you really don’t know anything about the brief that you are supposed to be the minister of?” he says, a little anxiously.

“Do you mean, what if you actually were a real imposter?”

“Yes,” he says, turning paler.

“Then they would put you in the Lords and make you minister for further education, higher education and skills.”

He studiously makes a note. I carry on: “Next slide please…”

Wednesday

It’s the state opening of parliament so I take the afternoon off to have lunch with Chris Whitty.

“What are the old crowd doing?” I ask.

“Van Tam is having a challenging time.”

“I saw that he had a gig as a consultant to Moderna. Not the best look.”

“No, he’s taken a job in university admin at Nottingham,” he says, shaking his head sadly.

“Jenny Harries is doing OK at the UK Health Security Agency,” I say.

“It’s easy when the worst you have to deal with is E. coli in a few dodgy salad wraps,” he says, with a hangdog look.

“And Kate Bingham?”

“She wrote a book about it all,” he says, forlornly pushing his peas around his plate.

“Isn’t it called, The Long Shot?”

“It’s all about how she was the best at everything, and nothing to do with the fact she was married to a Conservative MP,” he says, downcast.

“He managed to keep his seat in the election,” I reply.

“Yes, that really was a long shot,” he says, morosely.

“Look Chris, is something the matter? You seem awfully blue. You are the chief medical officer for England.”

“They used to do impressions of me on the radio. You could get a Chris Whitty mug or a birthday card. I used to be mobbed in the street by antivaxxers…I miss the cameras, the roar of the grease paint. Why can’t I have my own department and be a Lord?” he asks, looking up for the first time.

“Where do you live, Chris?” 

“Balham, like you.”

“Nah, that one’s taken, mate,” I say.

Thursday

Peter Kyle calls me. “The prime minister wants to know about Europe,” he says.

“Wasn’t he literally shadow minister for Europe at one point?” I ask.

“He wants something clever to say about Horizon at today’s European Political Community summit in Oxford,” says Peter.

“How about, although Horizon was far away, the European sun never set on us,” I suggest.

“Not that clever—there’s going to be a breakout room with scientists,” says Peter.

“I’ve been to a few of those conferences.”

“Any advice?” 

“Well, they’ll mostly talk in a monotone about their obsessive interests.”

“Ah, so he’ll fit right in then. Wonder if they’ll know that his dad was a toolmaker?” Peter asks.

“There are uncontacted tribes in the Amazon who know what his dad did,” I say.

“What about Arsenal?”

“Yup, that should do it,” I sigh.

Friday

I’m reading over the report from the Covid inquiry, module one: resilience and preparedness. The phone rings.

“Ten,” says the voice.

“Chris, is that you?” I ask.

“I got 10 mentions in the report. How many did you get?”

“Seven,” I say.

“Never mind, it’s the taking part that counts.”

“It’s a public inquiry—taking part is statutory.”

“I know that. Just calling to ask you a science question.”

“It’s kind of you to think of me as your first port of call, Chris. I thought you’d become jealous of my profile.”

“By profile, do you mean those Specsavers two-for-one glasses or the media circus that you now call a job?” he asks.

“If you were any more jealous, you’d have a magic mirror on your wall,” I retort.

“If I did, I could ask it this science question.”

“Go on, then,” I sigh.

“What did Copernicus say to the science minister?”

“I don’t know.”

“You are not the centre of the universe,” he says, pleased with himself.

“Anything else?”

“Yes, shall we share a cab to the Royal Society event tonight?”

“Of course, 6.30 for 7? See you then,” I say, putting the phone down.

Eight of his mentions were footnotes, only three of mine were. I’m the real winner.

Terms of use: this is a free email for fun on a Friday. It should be shared among friends like the top jobs at the European Commission. Want to place an order for two-for-one Vallance-Focals™? Want to say hello? Email ivorytower@researchresearch.com 

The post My week, by Patrick Vallance appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Power of three https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-power-of-three/ Sun, 14 Jul 2024 07:27:44 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-power-of-three/ Diana Beech suggests how Whitehall could be reshaped in the interest of universities

The post Power of three appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Diana Beech suggests how Whitehall could be reshaped in the interest of universities

As the first full week of Keir Starmer’s new UK government draws to a close, the Whitehall alignment for universities looks remarkably similar to that of the last administration.

Far from the “change” that was promised, the higher education and, indeed, England-only parts of the universities portfolio remain in the Department for Education (DfE) while research and development, and UK-wide innovation and investment strategies, continue to sit in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).

The only real variations of note for universities so far in terms of the alignment of departmental deckchairs include the dropping of the term ‘levelling up’ from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, now headed up by deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, and the potentially significant appointment of Chris Bryant as minister of state across both the DSIT and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

The new DSIT-DCMS linkup suggests welcome cut-through for the creative industries in a research and innovation department otherwise dominated by the ‘hard’ sciences. Yet, given Peter Kyle’s rebranding of DSIT as an “economic department”, the new science secretary may not be a natural advocate in cabinet for the wider benefits the arts, humanities and social sciences bring to society.

Chance for a reset

While experts sometimes criticise previous governments for making too many ministry of government changes, that may be the wrong lesson to take from history. The start of a new government is, instead, a good time for a new administration to get its house in order and lay strong foundations for the parliamentary term ahead.

For too long, the policy framework around universities in England has suffered from split Whitehall portfolios and a seeming lack of communication between departments about critical interdependencies, especially concerning essential cross-subsidies between international education, domestic fees and research.

It was in the new prime minister’s gift to correct this. Yet the teaching and research aspects of university administration remain divided. And so, the Cinderella story for Britain’s higher education institutions continues.

In the DfE, university voices risk being drowned out by counterparts in the compulsory part of the education system, while in DSIT the broad diversity of the sector may struggle for visibility in a department that is largely set up to serve established research-intensive organisations with significant capabilities and clout.

Signals on skills

By failing to reunite the different parts of universities under one roof in Whitehall, the new Labour government sends a clear signal to the sector that it sees skills and human capital, and research and innovation, as two separate means of unlocking opportunities and growth. With all the talk of a tertiary system, the new government is more likely to expend political capital creating skills pathways between further and higher education in England than it is integrating these skills capabilities with the research and innovation ecosystem nationwide.

The announcement of ‘big-hitting’ ministers to the science and higher education portfolios may go some way to reassure university leaders they are not being sidelined by No. 10. However, Patrick Vallance’s appointment as an ‘expert’ minister makes him an unlikely candidate to stretch outside his brief and make connections with other policy areas willingly, as could be expected of more ambitious party loyalists.

As a fellow Lords minister, Jacqui Smith, too, may struggle to connect her new skills brief to other ministerial portfolios, not least because she won’t be supping with colleagues in the Commons tearoom, where the candid conversations tend to occur.

Unless the prime minister makes substantial changes soon, universities in England will have to get used to a future where their political masters remain fragmented across Whitehall and largely segregated in the Lords.

Those opposed to an all-encompassing departmental remit for universities need only look to our Irish neighbours, who have successfully created the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science as a means of ensuring these sectors support and encourage the social and economic development of the nation.

But if the appetite to replicate this model in the UK isn’t yet there, then a quick fix could be had by appointing a junior minister across DSIT and the DfE to ensure nothing falls through the gaps.

Time to triangulate

Even better would be to triangulate this role with the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) since international education exports have become a vital pillar of the financial sustainability of our world-leading institutions right across the UK.

Bringing DBT into the fold would also help to dilute the England-only parochialism of decisions made in the DfE, urging more thought about the UK-wide implications of policy divergence under the Office for Students (OfS) and its ever-tightening quality regime and regulatory responsibilities.

A political minister sitting across the three departments of DfE, DSIT and DBT would be a shrewd move. It would show that the new government has done its homework by building on what worked during the Theresa May years when the universities and science briefs were held jointly by one minister. Yet it would also show it is ambitious and unafraid to go even further by locking in the department that is ultimately responsible for boosting the reputation of our universities and their research overseas, and attracting the inward investment our country so desperately needs.

With a mission-driven government, Keir Starmer has an opportunity to learn from the past and build for the future. Placing universities and skills in a structure where they are formally tied to skills, innovation and international trade would set them free to serve the country in myriad ways.

Diana Beech is chief executive officer of London Higher and former adviser to three universities and science ministers

The post Power of three appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
7 days later https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-7-days-later/ Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:45:51 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-7-days-later/ Ivory Tower: Exclusive access to the post-election diaries of the grating and the good

The post 7 days later appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Ivory Tower: Exclusive access to the post-election diaries of the grating and the good

Keir Starmer: prime minister and son of a toolmaker

What a night, what a victory. I’ll remember it for the rest of my life. But enough about England in the Euros. I’ve now appointed my shadow cabinet. Sorry, cabinet (must get used to saying that).

Universities are on my to-do list, along with removing this golden wallpaper and having the mail forwarded from the old house. As long as a university does not go bankrupt after 6pm on a Friday night, we should be OK.

I’ve told the education team that there is no money left and they should think imaginatively about how to improve things in higher education. Bridget said she would speak to some vice-chancellors because even though there is no cash in universities, they always manage to improve their remuneration. Sounds like a plan. Now who do I have to speak to about a ticket for Sunday’s game?

Rishi Sunak: former prime minister and future professor of economics

They say that this campaign was so bad that they’ll be teaching it in universities for years to come. I do hope so—that should keep me in guest-lecture fees for a while.

I am really looking forward to the new term at Stanford. I’m told the block where I’ll be teaching is on the other side of campus from my office. I’ve asked the president whether there is a landing pad for a helicopter outside, but they just emailed me this link to “our green policy wiki”.

To those good colleagues who lost their seats, especially those in education and science, I would just like to say sorry. The guilt will live with me for the rest of my life. As I gaze out across the Pacific from my beach house in Malibu, I’ll be thinking of Chichester and smiling.

Ed Davey: leader of the Liberal Democrats and now qualified circus performer

Taken the week off after the election, had a bit of a dicky tum. The doctor says it must have been all that swimming in contaminated water.

So, I’ve got my feet up, sipping a Coke, which is at least something I’ve got in common with Rishi Sunak. The other thing I’ve got in common with the former PM is that neither of us are responsible for the funding crisis in universities. Well, not “responsible” in that sense, if you know what I mean.

John Swinney: Thain of Holyrood and future former first minister of Scotland

Doomed! We’re all doomed! Once more the English are on the march, and we can only look on helplessly. But enough about the Euros.

In a dark moment after the exit poll, I phoned my deputy, Kate Forbes, and said “Remind me again why you stood aside to let me be leader?” She replied “Are you watching the telly?” I said I was, and she said, “Well then,” and put the phone down.

Although we have autonomous powers, independence looks as far away as ever. Now I know what a vice-chancellor regulated by the Office for Students feels like.

Bridget Phillipson: education secretary and award-winning optimist

My first act as secretary of state was to reach out to the education workforces to tell them how much I look forward to working with them in partnership. As I was writing my blog, I turned round and asked the civil servants what they were sniggering at.

I told them about my plan to have a Zoom Q&A with educators next week. My permanent secretary replied: “What, all of them? At the same time? Universities, colleges, secondary, primary, nursery?” I said that was correct.

“It will never work,” she said.

“Why not, do you think we’ll need to upgrade the Zoom account?”

“No,” she said, “the ones in universities won’t come unless they can drop their children with the ones in nurseries first and then look down on the ones in colleges from the Zoom gallery.”

Peter Kyle: science secretary and Boden catalogue model

On my first day, I told the team that I want the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to be an economic department. Someone tried to explain to me that they all used to be in Beis but were moved last year, and they’d only just got the emails and business cards sorted.

I said “No, I mean we will contribute to economic growth.” All the civil servants looked over to Patrick Vallance, who shrugged, and then they looked back at me. “Would you like a cup of tea, minister?” said the permanent secretary. I’ll take that as a win.

Jacqui Smith: universities minister (probably)

The day after the election, I phoned my good celebrity showbiz pal Iain Dale to commiserate. I said “This must be terrible for you, Iain.”

“I know, reduced to 121 seats,” he replied, on the verge of tears.

“No, not that,” I said. “See, when you were going to run for Tunbridge Wells and told me the podcast was over, I applied for another job.”

He was crying now. “What is it? BBC? Classic FM?”

“No, minister for skills, further education and higher education.”

“Hold on,” he replied, “is this one of those prank calls?”

Patrick Vallance: minister for science and pandemic breakout star

Finally, I will be the one making the decisions, not listening to some minister asking me if I’m holding the graph the right way up. On day one, my first act was to go to Waterstones and buy a job lot of Moleskine diaries. My second act was to send Chris Whitty a gif: “Who’s got two thumbs and just been appointed science minister? This guy!”

Chi Onwurah: former shadow science minister, first appointed to the brief in 2010

What the actual fork?

Matt Western: former universities minister, now available for media appearances and podcasts

So, instead of getting to grips with the funding crisis in universities, dealing with the demands of vice-chancellors and unions, and wading through spreadsheets from the Office for Students, I will be spending Friday helping my constituents with their benefit claims. So it’s not all bad news.

Andrew Griffith: former science minister, current shadow science secretary (confused yet?)

I remember Rishi telling me that I would be on the front bench one day. I didn’t think he meant this.

Gillian Keegan: former education secretary and degree apprentice

I’ve been taking my CV around the tea rooms of Chichester. “You must have work for me,” I say. “I’ve got great qualifications. I am a degree apprentice.”

The proprietor checks the CV again. “In a car plant?” They shake their head. “You probably wanted to get some soft and transferable skills doing an arts degree to be qualified for this job.”

Michelle Donelan: former science secretary

This has been a very costly election. Despite running to a supposedly safer constituency, I’ve lost my seat, my job, my ministerial car…And what am I supposed to do with all these ‘Michelle for leader’ leaflets we had printed last week? I wonder if there is someone in Macron’s party who might want them? Now, if only I could remember my eBay password.

Gavin Williamson: former education secretary and somehow a knight of the realm

I’m still here, winky-face emoji.

James Wharton: former chair of the Office for Students and a Conservative peer

I’m not.

George Freeman: former science minister and soon-to-be shadow science minister

Still waiting on that call from Rishi. Some people might ask, if you couldn’t afford to be science minister when they were paying you for it, how can you do the role as shadow minister?

It’s a good question, but I say: in this economic climate, can I afford not to do it? Still waiting on that production company getting back to me about the travel show. Maybe Rachel Reeves will get interest rates down…

Liz Truss: former prime minister and bestselling conspiracy theorist

“I blame the universities,” I tell Steve Bannon.

“For what?” he says.

“All those woke graduates that voted against us.”

“In South Norfolk?” he asks.

“That’s your one call a day, Mr Bannon, back to your cell,” says a voice.

I think that means he has to switch to his mobile now.

Sue Gray: actual prime minister and former publican

On election night, we go to the Ivy for dinner. The maître d’ says, “But the kitchen is closed, madame, we can only serve cold dishes.” I reply, “In that case, I’ll have the special: revenge with a side order of schadenfreude.”

Terms of use: this is a free email for fun on a Friday. It should be shared with colleagues like a leather bench in an unfamiliar position in the House of Commons. Want to subscribe to the Patrick Vallance substack and mail order cosmetics range? Want to say hello? Email ivorytower@researchresearch.com

The post 7 days later appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Labour’s victory signals a reset for research https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-labour-s-victory-signals-a-reset-for-research/ Wed, 10 Jul 2024 07:00:00 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-labour-s-victory-signals-a-reset-for-research/ With more constructive attention from Westminster, universities can support Starmer’s vision of national renewal

The post Labour’s victory signals a reset for research appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

With more constructive attention from Westminster, universities can support Starmer’s vision of national renewal

Keir Starmer promised the UK “national renewal” and a “reset” following Labour’s sweeping victory in last week’s general election. When it comes to the value placed on scientific research within government, that reset appears to have already begun, with Patrick Vallance given the role of science minister via a seat in the House of Lords.

The recruitment of the former government chief scientific adviser is one of several early moves by the new prime minister that signal his government will place much greater value on specialist expertise than its predecessor. For all those who had had quite enough of a culture war-driven agenda towards universities, this change of tack has not come a moment too soon. There will be sympathy for former shadow minister Chi Onwurah, who as Research Fortnight went to press was still awaiting news of any alternative ministerial role. But as someone who understands up close not only the value of evidence, but also the challenges in funding the research that produces it, Vallance will help bring a renewed sense of optimism over the willingness within Westminster to engage with the sector’s potential and its difficulties.

This is especially important now, when the challenges facing UK research, just like those facing the country at large, cannot be underestimated. Sue Gray, Starmer’s chief of staff, has university financial stability on her list of crises threatening to erupt; it is now beyond argument that the funding system for higher education and, by extension, research, is broken. The Conservatives’ anti-immigration drives, in particular recent changes to visa rules, have piled on top of Brexit to create a situation in which many talented researchers and technicians from overseas are being effectively shut out of the UK.

Researchers are having to re-establish international ties with wary partners following the twin hits of a three-year lockout from Horizon Europe and having established aid-funded international research programmes decimated without warning by cuts to Official Development Assistance. Meanwhile, closer to home, the win of increased public investment in R&D under the last government has been severely eroded by inflation, and the longstanding ambition to better use universities as catalysts for regional growth has taken a battering, thanks to the loss of European Structural Funds for regional development and the lack of adequate replacement schemes.

All of this—beginning most urgently with university financing—is on the daunting pile of issues facing the new government, along with research bureaucracy and research security amid geopolitical unrest. But, crucially, as Richard Jones, vice-president for regional innovation and civic engagement at the University of Manchester, wrote for Research Professional News this week, universities must not be perceived as “only a problem to be fixed”.

The new government’s mission to pursue economic growth to drive up living standards in the UK offers a clear place at its heart for R&D. This has been explicitly recognised in Westminster, with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology announcing this week that it intends to accelerate innovation, investment and productivity through world-class science and research across the economy,” and ensure technologies are safely developed and deployed across the country, with the benefits more widely shared”.

Warm words over researchs place in economic growth are far from new, and time will tell if the new government can succeed in supporting the sector to play a pivotal role in this agenda better than its predecessor.

But the pledge of benefits more widely shared” offers a beguiling sense that the ultimate prize of this approach—societal transformation—will be in much sharper focus. There is greater emphasis, greater urgency, towards better realising the research sectors potential.

With this comes huge opportunity, and responsibility, for government and universities to work together to help bring about change.

The post Labour’s victory signals a reset for research appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
The third degree: Labour’s fast start and lessons from the US https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-the-third-degree-labour-s-fast-start-and-lessons-from-the-us/ Wed, 10 Jul 2024 07:00:00 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-the-third-degree-labour-s-fast-start-and-lessons-from-the-us/ Back page gossip from the 10 July issue of Research Fortnight

The post The third degree: Labour’s fast start and lessons from the US appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Back page gossip from the 10 July issue of Research Fortnight

Speedy start for Labour

Labour clearly wants to be seen as having a speedy start, so it was fitting that one of Peter Kyle’s first duties as science secretary was to hand the winner’s trophy to Lewis Hamilton at Silverstone on Sunday.

F1 drives innovation, creates incredible high-skilled jobs and boosts our reputation around the world,” said Kyle. 

US learnings, and pay negotiations

The Higher Education Policy Institute has published a report on what we can learn from US universities.

The paper is written by Nicholas W. Hillman, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Education, who does not appear to be any relation to Hepi director Nick Hillman. We would like to see photographic evidence, though, to reassure us about the Hepi man’s transatlantic nominative doppelganger.

Also out is the news that this year’s university pay round negotiations are complete—at least for now. The Universities and Colleges Employers Association has announced, “the employers’ final offer results in pay of between 2.5 per cent to 5.7 per cent alongside a review of the pay spine and joint work on contract types, workload and pay gaps”.

Most folks will be at the 2.5 per cent end of that deal. Ucea says all staff will receive a £900 uplift from 1 August 2024.

Ucea’s statement added: “Then, from 1 March 2025, the remaining, full salary increase will be applied. The pay uplift is weighted towards the lower end of the pay spine (pay point 5), where a maximum of just over 5.7 per cent (5.74 per cent for accuracy) is applied. This percentage gradually tapers to 2.5 per cent from pay point 38. As a result, employees earning up to £38,205 will receive an uplift of over 3 per cent.”

Ucea chief executive Raj Jethwa called it, “a realistic but fair pay offer”, adding, “we urge the trade unions to now consult fairly if that remains in their procedures. I would remind the unions that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

In October, the University and College Union failed to win sufficient backing from its members to renew a legal mandate to pursue strike action over pay and conditions. A UCU spokesperson said the union’s Higher Education Committee would meet this Friday to consider the latest offer.

Biology Matters—the latest

The think tank Policy Exchange has published the latest edition of its Biology Matters newsletter, which “systematically documents the adoption of gender identity beliefs in the public sphere”.

Latest developments recorded in the newsletter include: new guidance from the Office for Students on freedom of speech, issued in March, that would specifically protect gender-critical speech; an apology in May from the Russell Group after it “incorrectly” listed gender-critical rather than transphobic speech as an example of unlawful speech; and legal guidance for the charity Sex Matters suggesting that King’s College London may have broken equality law in requiring applicants for promotion to demonstrate their support of the university’s equality, diversity and inclusion ambitions.

Elsewhere, Policy Exchange has relaunched its confidential hotline on which people can “share their experiences and concerns about the ways in which gender identity ideology is being adopted in the public sphere”.

Lara Brown and Zachary Marsh, authors of the latest newsletter, say the Biology Matters project was launched to catalogue the number of changes that had been made in public policy in response to transgender issues. They add that the think tank “does not offer any judgment on the actions of the individual or institution in question, today or in the past”.

Meanwhile, they welcome the fact that all the major parties have offered “serious proposals in their manifestos on the issue of trans and gender”—and they say that, thanks to recent interventions by author JK Rowling, and the fact that those once “cowed into silence” are now speaking out, these issues can no longer be relegated to the status of a “culture war”. Over to Labour.

After the vote

Join us on Thursday, 18 July, for Research Professional News’ live webinar, After the Vote, asking what a new government means for UK research.

Speakers at the webinar, addressing issues including everything from the financial health of the sector to research and innovation priorities and the policy direction of the new government, will include: Diana Beech, chief executive of London Higher; Kieron Flanagan, professor of science and technology policy at the University of Manchester; Smita Jamdar, relationship partner for education clients at the law firm Shakespeare Martineau; Daniel Rathbone, deputy executive director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering; Graeme Reid, chair of science and research policy at University College London; and Playbook’s own Martin McQuillan.

The webinar is free to attend.

The post The third degree: Labour’s fast start and lessons from the US appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Priorities for Labour: ‘The nation needs an ambitious vision’ https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-priorities-for-labour-the-nation-needs-an-ambitious-vision/ Tue, 09 Jul 2024 12:58:00 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-priorities-for-labour-the-nation-needs-an-ambitious-vision/ Our third look at the new government's task covers national strategy, private investment and inequality

The post Priorities for Labour: ‘The nation needs an ambitious vision’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Our third look at the new government's task covers national strategy, private investment and inequality

Allan Nixon: Science minister can pick up where he left off

How many Research Professional readers did a double-take when they learned that Patrick Vallance was the science minister? I certainly did. The news came only hours after confirmation that the fledgling Department of Science, Innovation and Technology would be retained, with Peter Kyle at the helm.

Best known for his pandemic press conferences, as chief scientific adviser, Vallance was the single biggest influence on the last government’s science strategy. The Science and Technology Framework published in March 2023 focused on building “strategic advantage” in five technologies—artificial intelligence, quantum, engineering biology, semiconductors and future telecoms.

The Framework had its flaws—the case for prioritising future telecoms is weak, for example. And despite the attempt to target activity on a handful of critical areas, the government continued to spread investments too broadly to achieve its laudable goals.

But fundamentally, it was the right approach. At its core was the understanding that countries leading in frontier technologies such as AI will be more prosperous and secure.

Historically, the UK has historically been poor at leveraging its world-beating R&D. UK R&D expenditure makes up around 5 per cent of the world’s research resources, yet our global share of value-added output from R&D-intensive industries has fallen to 2.6 per cent. Crudely, this means the country is getting out half of what it is putting in compared with the rest of the world.

The strategy set a course for fixing that, but there is much more to do. Vallance might argue that any missteps since he left government last April stemmed from execution rather than strategy. Now that he’s in the ministerial chair, that excuse won’t be available.

Allan Nixon is head of science and technology at the think tank Onward



Naomi Weir: Give business a platform for investment

The new government’s headline appointments show the seriousness of its plans for science. Shadow post-holders, including Peter Kyle at the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), have gone straight into departments. And those tasked with Patrick Vallance’s induction as science minister probably feel they can cut the intro and get straight down to business.

At the foundations, to give businesses the confidence to invest, the government must set a clear ambition and a create predictable environment. Delivering the promised long-term R&D budgets and setting the direction of travel for the regulatory environment, not least on artificial intelligence and data, will be key. National assets such as universities and Catapult centres should be given a firm budgetary footing and engaged as partners in the design and delivery of industrial strategy.

Second, we need to harness existing innovation and technology, from digital tech to management practices. Accelerating adoption has extraordinary potential to boost productivity, improve public services and address labour market challenges. Policy here needs clear ownership and strategy—DSIT, with Kyle’s vision for a cross-government leadership role, is its natural home.

Finally, now is the time to kill once and for all the sense that the UK is good at research but fails to convert that into value. From procurement and planning, to access to finance, it’s critical to reshape the environment so that it makes commercial sense for the private sector to exploit ideas at scale. The existing Science and Technology Framework presents a credible outline. Given his role in creating it, having Vallance at the helm is a head start we weren’t expecting.

Naomi Weir is director of innovation and technology at the Confederation of British Industry



Jim McDonald: Go big on industrial strategy

I am pleased that chancellor Rachel Reeves has declared economic growth the UK’s “national mission”. The engineering profession wants to see the new government take a holistic, long-term approach to complex challenges such as climate change and slow growth, creating strong policies on which to build sustainable economic growth, helping to improve lives. 

The nation needs an ambitious vision that draws on our strengths in engineering, innovation, research and manufacturing, underpinned by sustained policies that align actions across regulation, procurement, planning, funding, infrastructure, technology adoption, and a national strategy for the engineering and technology workforce.

The UK already has a foothold in areas like artificial intelligence, quantum and biotechnology. Adopting a long-term industrial strategy will help to leverage our impressive engineering and technology capabilities in these and other areas.

The National Engineering Policy Centre says the UK should aim to lead the G7 in R&D intensity, supporting and capitalising on its exceptional research base and leveraging private investment. We should also boost support for close-to-market R&D and demonstrator projects, as these are key stepping stones to commercialisation.

The UK should be a place where high-tech, innovative start-ups get access to the finance, facilities, infrastructure and talent they need to grow. Such companies are catalysts for change, helping to drive prosperity that can be shared across all regions, communities and groups in society.

Laying the foundations of productivity, economic growth and societal benefit requires policies that will work well beyond the next parliament. A strong and consistent industrial strategy is critical to the future success of this country; the engineering community stands ready to help.  

Jim McDonald is president of the Royal Academy of Engineering 



Melanie Smallman: Embracing technology must not create inequality

Keir Starmer’s Labour government showed its commitment to science and innovation in its first few hours, appointing former chief scientific advisor Patrick Vallance as science minister and expanding the remit of the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) to include “transforming public service and fuelling economic growth”. Science should be all set, then.

The long-term funding commitments promised will bring much-needed stability. But given the real-term cuts to science funding over past decades, there will be pressure to increase the pot. Maintaining access to Horizon Europe, as well as developing partnerships and joint funding vehicles, will be key to leveraging UK public money. And somehow, stability needs to be extended to higher education, wobbling with the current funding model.

DSIT’s trickiest task will be in its role as the centre of digital expertise and delivery. Digital innovation is a key driver of inequality in the UK, bringing growth to hub cities while leaving regional and non-university towns to make do with the low paid, insecure platform jobs that their neighbours have created.

As machines replace people, tax returns fall, making public services even harder to fund. All this means that any roll-out of artificial intelligence and digital technologies across government is likely to bring DSIT into conflict with other departments’ missions, particularly around levelling up.

Evaluating and monitoring the equality implications of new technologies will be vital. Starmer’s council of the regions and nations needs to be on the case; replicating the Blair and Brown governments’ focus on regional innovation and growth strategies might help.

Melanie Smallman is professor of science and technology studies at University College London and a former scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The post Priorities for Labour: ‘The nation needs an ambitious vision’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Priorities for Labour: ‘We desperately need sustainable universities’ https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-priorities-for-labour-we-desperately-need-sustainable-universities/ Mon, 08 Jul 2024 13:00:00 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-priorities-for-labour-we-desperately-need-sustainable-universities/ Industrial strategy, charities and interdisciplinarity feature in our second collection of post-election expert comment

The post Priorities for Labour: ‘We desperately need sustainable universities’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Industrial strategy, charities and interdisciplinarity feature in our second collection of post-election expert comment

Richard Jones: Make universities the heart of the growth agenda

Above all, growth. The new government knows that none of its ambitions will be achievable without a recovery from the last decade and a half’s economic stagnation. Everything will be judged by the contribution it can make to that goal, and research and innovation will be no exception.

The immediate shadow lying over UK public sector research and innovation is the university funding crisis. The crisis in higher education is on the list of unexploded bombs facing the new government, drawn up by Sue Gray, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff.

But it’s vital for higher education to be perceived not just as a problem to be fixed, but as central to getting the economy growing again. Some clues to the new government’s approach here can be found in the Mais Lecture given by Rachel Reeves in March before she became chancellor.

Reeves’s “securonomics” owes much to what the United States-based economist Dani Rodrik calls productivism. At the centre of this will be an industrial strategy, with both a sector focus, supporting areas of UK comparative advantage, and a regional focus, developing clusters and seeking to unlock the potential agglomeration benefits in underperforming big cities.

Universities need to be at the heart of this. The pressure will be on, not just to produce more spinouts and to work with industry, but to support the diffusion of innovation across regional economies.

Beyond the growth imperative, the government’s priorities are defined by its missions. A commitment to cheap, zero-carbon electricity by 2030 will be a stretch, and R&D will need to be focused to support renewables, new nuclear and grid upgrades. In health, commitments to reduce health inequalities imply an emphasis on prevention, with high hopes placed on data and artificial intelligence. And the threatening geopolitical situation inevitably means a renewed focus on defence.

Richard Jones is vice-president for regional innovation and civic engagement, and professor of materials physics and innovation policy, at the University of Manchester



Nicola Perrin: Shore up support for charity research

It’s not an exaggeration to say that the UK is facing a health crisis. The number of people living with a major illness is rising, and is predicted to reach one in five of us by 2040. Research offers the potential to tackle this, unlocking new ways to detect, treat and prevent disease—and give hope.

Last year, medical research charities invested £1.7 billion in UK research, with 87 per cent of grants awarded to universities. But universities, and the world-class research environments they provide, are under increasing financial strain. 

If UK research is to flourish, the new government must commit to putting universities on a sustainable footing. This includes backing existing mechanisms: here, the key ask from medical research charities is for enhanced support to underpin the indirect cost of charity investment in universities, through the government’s Charity Research Support Fund.

The CRSF recognises the crucial role of charities in the ecosystem, funding research that is driven by patient priorities, tackles unmet need and accelerates health impact. But its funding has stagnated for over a decade, threatening the viability of charity-university research partnerships.

The new government must invest to secure the foundations of UK R&D. Strong and sustainable backing for life science is crucial to enable others, including charities, to collaborate and invest with confidence. Working together, we can accelerate access to innovation, cement the UK’s position as a world leader in research, and improve health outcomes for everyone.

Nicola Perrin is chief executive of the Association of Medical Research Charities



Hetan Shah: Review HE funding, bridge disciplines, deepen global ties 

Despite or perhaps even because of the challenges facing higher education—including financial strain from frozen fees, hostility towards international students and criticism of ‘Mickey Mouse degrees’—the new government has a unique opportunity to enhance the UK’s R&D landscape, especially in the humanities, arts and social sciences. 

Financial pressure on universities has already led to severe cuts, particularly to courses in the Shape disciplines (social sciences, humanities and arts for people and economy), threatening our research reputation. The British Academy urges the new government to review funding comprehensively, support a broad range of subjects and address regional disparities of provision.  

The government must also value interdisciplinary research to tackle societal challenges. Combining insights from Shape and Stem (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) is essential for ethical, inclusive and sustainable innovation. Greater collaboration between the science and university portfolios would support system-wide synergies, while Labour’s proposal for 10-year budgets for key R&D institutions would bring welcome stability for researchers, innovators and investors. 

Building on the UK rejoining Horizon Europe, there’s an opportunity to deepen global partnerships. Reducing barriers to international research, such as high visa costs, is crucial for keeping the UK as a global innovation hub. 

Labour’s promise to back research institutions is encouraging. To achieve this, we desperately need sustainable universities, more support for interdisciplinary research and increased international collaboration. A swift review of higher education funding will allow the UK to continue leading in innovation, human understanding and its £108 billion creative industries. 

Hetan Shah is chief executive of the British Academy 



Pam Waddell: Learn from—and work with—regional innovation policy

Labour’s plans to kickstart economic growth recognise that this depends on innovation, along with what it calls “a new partnership with business” and “a significant expansion of economic devolution in England”. The West Midlands is well positioned to work with this agenda.

The Innovation Alliance for the West Midlands combines a bottom-up voice through a team of embedded innovation experts in business-facing, sector-specific organisations, with a top-down perspective from the West Midlands Combined Authority’s Innovation Board, made up of industry, university and policy leaders. Innovation is at the heart of regional policy, including strategic partnerships such as the West Midlands Innovation Accelerator, developed with Innovate UK.

This integrated approach has taught us three key lessons for developing the innovation aspects of industrial strategy and working with local governance, industry and universities.

First, innovation differs across sectors and scales of businesses in terms of language, approach and timescale, and every region has its own unique mix. Listening and responding to this diversity is challenging, but essential for those designing innovation policy and support; existing regional partnerships can facilitate this dialogue.

Second, a lot of innovation happens at the interfaces between sectors. With the right exposure and support, technology or knowledge from one sector can often solve a problem in another. This shouldn’t be overlooked when industrial strategy focuses on particular sectors or technologies.

Third, businesses will only innovate if they anticipate a commercial or business benefit. Changes in the regulation and practice of public procurement can create markets for innovative businesses. Likewise, incentives and partnerships—with universities, customers or other businesses—that de-risk or accelerate innovation are key. But all interventions must be built on an understanding of this commercial driver.

Pam Waddell is director of the Innovation Alliance for the West Midlands

The post Priorities for Labour: ‘We desperately need sustainable universities’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Reasons to be cheerful https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-reasons-to-be-cheerful/ Sun, 07 Jul 2024 07:26:17 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-reasons-to-be-cheerful/ Chris Day assesses what the change of government could mean for the university sector

The post Reasons to be cheerful appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Chris Day assesses what the change of government could mean for the university sector

The first change of government for 14 years marks a momentous occasion for the UK. Now that the anticipation is over, sectors and industries across the country will be clamouring to understand what this result means for them, and what their relationship with the new Labour government will look like.

For researchers, there are reasons to be feeling positive after years of ups and downs. During the Conservative government, we saw the highs of what positive research collaboration can look like: mobilising during the pandemic to support the NHS, shaping policies to help keep people safe, and rapidly developing life-saving vaccines.

However, we have also experienced the uncertainties of the period before the UK’s association to Horizon Europe was confirmed, Official Development Assistance (ODA)-related research funding being pulled at short notice and a rise in research security concerns amid increasingly volatile international relations.

Good signs

Early signs from the new government are good; there has been plenty of positive rhetoric about the role universities play in driving growth for the UK and reinforcing our position on the world stage––a welcome change in tone from some recent criticisms. And the latest analysis suggests R&D investment may already be close to 3 per cent of GDP, something that the Russell Group and others across the sector have been pushing for, and a good starting point for growth.

However, this positive tone now needs to be backed up with a robust, ambitious long-term funding strategy for research that doesn’t just talk the talk but delivers on its potential.

Our R&D investment is still failing to keep up with that of other comparable nations––Germany, for example, is aiming to reach 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2025, while South Korea’s is already at 5 per cent––and a longer-term commitment to a healthy R&D budget would be a good indicator of how bold the new government is willing to be in this area in future.

Labour’s revival of a proper industrial strategy is a welcome signal. This will clearly form a key part of the party’s drive for growth, and research-intensive universities are ready and willing to be partners in these endeavours.

Other manifesto pledges include reforms to planning––including removing barriers to capital developments such as high-tech labs and data centres––and a new Regulatory Innovation Office, which should speed up the journey of bringing new products and ideas to market, supporting our innovation economy.

Block grants

But for all their promise, any new initiatives must be accompanied by a renewed commitment towards block grant funding for research and innovation—most importantly quality-related research (QR) and higher education innovation funding (HEIF) and their equivalents in the devolved nations.

This is funding that really works because it can be targeted locally by the universities best placed to make a difference. It is funding that underpins the research and innovation capabilities of our sector and is responsible for many of the success stories that governments are keen to celebrate. For example, strategic investment at Newcastle University in 70 academic-track fellows, to ensure a pipeline of brilliant new researchers at the forefront of a range of disciplines, would not be happening without a reliable QR funding stream.

There are countless other examples across the country—from the University of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, specialising in vaccine development, to the University of Nottingham’s partnership with GSK that resulted in the UK’s first carbon-neutral lab.

Funding through HEIF, meanwhile, is helping to take brilliant ideas from our research into new spinout companies that are likely to be engines for future economic growth. Universities have utilised their HEIF funds to help grow innovation ecosystems, such as Midlands Mindforge, a new investment company co-founded by the universities of Birmingham, Nottingham and Warwick that supports entrepreneurs and helps turn university research and innovation into successful businesses.

This funding is an essential part of the R&D funding landscape that gives universities the flexibility to both plan for the long term and remain responsive to emerging opportunities and challenges. It is one of the reasons we can remain so internationally competitive when it comes to trailblazing research. A creative and ambitious approach to R&D and innovation will be welcomed by the sector, but not if it comes at the cost of squeezing this long-term funding pipeline that supports so much vital activity.

Seeking reassurance

We should, however, feel encouraged by signs that the Labour government understands the need for long-term stability. The promise of 10-year budgets for key R&D institutions is a nod towards the need for predictable and sustainable planning, although we will need to await more details to see how this will function in practice, how these institutions will be selected, and whether it comes with any risk to basic research.

Of course, it would be naive to overlook that the new government is inheriting a hugely challenging fiscal landscape and a myriad of competing priorities. But rather than being just another entry on the to-do list, providing reassurance and a compelling plan for the university sector would be a valuable tool for solving some of the country’s most pressing problems.

Universities have an opportunity to showcase how R&D capabilities make us a hugely beneficial partner, at both regional and national level, helping to address some of our biggest societal challenges––from healthcare to net zero and defence.

And the country won’t be able to deliver on these key priorities without a highly skilled workforce. Russell Group universities teach four out of five new UK doctors and dentists, more than one in every three engineers, and two in three mathematicians. Maintaining the right level of choice and quality in the higher education system will need a robust and sustainable funding system but will be crucial to supporting the ambitious growth the new government is so keen to drive.

Whatever your political persuasions, a moment of change like this is a useful catalyst, and colleagues across the sector will be seizing this chance to reset the conversation on universities and their relationship to Westminster. It’s reassuring to hear that new ministers want to be cheerleaders for our sector, not adversaries.

As campaigning gives way to the real business of governing, my main message to the new government is that our sector has a huge amount to offer and we hope to be a partner of choice in helping to deliver a bright future for the UK.

Chris Day is vice-chancellor of Newcastle University and chair of the Russell Group.

The post Reasons to be cheerful appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Priorities for Labour: ‘R&D investment is not internationally competitive’ https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-priorities-for-labour-uk-r-d-investment-is-not-internationally-competitive/ Fri, 05 Jul 2024 12:10:12 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-july-priorities-for-labour-uk-r-d-investment-is-not-internationally-competitive/ Senior figures call for action on funding, human capital, EU relations, bureaucracy and NHS research

The post Priorities for Labour: ‘R&D investment is not internationally competitive’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Senior figures call for action on funding, human capital, EU relations, bureaucracy and NHS research

Anna Vignoles: Fix the crisis, focus on skills

I have two priorities for the new government: one urgent, the other ambitious.

First, efforts to boost our research and innovation need to recognise the interconnectedness of the different parts of the university system. The current model has unsustainable funding baked in: insufficient domestic fees, cross-subsidy from international students, and not covering the full cost of research. Without swift and decisive action to give higher education a sustainable financial model, we’ll see a long-term decline in our institutions and research base.

Second, investment in skills must go hand in hand with investment in R&D. Otherwise, fantastic research will be undertaken elsewhere, in countries with more skilled populations. It’s perhaps not immediately apparent, but UK research and innovation is being held back by technician shortages, teacher shortages, and a lack of investment in further education, to name but a few.

We need a workforce—homegrown and from elsewhere—with the breadth and depth of skill required for a rapidly changing environment. Yet education for post-16 students is unusually narrow compared with other countries, with an unhelpful divide between science and other subjects. Post-16 education needs reform to boost basic skills for some, strengthen the vocational training offer, and give graduates a broader range of skills, regardless of their academic discipline.

We cannot be a world leader in research and innovation without sustaining world-leading institutions and talent. The social benefits from education and research underscore the need for robust state support to achieve this.

Anna Vignoles is chief executive of the Leverhulme Trust



Andrew Morris: Lead on investment, make visas cheaper, boost NHS research

Britain is a world leader in innovation and health research. Labour must show the scientific community that it is committed to placing research and innovation at the heart of its mission-driven government to drive growth and improve lives. That should include a goal to lead the G7 in R&D investment. As it stands, UK R&D investment is not internationally competitive.

Success in research and innovation also means attracting skilled people from around the world, but at present international talent faces extortionate visa costs. A family of four coming to the UK to take up a PhD-level role on a five-year skilled worker visa faces up to £24,000 in upfront fees—far higher than competitor nations.

This negates any claim to be open to international scientific talent; researchers, patients and the economy are paying the price. The new government should make turning the page on this damaging policy an urgent priority.

The NHS is an unparalleled hub for medical research, delivering breakthroughs such as a Covid-19 vaccine. However, we’re not fully harnessing its power. Labour must commit to cultivating a new generation of leaders, including reversing the decline in clinical academics—the doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals who bridge universities and the NHS. By ring-fencing staff time for research and reinvesting the income generated, we’ll keep the NHS at the forefront of medical innovation, improving patient care and powering economic growth.

Andrew Morris is president of the Academy of Medical Sciences



Jan Palmowski: Build links within Europe

In relation to the EU, the new UK government must focus on three linked priorities.

First, it must commit to association with the successor to the current Horizon Europe R&D programme, Framework Programme 10. Domestically, making higher education funding sustainable will be a top priority, but this cannot crowd out efforts to strengthen European and global links in research and innovation. We need our best minds to address our common challenges, and for this researchers and their institutions need long-term stability.

Second, rejoining Erasmus+ would be a perfect way to reset the relationship with the EU. At its core, Erasmus+ is about young people’s personal growth and fulfilment. The UK’s insistence on a financial rate of return from the programme always baffled Brussels. As well as benefitting students immeasurably, British participation in Erasmus+ would show that the UK sees itself again as part of the European family of nations.

These two actions would build trust and influence critical for a third domain—research security and intellectual property. One focus of the next framework programme will be shoring up Europe’s competitiveness and security in critical technologies. Questions about IP sharing, research security, and protocols for international collaboration will become even more important.

Finding agreement and trust in these areas will take time. The sooner the UK and the EU start developing a common understanding and robust common protocols, the more transformative their collaboration in research and innovation—and higher education—can be.

Jan Palmowski is professor of modern history at the University of Warwick, and will resume his role as secretary-general of the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities on 1 August



Lorna Wilson: Bear down on bureaucracy, change tack on security

Faced with a new government with many priorities and little cash, it’s vital to continue making the case for investment in R&D. That includes its role not only in economic growth, but in supporting delivery and innovation in public services, and in tackling societal challenges such as climate change and health.

The UK’s aspirations for R&D spending should be more ambitious, including a government commitment to get spending to at least 3 per cent of GDP. The longer-term funding settlement promised by Labour would be welcome, although it needs the flexibility to adapt to global events (such as a pandemic) and to grow if public finances improve.

Given the financial constraints, the more time spent on activities that add value—be that for academics, research management professionals, funders, partners, or whoever—the better. Here there is still much to be done, and to be achieved, by delivering the recommendations of the Tickell Review on reducing research bureaucracy. That should include continuing the work of the Bureaucracy Review and Reform Implementation Network in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

On national security, universities would welcome a more joined-up approach from government. We need to move away from the culture of compliance driven by a proliferation of legislation and approach these issues pragmatically, creating a robust and secure R&D system without unnecessarily restricting the international collaboration that underpins the UK’s global leadership in research.

Lorna Wilson is chair of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators and managing director of research and innovation services at Durham University

The post Priorities for Labour: ‘R&D investment is not internationally competitive’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Voter IDs https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-voter-ids/ Sun, 30 Jun 2024 07:58:28 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-voter-ids/ Paula Surridge assesses how graduates will affect voting patterns in the upcoming general election

The post Voter IDs appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Paula Surridge assesses how graduates will affect voting patterns in the upcoming general election

Of the 40 constituencies with the highest proportion of graduates in England, 31 are in Greater London, a reflection of the pull of the capital for those with degrees. The remaining constituencies in this group are either just outside the Greater London boundary (Esher and Walton), or in university towns and cities (Cambridge, Oxford West and Bristol Central).

Meanwhile, the two constituencies in England with the lowest proportion of graduates are Clacton and Boston and Skegness. These two seats are at the top of Reform UK’s target list, contested by the party leader, Nigel Farage, and the party chairman, Richard Tice. They are also places where more than three in four voters backed leaving the EU.

It is no coincidence that these two things go together. We know that the Brexit vote was strongly correlated with education level at both the aggregate and individual level. But with Brexit barely featuring in the election campaign, might we expect the education divide to have faded as well?

Value judgments

The education divide is closely related to a persistent and longstanding values divide in British politics. Values are deep-seated beliefs about society; they are not a judgment on what is but rather what ought to be.

But while education is strongly correlated with a set of political values concerned with how society should manage issues of personal and political freedoms, authority and liberty, it is not correlated with a second set of values concerned with economic justice, the distribution of resources and economic power.

Brexit, immigration, attitudes to policing and climate change are more closely related to liberal-authoritarian values, while attitudes to nationalisation, taxation and redistribution are more closely related to left-right economic values—the old politics of class rather than education.

In this election, the most important priorities for the electorate are the cost of living, the economy and the NHS, which are issues primarily relating to economic values. We might, then, expect education to have relatively little impact. But it is more complicated than that.

Different priorities

The British Election Study panel survey, collected in May 2024 just prior to the election being called, suggests it is not only attitudes that are connected to education but also priorities. Among those whose highest qualifications are GCSEs or equivalent, immigration and the economy are almost equal priorities, with around one in three saying immigration is the most important issue to them. But among those with at least a degree-level qualification, immigration is the most important issue for only around one in ten voters, making it similar in importance to the environment.

While all groups say the economy is their top concern, other priorities are correlated with level of education. This is reflected in the competition between parties in different types of constituency. The key target seats of Reform UK, which is focusing its campaign on immigration, are those with few graduates and their leader is standing in a constituency with one of the lowest proportions of graduates in the country. By contrast, the Green Party is hoping to win a parliamentary seat for its co-leader, Carla Denyer, in Bristol Central, the constituency with the highest proportion of graduates outside Greater London.

Swings and turnouts

The swing to Labour since the 2019 election is large, with the Conservative share of the vote reduced by half in all education groups, falling from 57 per cent to 26 per cent among those whose highest qualifications are GCSEs or equivalent and from 32 per cent to 15 per cent among those with a degree or higher-level qualifications.

But key differences in voting intention related to education groups remain. One in five of those with GCSE qualifications or lower intend to vote for Reform UK, and while Labour enjoys majority support among those with degree or higher-level qualifications, one in five of these voters support either the Green party or the Liberal Democrats.

A further important element of the education divide at election time involves turnout. In the 2019 election, almost eight in ten of those with degree- or higher-level qualifications voted, while this was true of fewer than six in ten of those with GCSE or lower qualifications.

Party affiliations

While education continues to play a significant role in our electoral politics and is particularly important for understanding differences in participation and priorities around issues—as well as the values that underpin these—it is also correlated with party choice.

The Conservative Party is still less popular among those with a degree than among those without, although the gap has narrowed as levels of Conservative support reach very low levels; it is impossible to be 30 points ahead among those with lower educational qualifications when support even in this group is lower than 30 per cent.

The Labour Party, meanwhile, remains more popular among those with degrees than among those without, by a narrow majority. This gap has remained at a similar size, although overall levels of popularity for the party have risen in all groups.

But perhaps the most important education effect in this election and its aftermath will be on support for parties outside the main two.

Both Reform UK and the Green Party seek to win support from the larger parties on issues that are prioritised differently by groups with different levels of education. The distribution of graduates and non-graduates across constituencies creates both opportunities and challenges for these parties that will have ramifications not only at the upcoming general election but into the next parliament and beyond.

Paula Surridge is professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol and deputy director at UK in a Changing Europe

 

The post Voter IDs appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
The Quiz of Britain https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-the-quiz-of-britain/ Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:30:37 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-the-quiz-of-britain/ Ivory Tower: the ultimate game show, universities and research edition

The post The Quiz of Britain appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Ivory Tower: the ultimate game show, universities and research edition

The lights go up in the studio, theme tune rolls, Rishi Sunak in a tight suit stands between two teams.

Rishi: Welcome to this higher education special of the Quiz of Britain: the country where you don’t have to go to university to succeed, but it helps if you went to Oxford and Stanford. This is the show that combines all quiz formats into one. Let’s meet the teams. On my right are the blues, Gillian and Michelle. Hello.

Gillian and Michelle: Hello.

Rishi: Correct answer, 10 points.

Gillian: Thanks.

Rishi: Have a bonus honour with that.

Michelle: Thanks.

Rishi: You are very welcome. And on my left are the reds, Bridget and Peter. Where are you from?

Bridget: Sunderland.

Rishi: [claxon sounds] And that’s our first pointless answer of the day. I’m sorry you lose whatever money you had.

Bridget: But…?

Rishi: Gillian or Michelle, would you like to come in and steal that money for wherever it is you are from?

Michelle: A well-off constituency in the south.

Rishi: That is the correct answer. Would you like to try for a levelling-up bonus?

Michelle: Yes, please.

Rishi: That’s been added to your account, well done.

Peter: Hold on, what’s going on here?

Rishi: We are playing round one, funding formula. Peter, tell me where are you from?

Peter: The south of England: Hove.

Rishi: [A claxon sounds] You are the weakest link. Remember, stay in the blue and out of the red, there’s nothing in this game for wokes under the bed. Would you like to go for the National Prosperity Fund?

Peter: Yes, please.

Rishi: That’s the wrong answer, I’m afraid. I’m going to have to pass it over to the blue team.

Gillian: Thanks.

Rishi: You’re welcome. Here’s your starter for 10.

Bridget: Hold on!

Rishi: Sorry, you interrupted the question, Bridget, you lose five points.

Bridget: That’s unfair.

Rishi: Say what you see.

Bridget: Err… It’s biased, it’s corrupt, it’s unfair [buzzer sounds].

Michelle: Repetition.

Rishi: Well spotted, Michelle. Yes, repetition of “unfair” there Bridget. I’m sorry, I don’t make the rules.

Peter: Literally, you do.

Rishi: I’ve started so I’ll finish. Michelle and Gillian, would you like to try for a bonus?

Gillian: Yes, please.

Rishi: That’s in the bank. I’ve removed the cap on the banker’s bonus. Deal or no deal?

Michelle: I’ll take the deal.

Rishi: Good call, especially if you have recently had to settle a libel claim after falsely accusing an academic of extremism.

Peter: This game is rigged.

Rishi: That’s a correct answer, would you like to try for the follow-up?

Peter: Yes, please.

Rishi: Who’s behind the mask?

Peter: Sorry?

Rishi: I’m going to hand it over to Michelle and Gillian.

Gillian: Thanks.

Rishi: You’re welcome. You are doing a bloody good job, by the way, has anyone ever said that?

Gillian: No.

Rishi: That’s another correct answer.

Bridget: What is this, the 1 per cent club?

Rishi: That’s on ITV, so I’m afraid you lose a point.

Peter: What if it had been on the BBC?

Rishi: Then you’d lose two points. Honestly, am I the only person who can do maths round here?

Michelle: Yes.

Rishi: That’s another correct answer, so bonus point for me.

Peter: What a farce.

Rishi: Would I lie to you?

Gillian: No.

Rishi: Another correct answer from Gillian. Would Michelle like to try for a bonus?

Michelle: Go on.

Rishi: Are you a traitor or a faithful?

Michelle: Err… I didn’t send a letter to the 1922 Committee, if that’s what you mean.

Rishi: Just checking. Now, it’s time for round two, Tipping Point.

Bridget: I think we’re beyond that, aren’t we?

Rishi: Peter and Bridget, you are behind, so you can go first.

Peter: Makes a change.

Rishi: Well done, you’ve spotted the deliberate mistake. Would you like to stick or twist?

Peter: Twist.

Rishi: That’s the wrong answer, I’m afraid. Over to the other side: higher or lower?

Michelle: Definitely higher, Rishi.

Rishi: That’s the correct answer. The question was, of course, which unprotected budget would be first in line for cuts after the election and the answer was, inevitably, higher education. Would you like to pick a bonus category, Michelle?

Michelle: Science and research.

Rishi: That’s also correct, science and research would be in line for cuts too. Can you make the connection?

Michelle: Things that happen in a university?

Rishi: That’s correct, and you were speaking when the buzzer went, so at the end of that round you also get a bonus point. Tell me, Michelle, if we have to make public spending cuts after the election, what would you do?

Michelle: Nominate Gillian.

Rishi: Another correct answer.

Gillian: Hold on, what about the apprentices?

Rishi: That’s another show.

Bridget: You’re fired.

Rishi: Ridiculous!

Bridget: Have I got news for you.

Rishi: Time for round three, the end game.

Peter: It certainly is.

Rishi: Bridget, pick a category.

Bridget: University Challenge.

Rishi: I’m sorry, the answer was Scrapheap Challenge. I can see how you got confused there. I’m going to hand it over to Gillian and Michelle. Gladiators, ready?

Michelle: Always.

Rishi: That’s the correct answer. For a bonus point, who wants to be a billionaire?

Gillian: Michelle Mone?

Rishi: I’ll take that, but the answer I’ve got on the card is, in fact, me.

Peter: Just a minute!

Rishi: That’s another show, entirely. So, we have to say goodbye to Peter and Bridget. Have you enjoyed the last 14 years?

Bridget: No, I don’t think anyone has.

Rishi: Peter, what are you looking forward to after the show?

Peter: Total wipe-out?

Rishi: Michelle and Gillian, once again the blues are this week’s winners. Who is going to join me for the big money finale?

Gillian: Frank Hester?

Rishi: I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue.

Michelle: We know that, so I’ll play the final round this week.

Rishi: Join me here, Michelle. Which wall would you like to choose?

Michelle: I think we’ve lost the red wall already, so let’s go blue.

Rishi: OK, we asked a survey of 1,000 UK adults to describe British science; you said…

Michelle: Superpower.

Rishi: Our survey said…[Uh-uh] Bad luck, Michelle, let’s see if you can do any better on the next one. We asked a survey of 1,000 UK adults to describe British universities; you said…

Michelle: World leading.

Rishi: Our survey said… [Uh-uh] Never mind, Michelle, one final question, let’s see how you do on this. We asked a survey of 1,000 UK adults to describe the British government; you said…

Michelle: Can I phone a friend?

Rishi: I’m sorry, since the start of the show I’ve changed phones several times and lost all the WhatsApp messages.

Michelle: Can I go 50-50?

Rishi: I’ve seen the MRP polling for your constituency, so I’d say you were pretty much there. I’m going to have to press you for an answer…

Michelle: Pointless? [klaxon goes off]

Rishi: That’s the correct answer! You are this week’s winner, congratulations. Here are your prizes, two free bets on the date of the general election. When do you think the next one will be?

Michelle: 2029?

Rishi: Say goodnight, Michelle.

Michelle: Goodnight, Michelle.

Titles roll, music plays, audience cheers.

Terms of use: this is a free email for fun on a Friday, it should be shared with friends and family like your weird uncle’s dodgy Facebook post about why he reckons Nigel Farage has a point. Want to be a contestant on the next series of the Quiz of Britain? Want to say hello? Email ivorytower@researchresearch.com 

The post The Quiz of Britain appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
We work for Nature. This is why we’re striking https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-we-work-for-nature-this-is-why-we-re-striking/ Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:00:03 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-we-work-for-nature-this-is-why-we-re-striking/ When salaries don’t keep pace with inflation, a passion for science doesn’t pay the bills

The post We work for Nature. This is why we’re striking appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

When salaries don’t keep pace with inflation, a passion for science doesn’t pay the bills

On Thursday 20 June, the science journal Nature published its 8,017th issue. Like its 8,016 predecessors, this latest issue contained cutting-edge papers from across the disciplines of science. But that Thursday was historic for the journal not because of any paradigm-shattering discovery but because it marked the start of sustained industrial action by its London-based staff. 

Negotiations over pay between members of the National Union of Journalists and Nature’s UK parent company Springer Nature broke down in April after seven months. 

The NUJ, which represents writers, editors and art and production staff who work on Nature and the broader stable of Nature-branded journals, balloted its members in May. At 93 per cent, support for action was overwhelming.

While the staff involved feel trepidation about the path they are embarking on, they remain hopeful that the company will return to the table quickly to resolve the dispute.

Last resort

Industrial action is a last resort and in many ways an admission of failure. It signals the breakdown of what should be a healthy and constructive relationship between employer and employees. 

It puts huge strain on employees and threatens to disrupt the business. It is divisive and damaging. So why would a team of essentially academic workers choose such a path? The short answer is that it was forced upon us.

Nature’s mission statement sets out its ambition for the results of science to be “rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life”. For the editorial and production teams at Nature and its sister titles, this mission is as much a vocation as a job. 

Day-to-day duties alone often demand 10-hour days and six-day weeks. On top of this, editors do significant outreach—spending their evenings at events or online conferences, giving talks, helping to negotiate standards and, as science becomes ever more interdisciplinary, helping researchers find a common language. It’s obvious that a lot of this goes beyond their basic contracts. 

We do these things because we are dedicated to science, inspired by the progress of knowledge and driven to help disseminate the results for the greater good. The reward is not solely financial—it is the connection to the acquisition of knowledge and the societal benefits that this yields.

But passion doesn’t pay the bills. The surge in the cost of living has made salaries that were barely adequate wholly insufficient. 

Falling UK inflation hides the lived reality: the cost of everyday necessities has risen dramatically. Things that became unaffordable last year are still getting more expensive, just a bit more slowly.

Staff report mortgage or rent rises in excess of 20 per cent. Others have seen childcare costs rise by nearly 30 per cent. Weekly shopping bills are up by 15 to 20 per cent. 

Many live from paycheque to paycheque. As one employee puts it: “I have made cuts that have helped me get by—I no longer have a car or book holidays that require paying for accommodation. I need dental work but I can’t afford it, so I have asked if it will be safe to wait a few years. I am hoping to take on extra work outside of my full-time job to pay for these dentist costs. I work long hours in a complex field and am highly qualified, and yet I can’t make ends meet.”

Erosion of expertise

Rising costs have also affected the company, and everyone recognises that a for-profit organisation must make a sensible profit. But Springer Nature’s balance sheet is healthy; the same cannot be said for the staff’s finances. 

Unfortunately, only a subset of Springer Nature’s UK workforce has been granted union recognition—and only after an appeal to the Central Arbitration Committee—so employees outside the defined bargaining unit will not benefit from any agreement resulting from the current action. This is something we regret; ideally, we would negotiate improvements for everyone.

Earlier this year, James Butcher, a former vice-president at Springer Nature and now a freelance consultant, argued that in shifting to a more technological focus, scholarly publishers are starting to undervalue editorial expertise. Such expertise is a scholarly journal’s bedrock.

But watching their pay shrink in real terms year after year, NUJ members at the Nature titles feel that bedrock is being wilfully eroded. We didn’t look for this fight. We don’t want this fight. But we cannot afford to abandon this fight.  

The authors are members of staff at Springer Nature in London

This article also appeared in Research Fortnight

The post We work for Nature. This is why we’re striking appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Golden goose or tradesman’s entrance? https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-golden-goose-or-tradesman-s-entrance/ Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:00:01 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-golden-goose-or-tradesman-s-entrance/ Centuries of debate about putting science to work hold lessons for today, says David Willetts

The post Golden goose or tradesman’s entrance? appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Centuries of debate about putting science to work hold lessons for today, says David Willetts

The term ‘applied science’ was first used by the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge in an essay published on 1 January 1818—the same day as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Like her, he was partly warning about a dangerous shift in values towards the utilitarian, fearing that Plato would be seen as less worthy in modern London than a “handscraftsman from a laboratory”.

Coleridge was translating Immanuel Kant’s distinction of pure knowledge, which was necessarily true, from applied knowledge, which was contingent.

In the two centuries since then, the term has seen many different interpretations. Robert Bud, a historian at London’s Science Museum, tracks them in his new book Applied Science: Knowledge, Modernity and Britain’s Public Realm (Cambridge University Press).

Teaching and researching applied science was the key role of the great colleges created in the latter half of the 19th century: Owen’s College in Manchester, Josiah Mason’s in Birmingham and the School of Mining in South Kensington, from which Imperial College London was born. These distinguished themselves from mechanics institutes and apprenticeships through their aim of enhancing systematic knowledge. Bud calls them Liberal Science Colleges. 

The next step was to secure university status by applying to the Privy Council. One member was concerned they should not “degrade university teaching to technical teaching”. 

Manchester assured the council that “degrees representing proficiency in technical subjects shall not be conferred without proper security for testing the scientific or general knowledge underlying technical attainments”. Bud interprets this as linking applied to pure science and separating it from technology, which applies science to specific trades. Concerns with what universities are and what they should teach last to this day. 

Public laboratories

Applied science was also practised in a growing network of public laboratories such as the National Physical Laboratory, established in 1900. Economic considerations played an important part in defining their territory. The NPL, Bud writes, “battled constantly to be close enough to the needs of commerce to be useful and distant enough from the market for the work to be consistent with laissez-faire”.

There are laboratories today still trying to walk that fine line. Similarly, there’s a neat match between a ‘true’ university’s supposed duty to avoid activities applying to specific trades and the support for particular industries that the state in a ‘true’ market economy should avoid. 

The heyday of applied science in the UK was the 50 years of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), from the 1915 white paper setting it up through to its abolition by Harold Wilson’s government.

Bud complements the historian David Edgerton’s work in showing how active and ambitious Britain’s applied research agenda was during this time. A network of 34 research associations was created after the First World War, supplemented after the Second World War by the creation of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment in Harwell and the Atomic Energy Authority. 

By the 1960s, though, applied research was losing ground to a focus on technology, as governments became more willing to contemplate industrial policies. DSIR was seen as too remote from business—a risk also created by taking the current Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) out of its former home in the business department. 

Wilson abolished the DSIR, put the research councils that funded applied and pure science in an enlarged Department of Education and Science, and created a separate Ministry of Technology, which grew into a substantial ministry for industry. MinTech, as it was known, focused on four key technologies—computers, electronics, telecoms and machine tools. Three of the current government’s five critical technologies—artificial intelligence, semiconductors and telecoms—match them quite well.

The displacement of applied science by technology reflects a wider shift to seeing science policy as an instrument for meeting specific goals. It led to Victor Rothschild’s 1971 report proposing that research council funding be cut and government departments should hold the budgets to contract for research they needed.

These debates continue to this day, with a renewed interest in how government can harness innovations in technology to improve public services. DSIT and its arm’s length bodies should not become enclosed in a world of their own. Instead they should be seen as working across government for all its departments. 

David Willetts is Chair of the Foundation for Science and Technology and a member of the House of Lords 

This article also appeared in Research Fortnight 

The post Golden goose or tradesman’s entrance? appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Winds of change https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-winds-of-change/ Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:00:00 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-winds-of-change/ Labour makes overtures to universities and RF gets a fresh look

The post Winds of change appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Labour makes overtures to universities and RF gets a fresh look

Frosty relations between government and universities have become such a fixture recently that research leaders could be forgiven for feeling trapped in an unending winter, with only the occasional boost to artificial intelligence funding for comfort. But with Labour widely predicted to be heading to a strong victory in next week’s election, the party’s shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson has given a glimpse of a different future: one where universities are recognised as “engines for growth across our country—a public good, not a political battleground”.

Such words will bring a warm glow after stoked-up culture wars and a hard-won fight to keep the graduate route visa, as the government’s crackdown on immigration threatened to both repel academic talent and create even more precarity for university finances. Labour’s linking of promised “10-year budgets” for R&D to a pledge to create 650,000 “high quality” jobs has further positioned research as central to the party’s economic plans.

But while university leaders may feel they are emerging blinking into the sunlight, Labour—like the Conservative Party—has remained largely silent on the sector’s looming iceberg: the systemic failure of university financing. Phillipson, interviewed by the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, acknowledged the strain, calling measures to stabilise the sector “a day one priority”. But her party has remained tight-lipped on how it would seek to do that.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies warned this week that one in five higher education providers was in deficit, with its economists the latest to say that the government needs to choose between raising tuition fees and committing to more public funding for universities if it “wants to avoid further cuts to teaching resources”. Redundancy or restructuring programmes are already understood to be underway at more than 60 universities.

University research sustainability and Labour’s ambitions for an R&D-driven economy are intrinsically bound up in the choices the party makes on higher education finance. All eyes in the sector will be on how the next government plans to shore things up—and how quickly those decisions are taken.

A new look for Research Fortnight

Speaking of change, readers will notice some differences to Research Fortnight from the next edition. We are delighted to be launching a redesigned email alert, with a more impactful design to complement the in-depth research policy news and analysis that our readers have valued for decades. 

Meanwhile, a new, dedicated Research Fortnight section on our website will house all the content from the latest edition, with an archive listing for the articles in each issue. These changes will replace the flipbook format and will enable us to dedicate more resources to bringing you the most up-to-date news and thought-provoking commentary on developments affecting the research community today. 

Research Fortnight emails will continue to reach you every two weeks in termtime, and you can also sign up for our daily UK, European and international news, included in your subscription. 

We hope you like our new look; if you have any feedback, we’d love to hear from you. 

This article also appeared in Research Fortnight

The post Winds of change appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
The third degree https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-the-third-degree0/ Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:00:00 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-the-third-degree0/ Back page gossip from the 26 June issue of Research Fortnight

The post The third degree appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Back page gossip from the 26 June issue of Research Fortnight

Election manifesto

The University and College Union released its election document recently. We are pretty sure that, come 5 July, the UCU is likely to have more of its members in parliament than the Greens. But we are not clear on the wisdom that inspired Carlow Street to release its election wish list after all the main parties had already sent their own manifestos to the printers.

The obvious advantage of the UCU manifesto over one from a political party seeking to govern the country is that the union’s ideas do not need to be fully costed, although slightly costed would have helped. The UCU wants to scrap tuition fees and have employers pay “most of the cost” for tertiary education.

The manifesto does say: “Research by London Economics for the UCU has shown that affordable reform is possible. A 3 per cent rise in corporation tax, or just a 1 per cent rise in employer national insurance contributions for graduate employees,” would meet the bills of higher education. 

We are guessing that a 3 per cent hike in corporation tax might not be top of Rachel Reeves’s to-do list.

There are lots of fun ideas in the manifesto, such as “fully funding” the Teachers’ Pension Scheme and scrapping both the Teaching Excellence Framework and the Research Excellence Framework. 

However, we are worried that knowledge exchange has once again been overlooked as a valuable academic endeavour—does no one want to demand the scrapping of the Knowledge Exchange Framework?

There are also meaty proposals on the Office for Students, admissions, casualisation, academic freedom and university autonomy. 

At this stage of the game, the problem with the document—as one wag observed of Sunak’s own jam-packed manifesto—is that it is “not so much too little, too late as far too much, too late”.

Science boat

Our team was hanging out at the Association of Research Managers and Administrators’ annual conference last week—thanks to those who came over to say hello to us. You can read all our coverage on our dedicated page.

One of the most interesting sessions saw Ben Steyn, head of metascience at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, talking about how his team is looking to shake up research funding. 

Another idea that was, ahem, ‘floated’ by Steyn was the “science boat”, whereby researchers get on a boat in one location and sail somewhere new. The logic is that scientists are “human beings” and can work well if we “pluck them out” of the traditional lab setting.

“Maybe if you put the scientists on a cruise and have them strip down to their swimming shorts,” they might be quite productive, he said. Better start preparing your applications.

The post The third degree appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Academics need the freedom to make their own luck https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-academics-need-the-freedom-to-make-their-own-luck/ Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:00:00 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-academics-need-the-freedom-to-make-their-own-luck/ The best research environments cultivate serendipity—and the REF should recognise that, says Matthew Flinders

The post Academics need the freedom to make their own luck appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

The best research environments cultivate serendipity—and the REF should recognise that, says Matthew Flinders

What makes a world-class research environment?

Bright minds, yes; ample and sustained resources, yes; freedom to make mistakes, yes; criticality and challenge, yes; engagement across disciplines and sectors, yes; an international outlook, yes; agile and ambitious leadership, most definitely. But what else do transformative research endeavours generally possess?

The answer is luck. Or rather, they make their own luck. Or to be even more specific, they understand and nurture structured serendipity.

In the 1950s, the sociologists Robert Merton and Elinor Barber explored the links between science and serendipity, which they defined as a blend of wisdom and luck by which something is discovered not quite by accident—in contrast to pure luck, which owes nothing to one’s efforts.

World-class research environments structure serendipity by cultivating relationships and experiences that yield new perspectives and insights. The resulting breakthroughs often involve spotting links between areas of science or day-to-day life that might have gone unnoticed.

This emphasis on structured serendipity has a direct but generally overlooked or misunderstood connection with contemporary debates about research culture. It also has implications for the UK’s 2029 Research Excellence Framework—the country’s national research assessment exercise—in facilitating and delivering truly exceptional research.

The key metaphors are the ecosystem and the crucible. 

Research centres and universities work within a much larger landscape. Mobility—of people and ideas, across disciplinary, professional and organisational boundaries—was a central element of Paul Nurse’s review that led to the 2018 creation of national funding agency UK Research and Innovation. UKRI’s main contribution has been its emphasis on connectivity across the research and innovation ecosystem. 

This emphasis has defined a number of reforms and initiatives, including UKRI policy fellowships, Local Policy Innovation Partnerships, and the expectation that PhD students will undertake a placement beyond academia. There is a broader emphasis on facilitating braided, or blended, careers that move in and out of academia. 

Running through all this is a commitment to structured serendipity. Varying what, how and where you learn can transform professional networks, scientific understanding and personal confidence.

The crucible effect—bringing different elements together to forge something stronger than its parts—is a method for structuring serendipity, devised by the innovation charity Nesta and developed by the Royal Society of Edinburgh

In research, the elements are academics, professionals, artists and so on, who would not normally get the chance to meet and learn about each other’s skills. Provided with a problem to solve and space to think, the crucible effect leads not just to new ways of thinking, but to new friendships and professional relationships.

Risk implications

Investing time and energy in structuring serendipity is not risk-free. Connections might not be made, people might not get on, time and money might be wasted. Benefits may take years or decades to emerge and be diffuse rather than direct. 

All this means that, for an early career researcher on a temporary contract, varying what, how and where they learn may not be realistic. Add to this the systemic inequalities within academia, and the quest for structured serendipity might look like the preserve of a small elite free of the normal pressures of university life.

But structured serendipity can be more accessible if we realise that there are many not-quite-accidental ways to open up insights and opportunities. They range from simply reading beyond one’s sub-field, to attending events and conferences in cognate fields, through to a short-term placement or signing up to a crucible.

The good news is that the high-level decisions about REF 2029 announced last year are designed to capture a broader definition of research excellence and to reward institutions that facilitate the creative mobility of staff, knowledge and talents across the ecosystem.

The bad news, especially amid higher education’s financial crisis, is that as academia becomes increasingly pressurised and orientated towards short-term goals and financial efficiencies, time and space for open inquiry gets squeezed out.

And yet the bottom line is that any world-class research environment—any institution with a positive research culture—is likely to show at least some awareness and commitment to nurturing structured serendipity.  

Matthew Flinders is professor of politics at the University of Sheffield, and vice chair of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom. 

This article also appeared in Research Fortnight

The post Academics need the freedom to make their own luck appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
My election week by Gillian Keegan https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-my-election-week-by-gillian-keegan/ Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:30:56 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-my-election-week-by-gillian-keegan/ Ivory Tower: exclusive access to the campaign diary of the education secretary

The post My election week by Gillian Keegan appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Ivory Tower: exclusive access to the campaign diary of the education secretary

Monday

My electoral agent comes in carrying a pile of newspapers.

“I don’t want you to panic,” they say.

“Who’s panicking?” I say, grinding my teeth and stirring my coffee with a shake.

“Have you seen this MRP poll?” they ask.

“Never heard of them,” I say. “There are just too many polling firms these days.”

“No, it stands for multilevel regression and poststratification,” they say.

“It’s too early for that,” I say. “Can you wait until I have another coffee?”

“It’s the gold standard of polling—forecasting results by constituency,” they explain.

“And?” I ask, wondering where this is going.

“You know how you were thinking of getting that conservatory added to your constituency home?” they say. “Well, I wouldn’t bother”.

“I know it’s rained a lot, but it won’t always be like this,” I say.

“I mean you are going to lose,” they reply, shuffling the pile of newspapers.

“But this is Chichester,” I say, “true, blue, Tory Chichester”.

“I know,” says the agent.

“Home of red corduroy trousers, home of the scone-eating Blazeratti,” I say, incredulously.

“I know, how do you think I feel? I’ll be the laughing stock of the electoral agents society, managing to lose Chichester with a majority of 22,000,” they say.

“But why?” I ask. “Chichester has been Conservative since the Domesday Book”.

“Apparently it’s all the crap that is being pumped out,” they say.

“Well, I’m not responsible for campaign comms,” I say.

“No, into the rivers and harbours,” they say.

“I blame the Lib Dems,” I say.

“Actually, I think it’s Southern Water,” they reply.

Tuesday

I can’t believe they have let Penny Mordaunt do those TV debates. If Chichester is on a knife edge, Portsmouth North is toast. Maybe after the election she could do an advert for Admiral car insurance.

They need someone with experience of the real world, someone who started as an apprentice and became a highly successful businesswoman. The phone rings to disturb my thoughts.

“Gillian this is Isaac,” says the caller.

“Newton?” I ask, confused.

“Levido,” they say with a deep sigh.

“I don’t have long,” I tell him.

“I know, I’ve seen the MRP polls,” he says.

“I’m glad you called,” I say. “I wanted to talk about these TV debates.”

“That’s precisely why I called,” he says. “There’s going to be one on Channel 4 tonight”.

“I wondered when you would call,” I say.

“Yes, we can’t have Penny go on again,” he says.

“Completely agree,” I say.

“So, I’m phoning around a few senior cabinet members,” he says.

Here it comes, not before time.

“So, I wanted to ask,” he says, “what do you think of Chris Philp?”

“Chris Philp?” I reply, incredulously.

“We need someone with experience of the real world, someone who became a highly successful businessperson,” he says.

“But, but…” I stammer.

“I’ll put you down as a maybe,” he says and hangs up.

I turn to my election agent, “I can’t believe they’ve put Chris Philp up for a TV debate before me,” I say.

“Maybe it’s because of the concrete,” they say.

“I know he’s a bit wooden, but I wouldn’t go that far,” I say.

They sigh deeply.

Wednesday

I’m taking time out from the campaign to have dinner with Mr K in Chichester’s finest chain brasserie.

“I hear Wiltshire is nice this time of year,” he says.

“I don’t think any of those seats are safe either,” I tell him.

“I meant for after the campaign,” he says.

“You mean for a photo opportunity with Michelle Donelan?” I ask.

“No, I mean for a holiday,” he says, not looking me in the eye.

“But after the campaign, it will be straight back to Westminster and to the DfE,” I tell him.

There is an awkward silence.

Eventually he says: “Maybe you could do with some time off”.

“But with all the people leaving Parliament, I would be in line for a top job,” I reply.

There is another awkward silence.

Then he says: “Have you ever thought about life after Chichester?”

“I thought we might retire to Bognor Regis,” I say.

“You are a bit young to retire just yet,” he says.

“After 10 more years in Parliament, I’ll be ready,” I tell him.

The awkward silence returns.

“We might have to downsize,” he says, finally.

“Well, I’m sure we’ll lose a few seats,” I tell him.

“I think you are living in a bubble and are detached from reality,” he says.

“That’s no way to speak about Chichester,” I say, looking round to apologise to other diners.

Thursday

Out knocking on doors today. Time to speak to real people about their concerns.

“I’m really worried that our biggest employer might go under,” says a woman.

“St Martin’s Tearooms?” I ask.

“Sorry?” she says.

“I know it’s been a tough time for hospitality, what with Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. But Rishi gave us Eat Out to Help Out…” I tell her.

“What are you talking about?” she says.

“Labour don’t have a plan for the Tearooms,” I say, checking my briefing notes.

“I’m talking about the university,” she says.

“Which one?” I ask.

“The University of Chichester,” she says.

It doesn’t register with me. “Really? Where’s that?” I ask.

“It’s the big Gothic building near the city centre,” she says, surprised.

“I thought that was the cathedral,” I say.

“It has 5,000 students and employs over 1,000 people,” she says.

“That’s nearly as many as Waitrose,” I reply. Every day is a school day.

“That’s the other big Gothic building near the city centre,” she explains.

“Do they do apprenticeships?” I ask, curious now.

“Waitrose?” she says, incredulously.

“No, this so-called university,” I say.

She sighs and says: “They are at risk from government policy that could make the future unsustainable.”

“I never thought Waitrose would be in trouble,” I say.

She sighs again and says: “Maybe you should consider voting Lib Dem.”

“I’ll put myself down as a maybe,” I say.

Friday

Mr K seems agitated over breakfast.

“This betting thing is getting out of hand,” he says.

“It was only a flutter on Royal Ascot,” I protest.

“No, all these people close to the PM who are being investigated,” he says.

“You’ll really need to be more specific than that,” I tell him.

“The campaign director is taking a leave of absence with two weeks to polling day because he and his candidate wife are being looked into by the Gambling Commission over alleged bets on the election date,” he reads out from the Daily Telegraph.

“Couldn’t they just bet on the Euros, like everyone else,” I say.

“I don’t think they want anything to do with Euros,” he says, clearly confused.

“Scotland is 100 to 1,” I say, glancing at the odds.

“Seats there were a long shot even before the Douglas Ross fiasco,” he says, still not understanding.

He puts the paper down and asks: “So, what have you got planned for today?”

“I thought I might go down to the beach at Selsey and look for small boats,” I say.

“That’s a good idea, and what will you do if you find any people smugglers heading back to France?” he says.

“I’ll ask if they’ll take me with them,” I say.

He goes back to reading the Telegraph. I stir my coffee with a shake.

Terms of use: this is a free email for fun on a Friday, it should be shared with colleagues like insider information on the date of the general election. Want to enrol on an apprenticeship scheme at St Martin’s Tearooms? Want to say hello? Email ivorytower@researchresearch.com

The post My election week by Gillian Keegan appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Premium benefits https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-premium-benefits/ Thu, 20 Jun 2024 06:53:54 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-premium-benefits/ Ebrahim Adia argues that it is time to consider a university social mobility supplement

The post Premium benefits appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Ebrahim Adia argues that it is time to consider a university social mobility supplement

As a relatively new vice-chancellor, I consider myself fortunate to be in a job that has such an impact on creating opportunity, developing talent and supporting knowledge creation and exchange.

I took on the role at the University of Wolverhampton in October 2023 at a particularly challenging time for the higher education sector. Back in 2011, I recall a former vice-chancellor of mine talking about the ‘perfect storm’ for universities. With the benefit of hindsight, that was a gentle breeze compared with the present challenges universities face.

Like many of my vice-chancellor colleagues, I am concerned about the fact that tuition fees have hardly changed for over a decade, that cost pressures have increased significantly over the same period, and that recruiting international students to remain financially sustainable has been undermined by a less than helpful policy environment.

It is a paradox that while UK universities are the engines of innovation and inclusive growth and central to the delivery of multiple government priorities, political resolve has, for some time, been lacking to address current challenges around financial sustainability.

Fundamental review

An obvious solution is a fundamental root-and-branch review of higher education funding to create a more sustainable future. But it is unlikely this will occur within the next couple of years—no matter which political party is in power after the general election. In the interim, universities will need to continue to control costs, drive efficiencies and deliver more for less.

At Wolverhampton, we are also coming to the view that trends that have been in train for the past decade within the university—namely transitioning away from pedagogical models and student support systems that were appropriate for a less diverse student body—will need to be accelerated.

Some 71 per cent of our students are the first in their family to access university education and more than 80 per cent are commuting students. Many of these students have other commitments, such as employment or caring responsibilities, and consequently marginal student identities and limited time to engage with university. This means they tend to prioritise learning and teaching above the university’s wider offer.

It is therefore time to reimagine the purpose and operating model of a modern university and this is the challenge we have set ourselves. It will result in a very different and, I hope, differentiated approach that better serves the needs of our diverse student body.

However, it will take time. A fundamental review of the organisational framework of a modern university requires significant planning, investment and managed risk. It involves the challenge of running an existing operating model while designing a new one—akin to rebuilding a plane as it is in mid-flight. Meanwhile, universities like mine will continue to lose students—not because we lack solutions but because of a lack of capacity in our academic and professional services to support students in a timely way at key points of academic and personal vulnerability. This often leads to a waste of individual potential and a significant loss to the regional economy of—in our case—the West Midlands.

Having a moment

Policy ideas have their moment—and an idea whose moment has come in higher education is that of a social mobility premium. This would involve universities receiving a government supplement as part of recurrent Office for Students funding in proportion to the number of first-in-family students or students from low-income neighbourhoods that they recruit, as part of a more coherent conciliatory and sustainable higher education policy.

A social mobility premium could provide much-needed financial support for universities, like Wolverhampton, that are committed to creating opportunity and incurring the higher costs associated with helping students that require additional support to succeed. We are in the process of gathering independent evidence to itemise these additional costs by student demographic.

Fair rewards

While a social mobility premium would inevitably have a disproportionate benefit for universities in the MillionPlus Group, different kinds of universities already benefit from other research and teaching funding streams where the MillionPlus group fares less well.

And, importantly, the premium should be linked both to widening participation and to continuation, completion and progression. It would not be enough simply to attract students from certain backgrounds, it would also be crucial to see them through to a successful graduation. It would therefore be necessary to include a performance-related element to the premium that aligns with the OfS regulatory framework and its focus on outcomes as well as access.

Introducing this premium would enable universities like Wolverhampton to realise their roles as anchor institutions, help them to transform at pace and increase student completion rates, thereby changing the life opportunities of many thousands of students and their families.

It would boost the economic ambitions of the cities and regions around these universities. It would also help to create opportunity, transform lives, and deliver a more inclusive, productive and sustainable society—ambitions central in my role as vice-chancellor.

Ebrahim Adia is vice-chancellor and chief executive of the University of Wolverhampton. A version of this article also appeared in Wonkhe.

The post Premium benefits appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Discounting the cost https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-discounting-the-cost/ Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:30:04 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-discounting-the-cost/ Lorraine Dearden suggests a different way of setting interest rates on student loans

The post Discounting the cost appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Lorraine Dearden suggests a different way of setting interest rates on student loans

Governments have never got the setting of interest rates for student loans correct, probably due to a failure to understand how income-contingent loans work. Yet there is a way of setting interest rates for these loans that would be both progressive and potentially reduce outlay from taxpayers.

Reforms to income-contingent student loans in England introduced in 2023 significantly changed the interest rate charged on new loans. It was reduced from inflation measured by the retail prices interest +3 per cent to RPI only. At the same time, the period for repaying the loan was extended to 40 years. The new rate was similar to the interest rate charged on loans up until 2012, before the reforms brought in by the then universities minister, David Willetts, that saw fees rise from a maximum of £3,250 to £9,000 per year.

But in any discussion of student loan interest rates, there is another important rate to consider: the government discount rate, used to calculate the cost of student loans in today’s money to a future government.

This rate reflects the fact that £1 today, when the government issues the loans, is worth more than £1 received in the future, when graduates repay them. The history of discount rates used to calculate student loan costs is as chequered as that of the loan scheme itself, but these rates are extremely important. The lower the discount rate, the cheaper the estimated cost of student loans to the Treasury.

If the estimated discount rate fails to reflect the real one, then the implications of different student loan designs—and their costs—will be misleading. The Institute for Fiscal Studies recently published an excellent article showing that the government is currently using an out-of-date discount rate, which means it is underestimating the cost of the latest government reforms to student loans by around £10 billion per year. This is a recipe for bad policy. It means that the latest reforms to interest rates are highly regressive, hitting lower- to middle-earning graduates the most and reducing the burden for high-earning graduates.

Loan terms

This is firstly because repayment of income-contingent loans only depends on what a loan-holder earns in a particular pay period. Interest rates have no impact on the amount of repayment in any period as this is capped at 9 per cent on all earnings above an earnings threshold. What it does affect is the amount of time it will take a graduate to repay their loan. This means it affects graduates only towards the end of their loan.

This is very different from a car loan or mortgage, where you have a fixed time to repay, which means that a rise in interest rates immediately affects the repayment amount. With an income-contingent loan, the amount paid per pay period is capped but the term of the loan is variable.

Secondly—perhaps counterintuitively—loan interest rates that are set too high, and those that are too low, advantage the highest-earning graduates most.

If interest rates are set too high (and particularly if well above market rates), the highest-earning graduates pay this penalty for the shortest time, whereas middle earners—namely those who pay off their loan exactly at the time of write-off—will pay the most. This was not a big issue pre-2023 as very few people paid back their loans in full within 30 years, which meant the system was largely progressive. This changes completely when you extend the loan term to 40 years.

Meanwhile, if the interest rate is set too low, the government subsidises the interest rate for all borrowers, including the highest-earning graduates, even if they pay back in full. This is why the 2023 reforms have resulted in the highest-earning graduates paying less and low- to middle-earning graduates having to pay more compared with the pre-2023 scheme (despite the much lower interest rate). It is a backward move, especially given the restrictions on government resources.

So what should happen?

Gilt rate

Instead, the interest rate should be set annually at a government discount rate based on the government cost of borrowing, which could be measured by the 15-year government gilt rate and possibly a small markup (say 0.5 percentage points) to cover the administration involved. While there are debates over how we should set the discount rates, if we set both the interest rate and discount rate at the 15-year gilt rate, then it should be about right.

Would this have helped when inflation measured by RPI reached 13.5 per cent in March 2023 and the government had to rush in changes to cap the interest rate at 7.8 per cent? Yes. The 15-year bond rate in March 2023 averaged 3.8 per cent so the student loan interest would have been around 4.3 per cent with my scheme and have required no intervention. In March 2024, RPI was 4.3 per cent, as was the average 15-year bond rate, so under my scheme the student loan interest rate would have increased slightly to 4.8 per cent.

With the interest rate set at an appropriately defined discount rate, those who pay off their loan would pay back, in present value terms, 100 per cent of their loan value. Those graduates who do not earn enough over 40 years to repay their loan in full would pay back less.

Getting student loan interest and discount rates right is important for good loan design and for accurately costing future taxpayer liabilities. Making sure public finances accurately reflect the true cost of reforms is also essential. Interest rates are only one of the parameters that need to be looked at and more changes are needed to get the system back on track.

These are likely to include the government providing more direct funding for higher education providers and coming up with sensible revenue-raising policies that ensure universities have the right balance between local and overseas students.

Student support

Especially urgent is fixing the upfront support provided to students when they are studying, as this has the largest impact on access. Fixing this needs immediate action, otherwise the gains in participation for those from the poorest backgrounds that we saw from 2004 to 2018 will start being reversed. It would mean re-introducing means-tested grants and setting maintenance loans at the same level for all graduates, so that students from the poorest backgrounds can support themselves at university.

But, once again, the costs of doing all or any of this need to be properly estimated using appropriate discount rates and not treating loans and direct grants to students or universities differently. We certainly do not want a repeat of 2021, when the abolition of grants was in part driven by an accounting fix, with grants appearing in the public finances as a cost while maintenance loans did not. The apparent savings from this reform were an inflated fiction and the actual cost would have been considerably smaller if proper public accounting and discounting had been carried out.

Lorraine Dearden is professor of economics and social statistics at the Social Research Institute, University College London.

The post Discounting the cost appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Acid test https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-acid-test/ Fri, 14 Jun 2024 13:30:13 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-acid-test/ Ivory Tower: Exclusive access to this year’s extra maths exam paper set by Rishi Sunak

The post Acid test appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

Ivory Tower: Exclusive access to this year’s extra maths exam paper set by Rishi Sunak

Extra maths 2024

"A qualification for all, whether you want it or not."

Part of the Advanced British Standard (subject to validation, terms and conditions apply)

Sponsored by Goldman Sachs Platinum Apprentices Scheme

Paper 3 (Higher education and research)

You may use independent civil servants to verify your calculations

Not to be taken in conjunction with Trussonomics 101

Upon completion of the paper, proceed straight to conscription in the army or compulsory volunteering in a care home

Section 1: Home economics

1. What is the difference in price between a term’s fees at Winchester College and a year’s subscription to Sky TV? Explain why your parents might have provided you with one and not the other? Which would you have preferred? Illustrate your answer with a drawing of your favourite character from MTV Cribs.

2. A boy buys a smart coffee mug for £180 that keeps your beverage at the perfect temperature. He also buys a designer rucksack for overnight travel to Cornwall for £750. Does he have more money than sense? For an extra mark, calculate whether the rucksack still cost less than an off-peak return from London Paddington to Plymouth.

3. After a well-known celebrity/prime minister appears on television wearing a pair of Adidas Samba trainers (retail value £90), sales of the popular sneaker slump. How little will you be able to get for your trainers on eBay now? Calculate the hit to the GDP of Germany following the decline in Samba sales.

4. A man installs a new swimming pool in his Yorkshire mansion, requiring the local electricity network to upgrade the power supply, at the same time as a nearby municipal pool for the public is forced to close due to rising energy costs. Is this a worse look than having an anonymous donor buy your golden wallpaper? How many minutes of interest on your blind trust fund would be required to pay for the network upgrade?

Section 2: Speed, time and distance

1. A man has to attend an 80th anniversary commemoration of D-Day in Normandy. How early would he need to duck out of events to get back to London for a recorded interview with ITV? Explain why it is OK because it’s only the French bit that he is missing. For an extra mark, work out the number of votes he could expect to lose as a result of this calculation? Show your answer to a Conservative parliamentary candidate and watch them weep.

2. A man goes from London to Cornwall by train, accompanied by a camera crew, for a campaign photo opportunity. He returns alone by private helicopter. Try to book a standard-fare return helicopter journey with Great Western Railway. If the camera crew return by rail replacement bus service, how many days later will they make it back to London? Will the campaign still be running?

3. The Ministry of Defence decides to scrap a £40 million helicopter contract for the RAF because it does not represent value for money. The prime minister intervenes to save the contract and uses the service to travel from London to Southampton. How much money would a Downing Street aid have to bet on the date of the election, at odds of 10-1, to cover the difference in cost with a £30 day return on Southern Railways? On a scale of 1-10, how entitled do you think the prime minister is?

4. The prime minister, foreign secretary and the King all take separate private jets to attend COP28 in Dubai. Calculate the amount of carbon that will need to be offset against the hot air generated at the meeting. (You should give your answer in standard measurements to the nearest Wales, eg a forest three and a half times the size of Wales.) If the prime minister didn’t really want to go to COP28 in the first place, then it’s OK, isn’t it? They were lucky to have me him.

Section 3: Election spending

1. A prime minister calls a snap general election. Using a weather app, calculate the best time of day at which he should make the announcement without looking like a drowned rat escaping his own sinking ship. How much does it cost to get rainwater out of Armani? Would it be cheaper just to buy a new suit?

2. A party starts an election 20 per cent behind in the polls. At an average of two disasters per day on the campaign trail, how long will it be before they are A. 25 per cent behind in the polls? B. Pushed into third by Reform UK? C. Replaced as the official opposition by the Liberal Democrats? D. Have fewer MPs than Sinn Féin? Draw a pie chart of the new parliament to illustrate your answer.

3. A man visits Wales and asks workers in a brewery whether they are “looking forward to all the football”? Someone points out that Wales did not qualify for the tournament. To the nearest centimetre, how out of touch is this man? To the nearest hour, calculate when he realised it was a terrible idea to call an election. For an extra mark, work out how quickly he can get back to London via private helicopter.

4. A chancellor introduces a fiscal stimulus to encourage social mixing during a pandemic without consulting the chief scientific adviser or chief medical officer. At an R rate greater than one, calculate which spread faster, the Covid-19 virus during Eat Out to Help Out, or public outrage over ditching Normandy veterans for an interview with ITV?

Section 4: University-level maths

1. There are 72 higher education institutions either going through, or have recently completed, redundancy programmes. At this rate, how long will it be before there is no one working in universities at all? How much more quickly can vice-chancellors achieve the target of zero staffing on their own before the Conservatives legislate for a cull of rip-off degrees? What percentage of salary should vice-chancellors receive as an annual bonus for achieving this target?

2. If rampant inflation has eaten away any increases in the science budget, by how much are researchers worse off now than they were 14 years ago? How many civil service jobs will have to be cut to pay for any increases in the science budget in the next parliament? Who will be left to administer it? Use a red-tape diagram to illustrate your answer.

3. A university finance officer is trying to calculate their institution’s tax liability for the last academic year. How long will they be on hold with HMRC before someone answers the phone? How much longer is this than the average time spent on the phone trying to get a GP appointment? What would be quicker, waiting to speak to someone at HMRC or a slow lingering death in sinking sand?

4. A student receives their maintenance loan. After accommodation, bills and food, how little do they have left? Express your answer as a howl of frustration at the broken student-finance system. How many hours per week will the student have to work to make ends meet? Express your answer both in terms of the number of part-time jobs they will need to take on, and the number of hours of classroom teaching they will miss as a result.

Section 5: Bonus question, Swiftonomics

Taylor Swift’s Eras tour is in the UK until 20 August. Calculate how much more Swifties will add to GDP in Britain than the economic policies of the Conservative government? 

Terms of use: this is a free email for fun on a Friday, it should be shared among colleagues like the black spot when they are looking for someone to do the media rounds to defend the latest campaign catastrophe. Want to sit extra extra maths papers? Want to say hello? Email ivorytower@researchresearch.com

The post Acid test appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Arma 2024: Funders unite on culture https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-arma-2024-funders-unite-on-culture/ Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:00:03 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-arma-2024-funders-unite-on-culture/ One-stop-shop for communication and gathering data could reduce burden and drive change, says Anne Taylor

The post Arma 2024: Funders unite on culture appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

One-stop-shop for communication and gathering data could reduce burden and drive change, says Anne Taylor

We are all more productive if we are content with our work environment. Different things are important to each of us. But we all like to have enough funds to do our work, the right physical set-up to enable the work, and a personally supportive atmosphere to motivate us.

This is the same for people in research as anywhere else—a positive culture helps to attract and retain the best researchers, and enables them to produce high-quality work.

Over recent years, many publications and reports have highlighted the need to improve research culture. A 2020 Wellcome survey, for example, found that nearly two-thirds of researchers reported witnessing bullying or harassment and 43 per cent reported experiencing it.

More recent polls report continuing high rates of anxiety and depression in science. Alongside this, issues in research have reflected a growing society-wide focus on equity, diversity and inclusion.

Funders contribute many millions of pounds into UK research and, therefore, have a shared responsibility with others in the system to improve research culture.

In 2018, Wellcome was the first UK research funder to launch a policy to address bullying and harassment. Around the same time, we set up the Research Funders Policy Group to enable collaborative work on funding policies. This consists of a small number of public and charitable funders with an interest in health, including representatives from UK Research and Innovation, Cancer Research UK, the Royal Society and the Association of Medical Research Charities.

In the last few years, Wellcome has also added a question asking about researchers’ working environments to its grant application forms.

Dignity and respect

These expectations, however, must usually be conveyed at arm’s length, as funders generally do not employ researchers directly. Research funders must rely on their terms and conditions to describe not only what they expect grants to be spent on, but also how they expect the work to be done. These policies describe how to treat participants, how to make research open and that we expect everyone linked to research we fund to be treated with dignity and respect.

Funders’ second problem is knowing if their efforts to influence research culture have had any impact, as there are no accepted measures; we are often left using proxies. And to measure anything we need to gather information, which brings an administrative load, particularly as every research organisation and every funder is different. But there is common ground.

How to make best use of that common ground is the basis for a pilot now being run by the Research Funders Policy Group. If successful, it could transform how we assess research organisations’ implementation of funder policies, including those linked to culture.

The vision is to provide a single system for organisations to enter data on how they manage specific policy areas—for example, environmental sustainability and conflicts of interest—and allow multiple funders to access that information. It’s a simple concept, but very hard to achieve, hence the pilot.

The first iteration will no doubt not be perfect, will have gaps, and may bring additional burden before it reaps the benefits that it promises. Success depends partly on the willingness of both research organisations and funders to be brave and ‘speculate to accumulate’.

A handful of research organisations have risen to the challenge and helped in the early stages of designing the process. A dozen more have completed the pilot questionnaire. The funders’ group is now assessing the submissions and seeing if we can all use the proposed criteria to produce assessments we can all accept.

Revealing good practice

At this point the intention is not to rank or grade, but to work with organisations where gaps are identified or improvements could be made. Holding the information in one place also helps to reveal good practice that may benefit other organisations.

The information can be used as a baseline for improvements and gives organisations a ready-made bank of answers for funder audits. Because the system supports the requirements of research funders, the plan is for funders rather than research organisations to pay for it.

We need to be mindful that we don’t run before we can walk, but, while the pilot is focusing on policies, if successful it might expand to other areas, and other parts of the world. Carefully developing a robust common framework is a crucial step towards providing everyone with the information needed to drive up standards.

Research Professional News is media partner for the 2024 conference of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators, held from 18 to 19 June in Brighton

Anne Taylor is associate director, funding operations and governance, at Wellcome. She will be speaking at the 2024 Arma conference on Tuesday 18 June

This article also appeared in Research Fortnight

The post Arma 2024: Funders unite on culture appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>
Arma 2024: Ten pillars of equitable research https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-arma-2024-ten-pillars-of-equitable-research/ Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:00:02 +0000 https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-views-of-the-uk-2024-june-arma-2024-ten-pillars-of-equitable-research/ New tool can help make projects fair and responsible, say Megan McLoughlin and Zaynab Seedat

The post Arma 2024: Ten pillars of equitable research appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>

New tool can help make projects fair and responsible, say Megan McLoughlin and Zaynab Seedat

The effort to make research more fair, responsible and accessible goes by many names: responsible research and innovation, research culture, open research, decolonisation, equality, diversity and inclusion. 

These terms mean different things to different people and in different contexts. But fundamentally they share a mission to make research processes and outputs more equitable, and give an insight into how research is carried out.

Through our project, Valuing Voices for Equitable and Responsible Research, led by the University of York and Mahidol University in Thailand, we’re trying to bring these different approaches together to create a practical tool to improve research processes. This will help both researchers and research enablers to plan, deliver, and evaluate research with equity and responsibility at its core. 

As part of this project, we’re developing an Equitable and Responsible Research Tool underpinned by 10 principles, each with an associated outcome: 

1. Appropriateness, using research processes that fit the context—political, economic or social—and needs of beneficiaries. 

2. Co-production of research agendas, methods, insights and recommendations with partners, beneficiaries and end users.

3. Interdisciplinarity, giving different disciplinary perspectives equal value.

4. Team equity and diversity across career stages, roles, and personal and cultural perspectives, supported by appropriate team structures and leadership roles.

5. Anticipation and mitigation of risks, including assumptions.

6. Sustainability, identifying and reducing the environmental impacts of research.

7. Ownership, giving partners and collaborators ownership
of findings, recommendations and products and fair attribution on outputs.

8. Access to findings.

9. Public engagement, sharing findings and insights to benefit wider society. 

10. Reflection through collaborative monitoring, evaluation and learning incorporated into research design and implementation.

Teams will consider the principles within the context of their planned project, developing actions and indicators of success to achieve their selected outcomes. Supporting information, such as examples of actions and case studies, will help teams through this process. Reflexivity is a key element of the tool, encouraging research teams to set points during a project to stop and think about whether their actions are leading to the outcomes intended.

We don’t expect all research to interact with every principle. But every project should reflect on all 10, and aim to engage with several. For example, a project choosing to focus on team equity and diversity could use the tool to reflect on what success would look like and decide that it is a gender-balanced team. They could then work back from this to plan their recruitment process.

Another team, working with partners in the global south, might focus on the ownership of research. They decide that an appropriate outcome would be for two-thirds of publications from the project to be first-authored by colleagues in the global south. To achieve this, they plan collaborative writing workshops at key points during the project.

Over the next year, we’ll be testing the principles of our tool and how they work with real-life projects at our two universities, refining as we go. We’ll also explore a range of interventions to achieve equity within teams and global partnerships. 

We’ll share our evaluations of what works with the research community. The tool and all the resources we create will be fully accessible and open for all to use. 

We believe the tool will do more than benefit the immediate research teams and their partners, or create a general sense of doing the right thing.

Rather, we envision that using it will lead to better research, helping projects to achieve their goals. And with increasing numbers of funders requiring applications to address many of the tool’s principles, the resulting projects should better fit funders’ criteria. Hopefully it’s a win-win.

As research professionals, we play a crucial part in setting and steering research culture. We support research projects at every stage: from identifying funding opportunities and helping researchers to develop robust research ideas, through to managing projects and supporting impact. 

That’s why research enablers are a central part of this work, whether that’s taking on leadership roles, feeding into consultations as the project develops, or being trained to embed culture change within our organisations. As such, it’s important that our voices are not only heard, but valued. 

Research Professional News is media partner for the 2024 conference of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators, held from 18 to 19 June in Brighton

Megan McLoughlin is head of the Building Research and Innovation Capacity team, and Zaynab Seedat is a training and resource development officer, at the University of York. They will be speaking at at the 2024 conference of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators in Brighton on Wednesday 19 June

This article also appeared in Research Fortnight and a version appeared in Research Europe

The post Arma 2024: Ten pillars of equitable research appeared first on Research Professional News.

]]>